[Senate Hearing 108-742]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-742
REVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S YOUTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MARCH 30, 2004--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-425 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Dietrich
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statement of Austin Anderson, Interim Inspector General, Office
of the Inspector General, District of Columbia................. 1
Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant Inspector General for Inspections,
Office of the Inspector General, District of Columbia.......... 1
Robert Isom, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Inspections,
Office of the Inspector General, District of Columbia.......... 1
Lawrence Perry, Director of Planning and Inspections, Office of
the Inspector General, District of Columbia.................... 1
Opening Statement of Senator Mike DeWine......................... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu................... 4
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss....................... 5
Prepared Statement of Representative Benjamin L. Cardin.......... 6
Letter From.................................................. 7
Statement of Austin Anderson..................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 10
Management and Internal Control Issues........................... 11
Security Problems................................................ 11
Drugs and Substance Abuse........................................ 11
Safety and Health Issues......................................... 12
Information Technology Issues.................................... 12
Principal Recommendations........................................ 12
Statement of Judge Eugene N. Hamilton, Chair, Mayor's Blue Ribbon
Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform......... 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 18
Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., Director, Public Defender
Service, District of Columbia.................................. 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 23
Statement of Robert C. Bobb, City Administrator and Deputy Mayor,
District of Columbia........................................... 31
Marceline D. Alexander, Interim Administrator, Youth Services
Administration................................................. 31
Mark D. Beck, Interim Special Counsel, Youth Services
Administration................................................. 31
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Bobb............................. 34
Investigations by the Office of the Inspector General............ 37
Receivership..................................................... 39
Statement of Marceline D. Alexander.............................. 44
REVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S YOUTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN ANDERSON, INTERIM INSPECTOR
GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ALVIN WRIGHT, JR., ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INSPECTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT ISOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
LAWRENCE PERRY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
opening statement of senator mike de wine
Senator DeWine. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. Today, we will review the District of Columbia's Youth
Service Administration, the agency charged with overseeing
committed juvenile offenders, as well as detained juveniles at
its Oak Hill Juvenile Detention facility in Laurel, Maryland.
This morning, the interim Inspector General for the
District will release his comprehensive report on the Youth
Services Administration's Oak Hill facility. After reviewing an
embargoed version of this report, I must say that I am shocked
by what I have seen. I also must say that I am outraged, and I
think the public will be outraged once they know about this.
In a moment, we will hear details from our witnesses, but I
would like to mention some of the more unbelievable details of
this report, and some of the deficiencies which are outlined
therein.
First, the illegal drugs, such as marijuana and PCP are
regularly--regularly smuggled into the Oak Hill Youth Detention
Center. In fact, in some cases, youth correction officers are
the source of these illegal substances.
Second, substance abuse treatment contractors have refused
to renew contracts, because Oak Hill is simply unable to stop
drugs coming into the facilities. This means that sadly there
are no drug treatment services today at Oak Hill. No services
in this facility at all.
No. 3, youths entering Oak Hill, who come in drug free,
then start taking drugs once they are inside the facilities.
Let me repeat that. Youths that come into the facilities, into
this facility, who are drug free coming in, then become drug
dependent once they go in--once they are in.
No. 4, the Youth Services Administration has wasted
millions of dollars, according to this report, on contractors
who have not provided any meaningful services or deliverables.
Later, the Director of the Public Defenders Service in the
District will testify that the Youth Services Administration
has failed to protect youths from harm. For example, last year,
a 12-year-old held at Oak Hill as an overnighter, and not
accused of any crime, was placed in a room with two other
children. This 12-year-old was sexually assaulted by one of the
other youths.
Several months later, a 13-year-old was arrested and held
at Oak Hill waiting for a shelter house space, simply for a
shelter house space. The 13-year-old was placed in a room with
the same child who committed the prior sexual assault. Not
surprisingly, yet another sexual incident occurred.
Now, I understand that this practice of assigning more than
one child to a room has lead to the commingling of status
offenders, simply children who are runaways or who are truants,
and placing them together with delinquent youths, as well as
detained, and youths who have been committed youths.
These practices, for example, lead to a child detained as a
truant and a runaway being housed in the same room as a youth
detained on charges of negligent homicide. Now, that is simply
not right. It simply is not good for these children.
Amazingly, these are only the latest in a long list of
deficiencies with the Youth Services Administration that
stretch back at least 19 years. Indeed, it was 19 years ago
this month that the Public Defender's Service filed a complaint
against the District for failure to protect youth under its
custody. Year, after year, after year, the City has fallen
short of the court's Jerry M. decree, and is now facing the
prospect of being taken over by a court receiver.
Equally amazing is that it costs $245 per day to house a
youth at Oak Hill. That amounts to a staggering $89,425 per
year, $89,425 to place a child in a dangerous setting with 177
other juvenile offenders, who all have access to illicit drugs,
and no drug treatment programs. There is something terribly
wrong with that picture.
We have worked to enact and fund the District of Columbia
Family Court Reform Act through this subcommittee. Senator
Landrieu and I have worked on that. We have worked to develop
and fund a foster care initiative in the District, because we
believe it is our moral duty to protect and care for children
who have been abused and neglected.
I understand that many children who are in foster care
group homes run away because they are being victimized by other
youths in the same home. Once these children run away or are
truant from school, they become delinquents, and are often sent
to Oak Hill. So neglected youths who are failed by a broken
foster care system now find themselves locked up and labeled
juvenile delinquents. The societal sympathy for these youths
immediately plummets, because now they are predators rather
than victims.
This hearing should shed a disinfecting light on the
problems with the City's Youth Services Administration. I
expect to see an urgent and comprehensive plan to correct these
many deficiencies. We have waited 19 years for improvements,
and we must not wait another year, and wait for more kids to be
victimized before something changes.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Because of the many findings, and the Inspector General's
report, we are going to allow Mr. Anderson a few more minutes
to present his testimony. We look forward, Mr. Anderson, to
that testimony. As usual, the remaining witnesses will be
limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks, in order to leave
time for questions and answers. Copies of all written
statements will be placed in the record in their entirety.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine
Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today, we will
review the District of Columbia's Youth Services Administration--the
agency charged with overseeing committed juvenile offenders, as well as
detained juveniles at its Oak Hill juvenile detention facility in
Laurel, Maryland.
This morning, the Interim Inspector General for the District will
release his comprehensive report on the Youth Services Administration's
Oak Hill facility. After reviewing an embargoed version of this report,
I am shocked and outraged at the conditions at this facility. In a
moment, we will hear details from our witnesses, but I would like to
mention some of the more egregious deficiencies:
--Illegal drugs, such as marijuana and PCP, are regularly smuggled
into the Oak Hill Youth Detention Center. In some cases, Youth
Correctional Officers are the source of some of the illegal
substances;
--Substance abuse treatment contractors have refused to renew
contracts because Oak Hill is unable to stop the influx of
drugs. That means there are no drug treatment services at Oak
Hill;
--Youths entering Oak Hill drug-free start taking drugs inside the
facility because they have access to drugs; and
--The Youth Services Administration has wasted millions of dollars on
contractors who have not provided any meaningful deliverables.
Later, the Director of the Public Defender Service in the District
will testify that the Youth Services Administration has failed to
protect youths from harm. For example, last year a 12-year-old--held at
Oak Hill as an overnighter and not accused of any crime--was placed in
a room with two other children. The 12-year-old was sexually assaulted
by one of the other youths. Several months later, a 13-year-old was
arrested and held at Oak Hill waiting for a shelter house space. The
13-year-old was placed in a room with the same child who committed the
prior sexual assault. Not surprising, yet another sexual incident
occurred.
I understand that this practice of assigning more than one child to
a room has led to the commingling of status offenders--kids who are
runaways or truants--and delinquent youth, as well as detained and
committed youths.
For example, these practices led to a child detained as a truant
and a runaway being housed in the same room as a youth detained on
charges of negligent homicide! Now that just isn't right, and it just
isn't good for these children.
Amazingly, these are only the latest in a long list of deficiencies
with the Youth Services Administration that stretch back at least 19
years! Indeed, it was 19 years ago this month that the Public Defender
Service filed a complaint against the District for failure to protect
youth under its custody. Year after year, the City has fallen short of
the Court's ``Jerry M. Decree,'' and is now facing the prospect of
being taken over by a Court receiver.
Equally amazing is that it costs $245 per day to house a youth at
Oak Hill--that amounts to a staggering $89,425 per year! $89,425 to
place a child in a dangerous setting with 177 other juvenile offenders
who all have access to illicit drugs and no drug treatment programs.
There's something terribly wrong with that picture.
I have worked to enact and fund the District of Columbia Family
Court Reform Act, and I have worked to develop and fund a Foster Care
Initiative in the District, because I believe it is our moral duty to
protect and care for children who have been abused and neglected. I
understand that many children who are in foster care group homes run
away because they are being victimized by other youths in the same
home. Once these children run away or are truant from school, they
become delinquents and are often sent to Oak Hill. So, neglected youths
who are failed by a broken foster care system, now find themselves
locked up and labeled juvenile delinquents. The societal sympathy for
these youths immediately plummets because now they are perpetrators,
rather than victims.
This hearing should shed a disinfecting light on the problems with
the City's Youth Services Administration. I expect to see an urgent and
comprehensive plan to correct these many deficiencies. We have waited
19 years for improvements--and we must not wait another year and wait
for more kids to be victimized before something changes.
Because of the many findings in the Inspector General's Report, I
will allow Mr. Andersen 8 minutes to present his testimony. As usual,
the remaining witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral
remarks, in order to leave time for questions and answers. Copies of
all written statements will be placed in the record in their entirety.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
I appreciate your attendance at this hearing today to explore the
challenges facing the Youth Services Administration and the juvenile
justice system in the District. I am happy to see that the Federal
entities which receive direct oversight and funding from this committee
are here to share their perspectives and commitment to reform. I would
also like to welcome the new City Administrator, a fellow Louisianan,
Robert Bobb, and the interim Inspector General Austin Anderson.
What the committee knows about the system is gleaned primarily from
the press, as well as oversight and funding for the D.C. Courts and
offender supervision agencies which are connected to juvenile justice,
but not the primary agency responsible for rehabilitation. The
committee has focused on re-entry of adult offenders and the care of
children in the abuse and neglect welfare system. Children in crisis
and offenders struggling to come back to the District are not unrelated
to the unique struggles of youths in the justice system. I believe the
committee's previous investigations in this area and Chairman DeWine's
and my passion for improving the community we live in can contribute to
the reforms we will discuss today. The mission of YSA is a combination
of care for child welfare as well as developing solutions to offender
re-entry into the community. A youth in the criminal justice system is
sure to spend most of their lives, we hope, outside of prison;
therefore we must develop the most rigorous best practices to ensure
youths receive the skills necessary to be positive members of the
community.
The committee learned of the broken system of juvenile detention
from the Washington Post series published this summer which exposed
many of the security failings at the Oak Hill youth detention center.
In addition, the written testimony provided to the committee highlights
other issues facing the agency, particularly the lack of accountability
in management and operations. However, I am also concerned that the
source of juvenile escapes from Oak Hill is not only poor security and
poor conditions. There is little evidence of educational and counseling
services, nor substance abuse treatment or mental health. The mission
of Oak Hill is to rehabilitate youth to come back to their community in
a positive and productive manner. The lack of services contributes to
the security problem, indicating that youth have nothing to fill their
time and little or no rehabilitative services are attempted.
I am interested to hear the justification for YSA rebuilding a
receiving home at Mt. Olivet Road that may be much larger than
necessary for what is appropriate for intensive youth services. Larger
facilities do not work for kids because they are so peer oriented and
need individual attention. They have not worked for children in foster
care and they are probably even more inappropriate for juvenile
offenders where security is paramount. A similar facility was closed in
1995 due to deteriorated services. I would like to know the best
reasoning for opening a large receiving home.
In addition, it appears that the District places youths in group
homes or incarceration with no consideration for the type of crime,
needs or social issues facing each individual youth. The city must
develop alternatives for non-violent children, services in home (wrap-
around services), and ways to address family and social problems rather
than resort to detention.
As a life-long advocate for children's rights, education and
welfare, with Chairman DeWine, I am committed to bringing the best
practices and resources needed to address some of the challenges in the
District. I have seen reform in my State of Louisiana develop through
community commitment and implementation of best practices. I look
forward to a follow-on hearing which will focus on the next steps
necessary to implement lasting reform.
I would like to explore the challenges that face the Youth Services
Administration, but I would also like to hear from each of you how your
agency fits into the overall picture and what needs to be done to
improve the system. Considering the varied challenges to rehabilitating
youth to re-enter society I would like to ask each of you to discuss
your vision for the overall ``juvenile justice system'', of which the
Youth Services Administration, the Public Defender Service, and the
Courts are just three pieces. I appreciate your attendance today and I
hope we are able to work together in collaboration to develop and
implement meaningful reform.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, I thank you for your interest in the District of Columbia's
Youth Services Administration. I regret that I can not be here in
person this morning, but I appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement on behalf of my constituents.
Long before the citizens of the District of Columbia elected me to
serve as their United States Senator, my very first job in the District
of Columbia government was with the Youth Services Administration under
the Department of Human Services. Shortly after the entry of the
consent decree, I served as a court liaison officer charged with the
responsibility of representing the YSA dispositional position in
juvenile hearings. Later on, when I became an attorney, I had the
opportunity to represented clients under the jurisdiction of YSA. I
have continued to follow developments within the agency, and have found
myself frequently dismayed but on occasions, pleasantly surprised with
the progress.
Senators, this subcommittee has worked hard to promote the best
interests of children in the District of Columbia. Your efforts to
fully fund initiatives relevant to the D.C. Family Court, and provide
extra resources to those who serve our troubled youth have been
commendable, and appreciated by those of us who follow these issues
closely. If it is the intention of this subcommittee to use this
hearing for the purposes of identifying areas where greater Federal
resources should be appropriated, then I applaud your willingness to
provide support to an agency which everyone agrees has more than it's
fair share of problems. If however, the committee intends to turn back
the home-rule clock, or violate the important Constitutional doctrine
of the separation of powers by attempting to influence the pending
judicial proceedings, I urge you to reconsider your involvement.
Based on my many prior statements presented before this committee,
it should come as no surprise that I have been, and continue to be an
advocate of the District of Columbia's full Statehood, and as a
consequence frequently oppose any Federal intervention into the local
affairs of my community. To put it simply, the executive witness who
you heard from today, were appointed by, and are accountable to a
Mayor, elected by and for the citizens of the District of Columbia.
Regardless of who was appearing before you today, my support for the
efforts of the Home-Rule government would likely my anticipated
position. In this case my support is of a more personal nature.
I would like to go on record as strongly supporting the leadership
of the present YSA administrators. For those of us who truly know the
players, the selection of Marceline Alexander, and Mark Back are truly
inspired and exceptional choices. I have personally had the privilege
of working with both of them for over a decade in various capacities.
As a lawyer, I have had the chance to litigate with and against, each
of them. They are exceptional attorneys of the highest ethical
character. Together they combine the vigor of new creative energy with
significant and varied experience in District government.
In his fiscal year 2005 budget, the Mayor has proposed a
significant increase in funding, in order to hire additional FTE's in
the Youth Services Administration, and to conform to Jerry M.
organizational improvements standards. It is essential for the
operations of YSA to not be disrupted, and for the U.S. Senate not to
interfere with Ms. Alexander's reform efforts. It is also imperative
that this subcommittee provides additional Federal resources to the
District agencies that need them.
I am also encouraged by the frankness exhibited by our new City
Administrator, Robert Bobb. No one in this government is denying that
the Youth Services Administration has had significant problems over the
years. In his testimony, here today, and in court, Mr. Bobb
acknowledges frankly, the issues documented by the Office of Inspector
General that hinder the operations of the Oak Hill Youth Center. I am
impressed however that progress is rapidly being made regarding the
critical concerns regarding fire safety, security and illegal drug use.
Without in any way minimizing the problems associated with this agency,
this new team gives me real hope that significant improvements are
really underway this time. Ms. Alexander and Mr. Beck are taking
concrete steps to see that each deficiency identified by the Office of
the Inspector General is being appropriately addressed.
The Youth Services Administration provides a critical and necessary
function to the residents of the District of Columbia. Their
fundamental role is to transform troubled, misguided, and delinquent
youth into constructive and productive members of society through a
process of rehabilitation, personal growth, and self-actualization. The
staff at the YSA requires every available resource to undertake this
challenging task. While every case may not be successful, what positive
impacts that the agency has had on reforming youth offenders have been
profound. Although deficiencies are often more recognizable than
strengths, YSA has had many success stories. It is clear that there is
a lot of work to be done and many improvements to be made. I am of
course, deeply concerned about the current litigation that is in
progress. While I respect the sincerity and intentions of the
Plaintiff's advocates, I hope that the legal outcome does not undermine
the work of reforming YSA. However, I am confident that with the
leadership of Ms. Alexander and the assistance of Mr. Back, this agency
will be soon make substantial progress and begin to better serve the
troubled children of our city.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding
this important hearing. I ask that you approve the budget proposals
submitted today. I commend Senators DeWine and Landrieu for their
continued interest in the fate of our Nation's Capital. Their valuable
support has sustained the functioning of our vital institutions.
Finally, I would like to thank two members of my legislative staff,
Regina Szymanska and Brian Rauer, for their help in preparing this
statement. I look forward to further hearings on this topic, and I'm
happy to respond to any requests for additional information this
subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Representative Benjamin L. Cardin
Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of the House an
issue that has not received much focus in previous Congresses, but that
has recently come into the national spotlight.
In my Congressional District--the Third District of Maryland--I
represent 110 District of Columbia residents. They live at the Oak Hill
detention center, a maximum security campus in Laurel, Maryland,
approximately 30 miles from Washington.
Located on more than 600 acres of Federal land adjacent to the
National Security Agency, the facility was originally constructed 50
years ago. Few renovations have been made since then, and the campus is
now in a severe state of neglect and disrepair, littered with
partially-boarded abandoned buildings that are frequently broken into
and set afire.
Roughly half the children at Oak Hill have been convicted of crimes
and sentenced to a term there, the other half are detainees awaiting
trial. Their average length of stay is slightly more than 8 months.
For years, Oak Hill has been a source of controversy in Maryland.
The facility has been the subject of more than 60 judicial orders,
millions of dollars in fines, and several dozen monitoring reports.
A 2001 mayoral commission recommended closing Oak Hill and placing
youth offenders in a network of residential treatment facilities,
community-based group homes and other less restrictive settings. I
support the Commission's recommendations, including the closing of Oak
Hill. Some progress has been made toward that goal, including beginning
construction of a pre-trial holding facility in Northeast Washington
that should reduce by 50 percent the number of children housed at Oak
Hill.
July's four-part series in The Washington Post documented a near-
complete breakdown of the community-based rehabilitative care system
that now exists for the District's youth offenders. The District needs
to develop an appropriate community-based system for its juvenile
offenders.
In addition, because the District of Columbia has only one
residential treatment center, which is plagued by alleged physical and
sexual abuse, the city must send many children in need of lengthy
treatment out of State. Currently, 400 District children are in
residential treatment centers--some as far away as Arizona--at a
conservative cost estimate of $25 million a year. District government
officials say they don't know whether this approach is effective,
because the city has failed to keep track of these children after they
return to Washington.
Mayor Anthony Williams recently acknowledged that his juvenile
justice system is in a state of ``serious dysfunction,'' and he has
pledged to take corrective action. But he was also quoted as saying,
``There hasn't been an embrace, at the agency level, of the issue.
There hasn't been the sense of urgency.''
I would tell the Mayor that a sense of urgency has existed for some
time both in the District of Columbia and in my district in Maryland.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with my colleague, Mrs.
Norton, and Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham, and I subsequently visited Oak
Hill.
There I met with Youth Services Administrator Gayle Turner and her
staff, and I toured the facility and surrounding grounds. I was
impressed with both administrators, their openness and candor, and
their willingness to discuss problems facing the District's juvenile
justice system, and possible remedies.
As a result of our initial discussions, we were moving in the right
direction:
--toward razing the dilapidated structures that are beyond
rehabilitation;
--and toward developing proposals to make more cost-effective and
more appropriate use of the land.
That is why I am disappointed that both of these administrators
have been terminated from their positions in Mayor Williams'
administration. Ms. Graham resigned in June, and Ms. Turner was ousted
on July 22. It appears that they have become scapegoats for the
failures of an underfunded system that has been in turmoil for decades.
Today's debate is about funding for the District of Columbia. But
this issue involves more than the appropriate funding levels; this is
about the best course of treatment for these children, the best way to
ensure the safety of our communities, and the most appropriate use of
Federal land.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the community surrounding
Oak Hill, I look forward to working to help improve the state of
juvenile justice services for the District of Columbia. My colleague in
the other body, the senior Senator from Ohio, has promised to examine
the District's Mental Health System, group homes, and related issues in
September.
I might also point out that the Federal land on which Oak Hill is
located is a prime site for expansion of NSA and for the State of
Maryland and Anne Arundel County to develop environmental,
recreational, and economic opportunities.
I hope to continue working with Mrs. Norton, with the members of
the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and with Mayor Williams
and the City Council, to develop the right solutions for all involved.
______
Letter From Representative Benjamin L. Cardin
March 31, 2004.
The Honorable Porter Goss,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, H-405, The Capitol,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Jane Harman,
Ranking Member, Select Committee on Intelligence, H-405, The Capitol,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Goss and Ranking Member Harman: As the Select
Committee on Intelligence begins to formulate its Authorization Bill, I
am requesting consideration of the following program for inclusion:
*Authorization of a one-year study by the National Security Agency
of the use of federal land currently employed by the District of
Columbia for Oak Hill, its Juvenile Justice Facility. Oak Hill, the
District of Columbia's juvenile justice facility, is located on
approximately 600 acres of federal land within my district's borders,
directly adjacent to NSA headquarters at Fort George Meade.
The area that is now used to house approximately 120 detainees
takes up a very small portion of the acreage. The buildings currently
in use are in a severe state of disrepair. There has been increasing
concern among community residents that the lack of appropriate security
measures for detainees at Oak Hill and the numerous abandoned buildings
on the federal property, which have been targets of vandalism and
arson, threaten the safety of citizens in the surrounding area.
My goal is threefold: more efficient use of the federal property, a
more modern and secure youth facility for the District of Columbia, and
access to a large area of land for NSA. NSA supports conversion of a
portion of the site north of the wetland area--for its use and wishes
to begin the process by undertaking a study that would include plans
for a state-of-the-art facility for DC juvenile detainees to replace
the existing cluster of buildings adjacent to NSA and the smaller
facility that is being used for female detainees. The District of
Columbia government is completing construction of a pre-trial detainee
facility in Northeast Washington, and plans to relocate approximately
60 juveniles who are awaiting trial to that location in the near
future. This relocation would reduce the population at Oak Hill to
approximately 60 residents.
I appreciate your consideration of this request for your fiscal
year 2005 bill. I would be pleased to provide more information or
answer any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact
me, or Priscilla Ross, my Legislative Director.
Sincerely,
Benjamin L. Cardin,
Member of Congress.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Anderson, we look forward to your
testimony. You may now begin.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN ANDERSON
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Chairman DeWine. My name is
Austin Anderson, and I am the Interim Inspector General for the
District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General. Joining
me today are Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant IG for Inspections,
Robert Isom, to my left, Deputy Assistant IG for Inspections,
and Lawrence Perry, to my right, Director of Planning and
Inspections.
The Youth Services Administration, or YSA, is one of the
largest components of the District's Department of Human
Services. It is charged with developing and administering a
city-wide service system that empowers youths entrusted to its
care to become lawful, competent, and productive citizens.
The Oak Hill Youth Center, operated by YSA, in Laurel,
Maryland, houses juveniles sent by the courts for both short-
and long-term detention. Our inspection team found significant
deficiencies in all key areas of management and operations in
YSA, and particularly at Oak Hill. I will briefly summarize
some of the key findings in our report of inspection being
released today.
Management and internal control issues. The inspection team
found many employees who are highly motivated and dedicated to
carrying out YSA's mission. However, management and leadership
of YSA have been unstable, because YSA has had difficulty
retaining its top managers. This has resulted in a chronic lack
of effective supervision of employees, diminished
accountability, and insufficient oversight of critical
operations at all levels.
There were four different administrators of YSA during the
period of this inspection. For long periods, other senior
management positions have either been vacant or filled by
employees in an interim or acting status. For example, in
November, 2003, the inspection team counted 16 key positions
that were vacant.
Many of the same types of problems that resulted in the
1986 Jerry M. lawsuit still exist 17 years later. Between 1998
and 2003, YSA spent approximately $3.6 million on consultants
in an effort to bring YSA into sustained compliance with the
Jerry M. decree. However, a number of these projects were not
properly monitored, and resulted in unauthorized overspending
and unfulfilled objectives.
For example, YSA paid a consultant approximately $1.25
million between 1999 and 2001 to improve the agency's
information management system; yet, the consultant never
provided the deliverables specified in the contract. YSA had to
hire another consultant to do the work desired. Even after
hiring another consultant, however, YSA's IT system still
cannot generate basic statistical reports.
The team also found that documentation and deliverables for
some contracts could not be accounted for. YSA policies and
procedures across the board for the provisions of services to
youth were either out of date or non-existent.
Security problems. The inspection team documented
inadequate searches of employees and visitors at security
checkpoints. This allowed contraband, including illegal drugs,
to enter the facility. Security equipment, such as metal
detectors, was present, but not being used. There was weak
security at the main entrance and the compound perimeter.
The team did observe subsequent improvement in the security
guard unit after direct intervention by city administrator,
Robert Bobb. Mr. Bobb replaced inadequately supervised contract
security guards with better trained and more closely supervised
Department of Corrections' employees.
Other security problems observed by the team included
inoperative and insufficient electronic monitoring equipment,
inadequate two-way radios and phones for correctional officers
in the female unit, an unsecured door at the gatehouse control
booth, youths not being photographed when remanded to Oak Hill,
inadequate background checks on employees, who regularly
interact with youth, and no detailed procedures or trained
staff to handle escapes.
Drugs and substance abuse. A number of employees told our
team that illegal substances, such as marijuana and PCP are
smuggled into the Oak Hill facility regularly. Youth
correctional officers employed by YSA are alleged to be a
primary source of illegal substances used by Oak Hill youths.
According to some YSA officials, almost 100 percent of youths
at Oak Hill have substance abuse problems; yet, the inspection
team noted that Oak Hill has not had a structured substance
abuse program, as required by the court, since April, 2003.
Prior to that date, a vendor provided a substance abuse
treatment program, but reportedly chose not to renew its
contract, because YSA could not prevent the influx of drugs
into the Oak Hill facility.
The team also noted that the Department of Justice has
funds available to assist YSA with a treatment program;
however, YSA has not met the requirements necessary to obtain
such funding.
We also found significant deficiencies in the drug
screening program, including a lack of procedures and training
for collecting urine samples, lack of a chain of custody for
samples, and poor record keeping.
Safety and health issues. The inspection team found serious
fire and other safety deficiencies that put Oak Hill youths at
unacceptable risks. Missing fire extinguishers. No fire drills.
No emergency evacuation plan. Manual door locks on residents'
rooms that could impede escape during a fire or other
emergency, and insufficient keys available to correctional
officers to unlock doors during emergencies.
We found that the culinary unit does not have written
sanitation policies. Food service personnel are not required to
undergo annual physical examinations, and some Oak Hill
facilities do not meet Federal and local codes regarding
environment, health, and safety standards.
The team observed possible electrical and fire code
violations, exposed rusting and leaking pipes, and evidence of
vermin infestation. In addition, numerous abandoned buildings
on the Oak Hill compound are unsecured and have been
vandalized.
Information technology issues. YSA's key computer database
is outdated and cannot be maintained by current staff. As
previously stated, the system cannot generate statistical
reports. In addition, some YSA departments do not have computer
access. These problems impair YSA's ability to effectively
manage day-to-day operations.
The conditions found at YSA thus far strongly indicate that
the management and leadership of senior DHS and YSA officials
have been weak and ineffective. Consequently, the inspection
team rates YSA a poorly performing component of the District's
juvenile justice system.
Our report contains the following principle recommendations
to the Mayor and the Department of Human Services. Make YSA a
separate cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the Deputy
Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders. This will
reduce the existing multiple layers of bureaucracy, and could
make YSA executive positions more attractive to experienced and
competent administrators willing to stay in place for the long
term.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Second, fully participate in the U.S. Justice Department's
performance-based standards system for juvenile facilities.
This system was developed by the Council of Juvenile
Correctional Administrators to assist youth facilities, such as
Oak Hill, and continuously improving the conditions of
confinement and the services provided.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Austin Andersen
Good morning Chairman DeWine and members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia. My name is
Austin Andersen, and I am the Interim Inspector General (IG) for the
District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General, or OIG. Joining
me today is Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant IG for Inspections; Robert
Isom, Deputy Assistant IG for Inspections; and Lawrence Perry, Director
of Planning and Inspections.
YSA is one of the largest components of the District's Department
of Human Services. It is charged with developing and administering a
citywide service system that empowers youths entrusted to its care to
become lawful, competent, and productive citizens. The Oak Hill Youth
Center operated by YSA in Laurel, Maryland, houses juveniles sent by
the courts for both short- and long-term detention.
Our inspection team found significant deficiencies in all key areas
of management and operations in YSA, and particularly at Oak Hill. I
will briefly summarize some of the key findings in our report of
inspection being released today.
MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL ISSUES
The inspection team found many employees who were highly motivated
and dedicated to carrying out YSA's mission. However, management and
leadership of YSA has been unstable because YSA has had difficulty
retaining its top managers. This has resulted in a chronic lack of
effective supervision of employees, diminished accountability, and
insufficient oversight of critical operations at all levels. There were
four different administrators of YSA during the period of this
inspection. For long periods, other senior management positions have
been either vacant or filled by employees in an interim or acting
status. For example, in November 2003, the inspection team counted 16
key positions that were vacant.
Many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 Jerry
M. lawsuit still exist 17 years later. Between 1998 and 2003, YSA spent
approximately $3.6 million on consultants in an effort to bring YSA
into sustained compliance with the Jerry M. decree. However, a number
of these projects were not properly monitored and resulted in
unauthorized overspending and unfulfilled objectives. For example, YSA
paid a consultant approximately $1.25 million between 1999 and 2001 to
improve the agency's information management system, yet the consultant
never provided the deliverables specified in the contract. YSA had to
hire another consultant to do the work desired. Even after hiring
another consultant, however, YSA's IT system still cannot generate
basic statistical reports. The team also found that documentation and
deliverables for some contracts could not be accounted for.
YSA policies and procedures across the board for the provision of
services to youth were either out of date or nonexistent.
SECURITY PROBLEMS
The inspection team documented inadequate searches of employees and
visitors at security checkpoints, and this allowed contraband such as
illegal drugs to enter the facility. Security equipment such as metal
detectors was present but not being used. There was weak security at
the main entrance and the compound perimeter. The team did observe
subsequent improvement in the security guard unit after direct
intervention by City Administrator Robert Bobb. Mr. Bobb replaced
inadequately supervised contract security guards with better-trained
and more closely supervised Department of Corrections employees.
Other security problems observed by the team included:
--inoperative and insufficient electronic monitoring equipment;
--inadequate two-way radios and phones for correctional officers in
the female unit;
--an unsecured door in the gatehouse control booth;
--youths not being photographed when remanded to Oak Hill;
--inadequate background checks on employees who regularly interact
with youths; and
--no detailed procedures or trained staff to handle escapes.
DRUGS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
A number of employees told our team that illegal substances such as
marijuana and PCP are smuggled into the Oak Hill facility regularly.
Youth correctional officers employed by YSA are alleged to be a primary
source of illegal substances used by Oak Hill youths. According to some
YSA officials, almost 100 percent of youths at Oak Hill have substance
abuse problems, yet the inspection team noted that Oak Hill has not had
a structured substance abuse program as required by the court since
April 2003. Prior to that date, a vendor provided a substance abuse
treatment program, but reportedly chose not to renew its contract
because YSA could not prevent the influx of drugs into the Oak Hill
facility. The team also noted that the Department of Justice has funds
available to assist YSA with a treatment program. However, YSA has not
met the requirements necessary to obtain such funding.
We also found significant deficiencies in the drug screening
program, including a lack of procedures and training for collecting
urine samples, lack of a chain of custody for samples, and poor record
keeping.
SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES
The inspection team found serious fire and other safety
deficiencies that put Oak Hill youths at unacceptable risk:
--missing fire extinguishers;
--no fire drills;
--no emergency evacuation plan;
--manual door locks on residents' rooms that could impede escape
during a fire or other emergency; and
--insufficient keys available to correctional officers to unlock
doors during emergencies.
We found that the culinary unit does not have written sanitation
policies, food service personnel are not required to undergo annual
physical examinations, and some Oak Hill facilities do not meet Federal
and local codes regarding environment, health, and safety standards.
The team observed possible electrical and fire code violations, exposed
rusting and leaking pipes, and evidence of vermin infestation. In
addition, numerous abandoned buildings on the Oak Hill compound are
unsecured and have been vandalized.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
YSA's key computer database is outdated and cannot be maintained by
current staff. As previously stated, the system cannot generate
statistical reports. In addition, some YSA departments do not have
computer access. These problems impair YSA's ability to effectively
manage day-to-day operations.
CONCLUSION
The conditions found at YSA thus far strongly indicate that the
management and leadership of senior DHS and YSA officials have been
weak and ineffective. Consequently, the inspection team rates YSA a
poorly performing component of the District's juvenile justice system.
PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Our report contains the following principal recommendations to the
Mayor and the Department of Human Services: (1) Make YSA a separate,
Cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the Deputy Mayor for
Children, Youth, Families, and Elders. This will reduce the existing
multiple layers of bureaucracy, and could make YSA executive positions
more attractive to experienced and competent administrators willing to
stay in place for the long term; and (2) Fully participate in the U.S.
Justice Department's performance-based standards system for juvenile
facilities. This system was developed by the Council of Juvenile
Correctional Administrators to assist youth facilities such as Oak Hill
in continuously improving the conditions of confinement and the
services provided.
This concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to respond to your
questions.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Anderson, thank you very much. I guess
the first thing that strikes me about your testimony and the
report is the commingling of status offenders, simple truants,
kids who just run away from home, and people who have been
convicted, and people who have been charged with very serious
offenses. Sex offenses, for example. I find that to be
shocking.
That is not permitted, I am not aware that that is
permitted in any State in the Union. That is not permitted,
actually, in the District of Columbia, is it? My understanding
is that there is a District law that prohibits that from taking
place. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Anderson. I am aware of the fact that changes are under
way to separate the two groups of children, but previously
there had not been facilities to do that.
Senator DeWine. My understanding is that that is illegal in
the District of Columbia. That has not been the practice in
most States for 30 years. When I was county prosecutor in the
1970's, that was not allowed in my home county in Ohio. I do
not think that has been the practice for years.
The Federal Government, in fact, denies funds for States if
they do that. We sit here in Congress, and we pass judgment on
the 50 States, and we say we are not going to give you justice
money if you put a status offender, some kid who is a runaway,
and you house him with somebody, some kid who has been an
adjudicated a felon, and you house them together, we are not
going to give you Federal dollars. Here, the District of
Columbia is doing the same thing. I find that to be shocking.
We see the results. Your report has indicated what the
results are. They are to be expected. A sex offender, who is a
predator, will prey on some poor kid who is just a runaway.
That is just shocking, to put a runaway kid, who has got all
kinds of other problems, but all he is or she is is a runaway,
and you put him in a cell with a sex offender, what do you
think is going to happen? It is just unbelievable.
So to me, that is the first thing that just jumps out from
this report. It is just absolutely unbelievable, and just
cannot be permitted to continue.
Let me move on. The drug testing program you alluded to in
your oral testimony, they do have a formal drug testing program
at Oak Hill, is that correct? Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Yes, they do.
Senator DeWine. In fact, you all have supplied my office
with some sample information that you came up with. In fact, we
were given one example of a youth who came in, was drug free,
and then later on at Oak Hill, he tested positive for opiates,
cocaine, marijuana, and PCP.
Mr. Perry. Correct.
Senator DeWine. That is pretty unbelievable, is it not?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Senator DeWine. It may not be unbelievable, but it is
pretty shocking.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Senator DeWine. You come in, you are drug-free. You are
tested. You are okay. Then you go to Oak Hill, and then you are
tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, PCP.
Mr. Perry. Correct.
Senator DeWine. In your recommendations, you talked about
the chain of command. What is the chain of command for YSA?
Mr. Perry. Actually, we could not document the chain of
command. The youth correctional officers that we spoke to that
were responsible for collecting the drug samples could only
take us through an oral chain of command once the drug sample
was obtained from the youth.
Senator DeWine. Well, I misled you there. I was talking
about the drugs, but let us get away from that. I want to look
at the big picture. Who is responsible for what happens at this
facility at Oak Hill? Take it from Oak Hill, and then take me
all the way up.
Mr. Perry. The Director of the Department of Human Services
is ultimately responsible for the operations at the Oak Hill
Youth Center.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Let us go down, though. Who is
responsible--who runs Oak Hill?
Mr. Perry. Let me see, they have an administrator that is
over Youth Services Administration, and then they have a
superintendent of Detention Services at the Oak Hill Youth
Center.
Senator DeWine. Then where does it go? If you were drawing
a chart, then where does it go up from there?
Mr. Perry. Oh. It goes up from there?
Senator DeWine. Yes. Take me up. Go up.
Mr. Perry. Okay. Yes. The administrator of Youth Services
Administration. Then you have the director of Department of
Human Services. Then you have the Deputy Mayor for Families,
Elders, and Youth, and ultimately, the Mayor.
Senator DeWine. Your recommendation, Mr. Anderson, and your
conclusion was what?
Mr. Anderson. One of our conclusions is that the Mayor
consider making a separate agency of YSA in order to avoid the
intervening layers of bureaucracy, so that the head of YSA
would be able to report directly to a deputy mayor.
Senator DeWine. What would be the advantage of this?
Mr. Anderson. One advantage of it would, hopefully, be that
a higher profile position would attract more experienced
professionals to take this position, and to stay in the
position a longer period of time in order to provide the
continuity that currently seems to be lacking.
Senator DeWine. So the turnover is a problem?
Mr. Anderson. We think that the turnover is one of the
major problems, because of the lack of supervision and the
temporary status of some of the managers when they are in
place.
Mr. Perry. We also found that just due to the sheer size of
DHS and the number of administrations under DHS, the level of
accountability for Youth Services Administration, the top
leadership at DHS was not able to have a day-to-day interaction
with the operations at Youth Services Administration. Placing
YSA as a cabinet-level position would bring more accountability
to the organization.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Anderson, have you performed an
assessment of YSA's group homes? Is there anything that leads
you to believe that the group homes are in any better shape
than Oak Hill?
Mr. Perry. We are currently starting the second portion of
our report of the inspection of Youth Services Administration.
The group homes, we are currently doing assessment of those
facilities. That report should be issued within the next
several months. We did not include this in this report, due to
the size of the agency.
Senator DeWine. Do you want to give us a sneak preview?
Mr. Perry. I will let Mr. Wright handle that.
Senator DeWine. All right. Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. Thank you very much. What we are doing right
now, Senator DeWine, is focusing on the group homes themselves,
how they are set up, how they are being managed and run,
particularly the physical structure. We have noted in a
preliminary fashion that there are some fairly significant
physical and security problems. We have not completely
documented those, so I do not want to go into a lot of detail,
but we have noted that there are some health- and safety-type
issues that we certainly will be addressing in detail in our
report.
These homes are run by independent contractors, for the
most part. So we have a lot of digging to do to actually
understand exactly how well they are being run, what the lines
of accountability are, and that kind of thing. But we are
hopeful that the problems are not as significant as might be
expected, but we have seen some physical conditions that we are
going to take issue with.
Senator DeWine. Well, is there anything that makes you
believe these group homes are in any better shape than Oak
Hill?
Mr. Wright. It truly is very early to opine on that. I
really do not want to pre-judge the results of the work of my
inspectors at this point.
Senator DeWine. All right. That is fair enough. We will
look forward to you all coming back----
Mr. Wright. Okay.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. And giving us that report.
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir.
Senator DeWine. That would be good.
Mr. Wright. We will be happy to do it.
Senator DeWine. It has been my experience that any time you
have a residential operation, it is very expensive. It is
always a lot more expensive than any of us can imagine, or that
the public can imagine. But I have looked at enough facilities,
when I was a lieutenant governor in Ohio. I was involved in
looking at penal facilities, and youth facilities, and other
facilities. I have spent enough time, since I have been in
Congress, looking at these.
To say that it is $90,000 for a residential, per year, per
child, for a residential facility, where there are no services,
or at least no drug services, is a lot of money. It sounds much
too high for me.
Now, it is my understanding that there is no drug treatment
there, is that correct? No drug services. Am I right or wrong
about that? You are doing testing, but that is not services.
Mr. Perry. Yes, they are doing testing. During the time of
our inspection, there was no drug treatment program established
at Oak Hill Youth Center.
Senator DeWine. Is there any kind of sex offender program?
Mr. Perry. Not to our knowledge.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Is there any other kind of intensive
type programming that would account for that type of cost? In
other words, where you usually run into your costs, it costs so
many dollars just to run a facility, and to house, and feed,
and take care of people. But where you get your costs are
psychological services, intense psychological services, sex
offender type services, drug treatment type services. That is
where you get your costs. Now, do they have any type of
services like that, that would be driving these costs up to
close to $90,000 per person?
Mr. Perry. I cannot make an assessment on the $90,000. I
know that the treatment counselors at Youth Services
Administration do provide individual treatment counseling,
group team treatment counseling, but as far as intensive
treatment programs provided by specialists in these fields, we
do not find that Youth Services Administration had these.
Senator DeWine. What do they do? What do they provide? Do
you know?
Mr. Perry. As far as we could tell there are no intensive
treatment programs.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Programming? In other words,
if I want to evaluate a residential facility, I will look at it
and say, ``Here is the programming.'' I will evaluate the
programming. I will say, ``This is what they do.''
I mean it is one thing to do an evaluation where you do a
nuts-and-bolts evaluation, where you say, the fire escapes are
here, or they are up to fire code. That is all very important.
But you also look at, another way of looking at it is to say,
what is the programming?
Did you all get into the programming at all, or is that not
the type of evaluation you were doing?
Mr. Perry. We did not get into the clinical programming at
Youth Services Administration. We did speak with the treatment
team leaders, the psychiatrists or psychologists there, and
documented that the youth were receiving individual treatment
sessions, but as far as getting into the clinical, deep
analysis, we did not go into that area.
Senator DeWine. Now, Mr. Anderson, I believe you did say in
your written statement and your oral statement that there was
some Department of Justice money that was available that was
not being utilized.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Senator DeWine. What was that about?
Mr. Anderson. That is the U.S. Department of Justice's
performance-based standards system for juvenile facilities,
which is available, but not being fully taken advantage of.
Senator DeWine. Do you know why it is not being used?
Mr. Anderson. My understanding is, because they have not
achieved some of the performance-based standards. Mr. Perry may
have more specific information than that.
Mr. Perry. Specifically regarding the funding from the
Justice Department for the grants for the substance abuse
treatment program, the Department of Justice does provide
funding for a grant, but the substance abuse treatment program
has to be put in place, and there have to be certain
qualifications or requirements that are met. Oak Hill Youth
Center, at the time of our inspection had not met those
requirements in order to qualify for the grant funding.
Senator DeWine. Well, we appreciate your testimony, all of
you, very much. We appreciate your report.
What is your--are you going to do any additional follow-up
to this, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. Generally, after we received the
responses to recommendations, we check back to ensure that
implementation has taken place, and generally, within about a
year, do a reinspection.
Senator DeWine. All right. Well, we will look forward to
that reinspection, and get your report then.
Mr. Anderson. Okay.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Let me invite our second panel to come up.
I will introduce the second panel as you are coming up. Judge
Eugene Hamilton was designated chief judge of Superior Court of
the District of Columbia on October 29, 1993. From August,
2000, until November, 2001, Judge Hamilton served as Chairman
of the Mayor of the District of Columbia's Blue Ribbon
Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform. The
Commission published its report on November 6, 2001.
Sir Ronald Sullivan is the Director of the Public Defender
Service for the District of Columbia. He was appointed Director
of PDS in June, 2002, after serving as PDS' general council.
Previously, Mr. Sullivan was in private practice here in the
District as a visiting attorney for the Law Society of Kenya.
He sat on a committee charged with drafting a new constitution
for Kenya.
We welcome both of you. Judge Hamilton, we will start with
you.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE EUGENE N. HAMILTON, CHAIR, MAYOR'S
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON YOUTH SAFETY AND
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM
Judge Hamilton. Thank you. Good morning, Senator DeWine.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to speak
with you today regarding the District of Columbia's juvenile
justice system. In terms of my personal outlook, and with
regard to my professional role as a judge and former chief
judge of the Superior Court, it is, of course, not customary
for me to testify on matters of public policy.
I do not speak here for the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia or as a judge of that court. I am here today in my
status as Chair of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth
Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, and because I share your
concern about the children and families of the District of
Columbia.
I would also like to note for the record that I appear
before you today at your committee's request. I have also
recently provided testimony before the Judiciary Committee of
the D.C. Council, both at their request and on my own volition,
as that legislative body considers proposals related to the
District's juvenile justice system.
I say this, as I would like to make clear that I am very
sensitive to issues of Home Rule, and believe that the D.C.
Council and District agencies are equipped to deal with these
local issues of concern, for the most part, while I also
acknowledge Congress's oversight and funding responsibilities
for the District of Columbia.
As I indicated, I recently had the privilege of leading an
effort to study juvenile justice reform for the District of
Columbia. The Mayor asked me to chair the Blue Ribbon
Commission, which consisted of 20 talented people and an
outstanding staff. The Commission members represented in
various ways and from divergent perspectives, the broad
concerns and mixed interests of this community.
We worked together for about a year and a half. I might
add, Senator DeWine, you had a similar experience, I believe,
in leading the task force to study juvenile justice in the
State of Ohio.
The Mayor asked us to offer policy recommendations. More
specifically, we were to assess juvenile delinquency prevention
strategies, and explore model programs, identify strengths and
weaknesses, and rehabilitative and supportive services and
programs, explore the research on youth violence and substance
abuse, examine how our current institutions were working, and
develop strategies for serving children and youth in their
neighborhoods and communities.
The Mayor issued an explicit call for the Commission to
formulate a vision and seamless network for youth services,
ideals that treat children as children. This approach, with
which I fully agreed, and was happy to devote time to these
critical issues. Incidentally, this approach was consistent
with the State of Ohio's recent reform of juvenile justice, the
Reclaim Ohio program. That is reasoned and equitable community
and local alternatives to the incarceration of minors.
The problem in the District is that there has been
virtually no follow-through on the recommendations of the Blue
Ribbon Commission. That report, for the most part, has just
simply gathered dust on the shelves of the city administration.
As a result, the juvenile justice system is in worse shape
today than it was when we started our study, as evidenced by
the report, which has been made available here today.
In my judgment, I think the most important things that the
United States can do at this time are the following. No. 1,
mandate and fund a Reclaim D.C. program. No. 2, mandate and
fund the sunset of Oak Hill with a small, secure facility.
Mandate and fund a juvenile justice review board to approve and
specify treatment programs to be made available for committed
youth here in the District of Columbia.
I feel that the District of Columbia has had more than
ample opportunity to demonstrate that they can succeed at
juvenile justice without some type of oversight by the Federal
Government. I believe they have failed at being able to prove
that at this time. I think it is urgently needed, that the
Federal Government step in and take some meaningful action to
bring about change to remedy this deplorable situation that
exists here in the District of Columbia.
Fourth, I would recommend that the Congress mandate and
fund juvenile-blended sentencing, and fund a juvenile/adult
detention facility, so that we can do some reform in the
sentencing of juveniles here in the District of Columbia.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Last, I would recommend that the Congress mandate and fund
an assessment system, and mandate a continuing assessment of
treatment programs with judicial review for all committed
juveniles. Thank you, Senator DeWine.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judge Eugene N. Hamilton
Mr. Chair and Members of the committee, I am pleased to speak with
you today regarding the District of Columbia's juvenile justice system.
In terms of my personal outlook and with regard to my professional role
(as a judge and as the former Chief Judge of the Superior Court), it is
not customary for me to testify on matters of public policy. I do not
speak here for the Superior Court of the District or as a Judge of that
court. I am here today in my status as the Chair of the Mayor's Blue
Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, and
because I share your concern about the children and families of the
District of Columbia.
I would also like to note for the record that I appear before you
today at your committee's request. I have also recently provided
testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the D.C. Council, both at
their request and on my own volition, as that legislative body
considers proposals related to the District's juvenile justice system.
I say this as I would like to make clear that I am sensitive to issues
of ``home rule'' and believe that the D.C. Council and District
agencies are equipped to deal with these local issues of concern, while
I also acknowledge Congress' oversight and funding responsibilities for
the District of Columbia.
As I indicated, I recently had the privilege of leading an effort
to study juvenile justice reform for the District of Columbia. The
Mayor asked me to chair the Blue Ribbon Commission, which consisted of
20 talented people and outstanding staff, and the Commission members
represented--in various ways and from divergent perspectives--the broad
concerns and mixed interests of this community. We worked together for
about a year and a half.
The Mayor asked us to offer policy recommendations. More
specifically, we were to: assess delinquency prevention strategies and
explore model programs, identify strengths and weaknesses in
rehabilitative and supportive services and programs, explore the
research on youth violence and substance abuse, examine how our current
institutions were working, and develop strategies for serving children
and youth in their neighborhoods and communities. The Mayor issued an
explicit call for the Commission to formulate a vision and seamless
network of youth service ideals that ``treat children as children.''
This is an approach with which I fully agreed, and I was happy to
devote time to these critical issues.
The Commission did a comprehensive study of the delinquency system
in the District of Columbia, examined the research, and looked at
promising and effective approaches from around the country. Let me say,
parenthetically, that the Commission, with its broad expertise and
diversity of viewpoints, worked hard and worked successfully to find
common ground, to find compromises and nuanced approaches that balanced
the concerns expressed from every conceivable side of these issues. The
Commission issued a lengthy report, which I incorporate in my
testimony--and I ask that it be made a part of the record. In the
Report, we provided many recommendations, which I believe, constitute a
solid ``blueprint'' for effective reform of the juvenile justice system
in the District. This ``blueprint'' is based on research and study, as
well as a broad, balanced, and representative inquiry.
I should note that I am pleased that many of the Commission's
recommendations have now found their way into a legislative proposal--
the ``Blue Ribbon Juvenile Justice and Youth Rehabilitation Act of
2004''--which is currently pending before the D.C. Council. This
legislation, which seeks to codify many of the Commission's
recommendations, is based on research and study, and a broad, balanced,
and representative inquiry. I have testified before the Council in
support of this legislation and will continue to encourage its passage.
I should also note that there is other legislation pending before the
D.C. Council--which among other things would send more youth into the
adult criminal justice system and create policies to punish parents of
delinquent children in the name of ``accountability''--that I believe
would be counterproductive, and I have testified against this approach
before the Council. I should remind you, in this regard, that as part
of the 1997 District of Columbia Revitalization Act, the Federal
Government assumed responsibility for housing through the Federal
Bureau of Prison all District of Columbia persons who are sentenced to
prison through the District of Columbia's (adult) criminal system.
The legislation recently proposed by the City Administration is
completely inconsistent with the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon
Commission. I have to point out that the proposals in the City
Administrator's bill are also inconsistent with agreements and promises
that his predecessors in the District of Columbia's executive branch
made 17 or 18 years ago in the context of the Jerry M. class action, a
lawsuit regarding both the deplorable conditions at Oak Hill Youth
Center as well as the lack of community-based alternatives to
incarceration for children in the District of Columbia. After failing
for almost two decades to comply with the requirements of the Jerry M.
consent decree, which was designed to treat children as children and
reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency, the District now seeks to
treat more juveniles as adults (assuming, incorrectly, that redefining
children as adults and sending them to Federal prisons is an effective
and humane approach for reducing and preventing criminal activity by
children).
One of the Blue Ribbon Commission's primary goals was to set out a
plan to get the services and supports in our delinquency system to
work. The Commission strongly believed that to accomplish this goal
requires putting a sunset on the Oak Hill Youth Center. The Commission
has recommended that we all work together to close Oak Hill and to move
away from placing delinquent (or allegedly delinquent) children into
large facilities. It does not work to put troubled children into a
place with 180 other delinquent children. Furthermore, we know that
guards are smuggling illegal drugs into Oak Hill and that children who
tested negative for illegal drugs before entering the institution are
now testing positive. We know also that children are confronted with
violence and the risk of serious bodily injury at Oak Hill.
There are better ways to secure children whom we need to constrain.
What the Commission found is that the ``best practice'' is to limit
juvenile incarceration facilities to 30 beds. We investigated
approaches around the country and settled particularly on what has
happened in Missouri. At a time when Attorney General John Ashcroft was
the governor, Missouri successfully moved to a system in which children
who are incarcerated are in facilities that do not exceed 30 beds.
Predictably, following this transformation, the recidivism rate in
Missouri has declined significantly.
Before I describe further the Commission's recommendations, let me
underscore another critical finding from the Commission: 100 percent of
the committed youth in the District's delinquency system are African-
American and Latino youth. White children and youth are arrested for a
range of delinquent offenses, but they do not end up at Oak Hill. The
Commission recommended that we study and understand why this disparity
exists and how to get rid of it. With this in mind, any proposed
changes to the system should be viewed through a lens which considers
whether the proposed change (such as sending more children to Federal
prisons) would increase and exacerbate the racial and ethnic disparity
and injustice that currently exists, and if so that proposed change
should be discarded. Rather than increasing the disparate treatment, we
should be reforming the system in ways that promote prevention, and,
specifically, to promote racial parity and justice, we should be
expanding community-based treatment and alternatives to incarceration
for minority children.
The Blue Ribbon Commission also identified and promoted for
possible implementation in the District of Columbia several model State
systems. The Commission identified in Figure 11, the Offenses for
Committed Youth, June 16, 2000 to June 15, 2001. The single largest
number offenses were unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (U.U.V.). This
finding cries out for intensive re-habilitation and treatment programs
shown to be effective in rehabilitating juvenile U.U.V. offenders. Over
the period of the Jerry M. Decree, no such programs existed at Oak
Hill. Community Programs, such as the Auto Technician Training Program
under the direction of Mr. George Stark, are designed to place juvenile
U.U.V. offenders in and around motor vehicles in a positive, productive
manner, and Programs of this type should be greatly expanded.
Moreover, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(of the Department of Justice) has developed the Guide for Implementing
the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders. The Annie E. Casey Foundation--that funded the Blue Ribbon
Commission--has produced an extensive series of reports for
understanding and implementing juvenile detention reform. I understand,
as well, that the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report on Youth
Violence in January of 2001, and that report contains a listing of
tried and true programs, including, for example, multi-systemic therapy
and therapeutic foster care. In the Jerry M. case, which is the
litigation over conditions at the Oak Hill facility that I mentioned
previously, there also exists ``Order B'' of the consent decree that
provides a blueprint for a continuum of community-based services.
The District of Columbia can and now must accomplish the objective
of moving away from institutionalizing children. There is, remarkably
enough, a consensus among all of the stakeholders in the District of
Columbia that Oak Hill should close. Yet, it has not happened, and one
can predict that it won't happen if we continue along the present
course. We face the inertia of government and a particularly insidious
Catch 22: People believe that we can't close Oak Hill (and move to the
Missouri model) until we have adequate community-based services and
alternatives to incarceration. At the same time, we plow the very human
and financial resources into running Oak Hill that are necessary for
developing the community-based services and alternatives to
incarceration. Thus, the Jerry M. parties agree to Order B, and 18
years later the children still don't have a continuum of community-
based services. I am reminded of what happened with Cedar Knoll. It was
a minimum- to medium-security incarceration facility for D.C. children.
Virtually everyone agreed that we didn't need a large institution for
locking up relatively young children who were not dangerous. Yet Cedar
Knoll did not close until Congress wrote in the District of Columbia's
1993 budget that there would be no money spent on Cedar Knoll. Then,
finally, it closed.
In addition to setting a date for the closure of Oak Hill, there
should be deadlines for establishing a continuum of services in the
community. There should be a study to establish the number of secure
beds that are needed. And on that point, I can tell you that the number
of children at Oak Hill has dropped to as low as 120 in the last year
or year and a half. That number--120 children--includes detained and
committed children, and we got to that number--at least temporarily--
without having sufficient services in the community to treat U.U.V.
offenders and other non-violent children.
With regard to the Jerry M. Consent Orders (and I remind you that a
consent order is an order that both parties proposed and agreed to
before the judge ordered it), the Blue Ribbon Commission implored the
District to comply with those Orders. Unfortunately that has not
happened, and the substance of those Orders--particularly Order B
calling for the creation of community-based services--has yet to be
accomplished.
In sum, I believe the Commission's recommendations are a solid
``blueprint'' for reform, and I would encourage any legislators or
policy makers considering these issues to support and fund these
recommendations to the fullest extent possible.
Beginning at page 27 of the Report, the Commission outlines the
specific steps that are needed to reform the juvenile justice system of
the District of Columbia. Key to any reform, however, is the closing of
Oak Hill, because unfortunately, it has become simply a cruel training
place for more sophisticated juvenile offenders. Secondly, there must
be a sea change in the philosophy of the District's juvenile justice
system, from primarily large institution custody to only small facility
custody and to community-based alternatives to incarceration, together
with frequent assessment and continuous treatment.
Thank you again for inviting me to speak with you today, and I
would be more than happy to answer any questions.
Senator DeWine. Judge, thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
DEFENDER SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Senator DeWine. The Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia appreciates this
opportunity to address you and this subcommittee on these
important issues. In the interest of time, I shall deviate from
my written remarks, and undertake to provide the subcommittee
with an outline of the District's compliance or non-compliance
with the Jerry M. Consent Decree, and the devastating effects
the District's negligent and dilatory behavior has had on the
children of the District.
As you know, the Superior Court recently held the District
in contempt and imposed monetary sanctions. Because the
District's already poor compliance did not improve, the Public
Defender Service, along with its co-counsel, filed a motion
requesting the Superior Court to appoint a transitional
receiver. The court-appointed monitor's most recent findings
summarized the history of the District's failure to meet its
responsibilities to the youth entrusted to its care. The
monitor found, among other things, that the District was out of
compliance with 81 of the consent decree's provisions, and in
compliance with only 95. Significantly, the District decreased
its level of compliance in 19 consent decree provisions.
The monitor further pointed out that the District's few
efforts to move towards compliance were last-minute actions
that seemed, ``driven by the fact that a hearing was
imminent.'' This sort of shotgun policy by the District should
not be allowed to persist without consequence.
Our contention, and that of the receivership motion pending
before the court, is that the District has been given 18 years
to comply with the consent decree. Despite extensive
litigation, 65 court orders, and multiple findings of contempt,
it has failed to do so. How long is too long? Twenty years?
Twenty-five years? The Public Defender Service respectfully
submits that it has already been far too long, and we have
asked the Superior Court to step in.
The problems with YSA and at the Oak Hill facility are
manifest and have been well documented by the local press. A
few examples to provide texture to the dozens of court rulings
adverse to the District are appropriate. Indeed, as you
mentioned in your opening remarks, a 12-year-old and a 13-year-
old were sexually assaulted by the same resident--the 13-year-
old after being placed in a room with the assailant subsequent
to the assault on the 12-year-old.
Violent incidents at Oak Hill, including knife fights and
assaults serious enough to result in broken jaws, occur with
alarming frequency at Oak Hill, thus producing an environment
not at all conducive to treatment or rehabilitation. The
District's practice, as you have mentioned, of assigning more
than one child to a room has led to the commingling of status
offenders and delinquent youth, as well as the commingling of
delinquent and committed youth.
This unlawful commingling invariably leads to trouble. Not
only do these housing practices violate the plain letter of the
consent decree and local statutory law, but they also
compromise the very safety of the children, and have resulted
in nothing less than the realization of everyone's greatest
fear: harm to the children in the District's custody.
In the recent court hearing in connection with PDS's motion
to place YSA in receivership, the District presented government
officials who testified that the current leadership was
adequate to begin the process of planning to comply with the
18-year-old consent decree. We respectfully submit that it is
far too late.
The government officials quibbled with our evidence on
issues such as whether the rats observed by our experts were,
in fact, mice. They quibbled with our experts as to whether Oak
Hill residents suffered five instead of six broken jaws in only
a 6-month period late last year.
They also quibbled with respect to whether the conceded
severe drug use by Oak Hill residents actually constituted drug
abuse. Let me repeat that to be clear. In sworn testimony, the
District of Columbia argued that manifest drug use by
children--children--may not constitute drug abuse, thus
implying that in the District's strange universe, some quantum
of drug use by children in its care--its allegedly secure
care--is acceptable. It is no wonder that the District cannot
or will not come into compliance with the consent decree.
We are currently awaiting Judge Dixon's ruling on our
receivership motion. While we believe that the evidence we
presented at the hearing supports our request for the
appointment of a transitional receiver, and we are optimistic
that the court will grant our motion, we will take little
pleasure in this litigation win. We wish the District had the
will and the capacity to meet its obligation without the need
to conduct protracted litigation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Let me say in closing that in addition to our litigation
efforts, we support litigation currently before the District of
Columbia Council that is consistent with the findings of the
Blue Ribbon Commission. This legislation calls for the closure
of Oak Hill, and the development of smaller, community-based,
secure facilities in its place, and it requires the provision
of various services to youth, which the District has failed to
afford to date.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.
Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., and I am the Director of the Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you
today to provide testimony on the experience of the Public Defender
Service as one of the lead counsels representing the plaintiffs in
Jerry M., et al v. District of Columbia. The complaint was filed 19
years ago this month. Too many years have elapsed, too many hearings
have been held, and too many court orders and findings of contempt have
been entered for me to give a full recitation of the history of this
case in my allotted time. Suffice it to say, from the perspective of
the youths we represent, a full recitation would have very few
highlights and too many lowlights in the story of how the District has
served them. For context, I will give a cursory chronology, focusing
mainly on the events of the past year.
The Jerry M. class action litigation began in March of 1985 with
the filing of a complaint challenging the District's failure to provide
the children housed at its Oak Hill facility with adequate care and
rehabilitation services and seeking relief on behalf of a class of
children then being detained at Oak Hill. In July of 1986, the parties
entered into a lengthy Consent Decree. As part of the Consent Decree, a
Monitor was appointed to assess the District's compliance with its
commitments. In the almost 18 years since the parties entered into the
Consent Decree, the case has been assigned to three different judges.
These judges, using the Monitor's reports as a basis, have separately
found the District out of compliance with the Consent Decree on a
number of occasions. Each judge has also been forced to enter a series
of enforcement and other orders.
One particularly notable order entered by Judge Urbina stemmed from
the Consent Decree provision that called for a panel of experts to
determine (1) the number of secure beds the District was to plan for
and (2) the types of community-based services the District would be
required to create. The goal of this continuum of services plan was to
reduce the population in secure confinement and provide viable
community-based alternatives for delinquent children. The findings of
the original panel were incorporated into the Consent Decree by
Memorandum Order B. Based on the recommendations of the expert panel,
the judge ordered that the District draft a plan for a juvenile system
in which no more than 42 youth are securely detained and no more than
60 committed youth are securely confined.\1\ Memorandum Order B also
requires the District to create specific community-based programs such
as staffed, secure shelter houses; therapeutic groups homes; foster
care for delinquent youth; and a vocational program with residential
beds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Juveniles are ``detained'' when they are held pre-adjudication,
i.e. before a fact-finding hearing on whether they committed the
delinquent act(s) with which they are charged. Juveniles are
``committed'' when a judge has determined that the juveniles did commit
a delinquent act and has also determined that the juveniles are in need
in services to be provided by YSA. Juveniles are said to be ``committed
to YSA.'' District Code 16-2313(b) requires that detained youth and
committed youth be confined separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case is currently before the Honorable Judge Dixon. In
September 2002, Judge Dixon held a hearing requiring the District to
show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply
with six specific provisions of the Consent Decree. These provisions
involved the adequate training of staff, the quality of the assessment
and diagnosis of the children, the existence and quality of the pre-
release unit, and the sufficiency of exercise provided to the children
at Oak Hill. Two months later, in November 2002, plaintiffs filed an
emergency motion alleging that the District was failing to comply with
two additional provisions involving overcrowding in the girls' unit and
the staffing of a program called Project Hands.\2\ In June 2003, Judge
Dixon ruled on the September 2002 hearing, finding that the District
was in violation of the Consent Decree. He found that there was a lack
of proper training of the Oak Hill staff and inadequate supervision of
the staff. In addition, he found inadequate coordination between the
teams that are responsible for assessing the treatment needs of the
youths when they enter the facility and the teams that are responsible
for delivering the treatment. Finally, Judge Dixon found the District
was failing to comply in the area of providing adequate facilities
prior to a youth's release from confinement. Judge Dixon held the
District in contempt and imposed monetary sanctions. However, the judge
also allowed a grace period during which the District was to cure the
violations. The grace period was different for each violation, but the
last grace period expired in mid-September 2003. At the end of each
grace period, the District filed notices claiming to be in compliance
with the disputed Consent Decree provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Project Hands is a division of YSA that investigates
allegations of staff misconduct at Oak Hill, including allegations of
assaults on youth by staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2003, Judge Dixon held an evidentiary hearing on the
plaintiffs' November 2002 emergency motion asking that the District be
found in contempt for failing to comply with the Consent Decree by
having an overcrowded girls' unit and improperly staffing Project
Hands. In addition, the hearing was to address the question of whether
the District had cured violations with respect to the pre-release unit
at Oak Hill. Judge Dixon has not yet ruled. In October 2003, Judge
Dixon had a hearing to determine whether or not the District had come
into compliance with the Consent Decree provisions concerning staff
training, staff supervision, and coordination between assessment staff
and treatment staff. On October 6, 2003, in anticipation of the coming
hearing, the Monitor issued a report finding that the District remained
out of compliance with respect to each of these issues. In December
2003, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court appoint a
transitional receiver. Judge Dixon held a hearing on the receivership
motion in February 2004.
I should draw attention to one other aspect of the litigation. The
District has liked to point to the school at Oak Hill as one area in
which it has managed to come into compliance. While the school is
currently a bright spot at Oak Hill, the District is neither in full
compliance with the Consent Decree, nor does it deserve full credit for
what has been achieved. In June 1997, the Court, at the time Judge
Levie, found the District in contempt of the education provisions of
the Consent Decree and appointed Dr. Peter E. Leone as special master
for education. Dr. Leone was the receiver for education at Oak Hill
from 1998 to 1999 and was able to help the District significantly in
complying with the Consent Decree regarding Oak Hill's education
system. At the receivership hearing, Dr. Leone pointed to five main
areas of achievement during his tenure as educational receiver at Oak
Hill: (1) academic achievement; (2) school climate; (3) human
resources; (4) fiscal resources; and (5) leadership.
Despite the great strides made by Dr. Leone, the educational system
at Oak Hill is still not in complete compliance. For example, there
remain significant problems with nonattendance by some units and a lack
of sufficient YSA programs to reintegrate youth at Oak Hill into the
community education system upon their release. Dr. Leone testified at
the receivership hearing that residents in the disciplinary unit and in
the girls' unit are not getting standard educational services because
of poor coordination among various departments at Oak Hill. Moreover,
the Monitor in his latest report found that, while YSA contracts with
the University of the District of Columbia for vocational classes for
the boys, there are no equivalent programs for girls.
The Public Defender Service believes that the accomplishments of
Dr. Leone as the receiver for education at Oak Hill demonstrate what a
receiver could accomplish for the whole system. And the whole system is
in need of repair. Just prior to the hearing on the receivership
motion, the Jerry M. Monitors issued their 51st report on the
District's compliance with the Consent Decree, evaluating the prior 6
months. The Monitor's most recent findings exemplify the history of the
District's failure to meet its responsibilities to the youth entrusted
to its care. The Monitor found the following:
--The District was out of compliance with 81 of the Consent Decree's
provisions and in compliance with only 95. See Exhibit 1.
--The District decreased its level of compliance in 19 Consent Decree
provisions.
--The prior 6 months were a ``microcosm'' of the past almost 18 years
of the District's failed efforts to comply with the Consent
Decree, as demonstrated by the latest leadership void which
exists at YSA and the lack of both a permanent Superintendent
and an Assistant Superintendent in charge of treatment at Oak
Hill. While the District appointed two lawyers--Marceline
Alexander and Mark Back--from the Office of the Corporation
Counsel, to assume the mantle at YSA on an interim basis,
neither Ms. Alexander, who is currently the Interim
Administrator for YSA, nor Mr. Back, who is her special
counsel, have any juvenile justice experience.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In fact, over the past 8 months, there have been four different
YSA administrators, including Ms. Alexander; three Deputy
Administrators for Secure Programs; four Deputy Administrators for
Court and Community Services; two Superintendents of Oak Hill; and
three Assistant Superintendents in Charge of Treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Accordingly, there were few efforts to move towards compliance
except for last-minute actions that seemed ``driven by the fact
that a hearing was imminent'' rather than a real effort to make
positive change in the manner in which District children are
being treated and rehabilitated.
Our contention in the receivership motion and at the hearing was
this--the District has been given 18 years to comply with the Consent
Decree, and, despite extensive litigation, 65 court orders, and
multiple findings of contempt, has failed to do so. Accordingly, the
plaintiffs requested that the Court appoint a transitional receiver to
assume control of YSA until the Consent Decree's mandates could be met
and maintained. Plaintiffs' motion noted numerous examples of non-
compliance, including YSA's failure to follow a suicide prevention plan
for youth at Oak Hill, its failure to address the recurring violence
against securely confined children by both Oak Hill residents and
staff, the commingling of detained and committed children,
overcrowding, and the ongoing environmental problems at Oak Hill,
including lack of proper heating and cooling and lack of pest control.
The defendants responded that the Court did not need to take the
extraordinary step of appointing a receiver because, in essence, the
District was making ``incremental progress'' in complying with the
strictures of the Consent Decree and because appropriate leaders were
now again in place to ensure that YSA could continue to plan to make
reform efforts.
Judge Dixon held the hearing on the motion for a transitional
receiver February 23-25. At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented
comprehensive evidence of the failure of YSA to create a safe
environment for children at Oak Hill and the specific failings of the
District's efforts to comply with the 1986 Consent Decree, arguing that
the District's claims of incremental progress were dubious since the
defendants had been given ample time to comply and that it was now time
for the Court to intervene and secure final compliance. The primary
witness for the plaintiffs was Paul DeMuro, an expert in juvenile
justice and child welfare services. He testified that the District had
failed to comply with the Decree and that the Court should appoint a
receiver because the District had: (1) failed to protect youth
committed to YSA from harm; (2) failed to implement an effective
classification and treatment program at Oak Hill, such that residents
suffered long periods of lockdown, detained and committed and low and
high-risk youth are intermingled, treatment is not tailored to a
youth's particular needs, and substance abuse treatment is inadequate;
(3) failed to develop an effective system of management and quality
control so that staff and programs throughout YSA can be held
accountable; and (4) failed to develop and implement a viable community
continuum of care, such that community-based alternatives to secure
detention at Oak Hill failed due to weak supervision, substandard
housing, and a lack of accountability. In fact, just as in Oak Hill,
the shelter houses merely warehouse children rather than provide
therapeutic services: (1) there is no clinical supervision of staff;
(2) many youth arrive without school placements; (3) few children in
shelter houses receive drug treatment; and (4) there is no individual
or family counseling for children. Notably, in July 2002, after
studying the group home and shelter house problem and in consultation
with the Jerry M. parties, an expert gave the District specific
recommendations regarding the issuing of requests for proposals
(``RFP's'') from new shelter and group home providers equipped to offer
the services required by the Consent Decree. While the District, faced
with a receivership hearing, finally completed RFP's for 3 new
programs, it still has not fully implemented the expert's
recommendations some 2 years later.
The observations of our expert, the court-appointed monitor, and
the Inspector General only hint at the breadth of the District's
failure to protect children at Oak Hill from harm. Violent incidents--
including knife fights and assaults serious enough to result in broken
jaws--occur with alarming frequency at Oak Hill. Life on the
residential units at Oak Hill is quite harsh and, accordingly, not at
all conducive to treatment. In one particularly disturbing incident
that took place just last fall, nine residents sexually assaulted
another resident in the victim's room.
In addition, the practice of assigning more than one child to a
room has led to the commingling of status offenders and delinquent
youth, as well as delinquent and committed youth. For example, these
practices led just last summer to a child detained as a truant and
runaway being housed in the same room as a youth detained on charges of
negligent homicide. The District also housed in another room both a
runaway and a child detained for a number of serious delinquency
reasons, including armed robbery and carrying a dangerous weapon.
Not only do these housing practices violate the plain letter of the
Consent Decree, but they also compromise the very safety of the
children and have resulted in nothing less than the realization of
everyone's greatest fear: harm to children in the District's custody.
For example, just last year, a 12-year-old child, held at Oak Hill as
an overnighter and not accused of any crime, was placed in a room with
two other children. An overnighter is a child eligible for release
after some police contact, but whose parents cannot be reached. The
overnighter was sexually assaulted by one of the other youth. There was
no indication that any staff members were supervising the youth, as
staff only learned of the incident 2 days later. Several months later a
13-year-old was arrested and held at Oak Hill waiting for shelter house
space. The 13-year-old was placed in a room with the same child who
committed the prior sexual assault, and another sexual incident
occurred. Perhaps equally troubling is the fact that there is evidence
that these types of incidents may be even more widespread than we know,
as incidents at Oak Hill are underreported.
The defendants, in response, presented District government
officials at the hearing, who testified that the current leadership was
adequate to begin the process of planning to comply with the 18-year-
old Consent Decree, quibbling with plaintiffs' evidence on issues such
as whether the rats observed by Mr. DeMuro were in fact mice, whether
Oak Hill residents suffered five or six broken jaws from July through
December 2003, and whether the conceded severe drug use by Oak Hill
residents actually constitute drug abuse.
The parties filed post-hearing briefs 2 weeks ago and reply briefs
just last week. We are currently awaiting Judge Dixon's ruling. While
we believe that the evidence we presented at the hearing supports our
request for the appointment of a transitional receiver and we are
optimistic that the court will grant our motion, we would take little
pleasure in this litigation win. We wish the District had the will and
capacity to meet its obligations without the need to conduct protracted
litigation. Indeed, our overriding vision and our goal for the past 19
years has been the provision of adequate care and rehabilitation
services for the children committed to YSA. The Public Defender Service
consists of a group of lawyers; we do our work in the courts. Thus, our
primary way of working towards our goal is through this litigation.
However, litigation is but one of many means to an end. That is why we
support legislation currently before the District of Columbia Council
that calls for the closure of Oak Hill and the development of smaller,
community-based secure facilities in its place and requires the
provision of various services to youth which the District has failed to
afford to date. There are many roads to the destination of providing
adequate care and rehabilitation to youth in the juvenile justice
system. The Public Defender Service will be satisfied to reach that
destination by any of those routes. We are not satisfied to continue to
take the incremental steps forward, with many steps back, that has been
the history of YSA's actions in this case.
Senator DeWine. Judge Hamilton, Mr. Sullivan, who advocates
that Oak Hill stay open?
Judge Hamilton. I guess the----
Senator DeWine. Does anybody advocate that this place stay
open?
Judge Hamilton. The only implicit advocate is the District
of Columbia, the administration, which refuses to really take
meaningful steps in planning to sunset that institution.
Senator DeWine. Well, is it not really a dinosaur from the,
I do not know what decade you want to pick. I do not know if it
is a dinosaur from any decade, the way you describe it, and the
way my staff describes it. I have not been out there, but my
staff has described it as just, in unbelievable terms to me,
absolutely shocking.
Judge Hamilton. Absolutely. That is the reaction of any
reasonable person.
Senator DeWine. Yes.
Judge Hamilton. I just cannot imagine how any person in
authority would suffer that institution to continue. It is
beyond my comprehension.
Senator DeWine. Well, it looks like, to me, it is beyond--
you cannot fix it.
Judge Hamilton. You cannot. No, sir.
Senator DeWine. Your description, Mr. Sullivan, of the
proposal of just doing away with it, and breaking it down into
what we do today, which is smaller facilities, and manageable
facilities, more humane homes, places to operate, is probably
what needs to be done.
Judge Hamilton. I agree, but I emphasize that--I think that
there has to be some meaningful substantial Federal oversight
in order to accomplish that. I mean given 20 years of
litigation, which has just dragged on, and on, and on, I just
doubt that the city has the will and the inclination to sunset
that institution. I have seen no evidence, whatsoever, that the
city is willing to do that.
Mr. Sullivan. Nor have I, Senator DeWine. What is most
distressful about the situation is that the Blue Ribbon
Commission provides a very good blueprint as to how juvenile
justice should be carried out in the District. We participated
on the Commission. The U.S. Attorney participated. The
Corporation Counsel participated. All of the experts
participated. As the judge said, it has been virtually ignored.
Senator DeWine. Judge, when your Blue Ribbon Commission
came up with the report, was there much opposition to the
report?
Judge Hamilton. Absolutely not. Every member of the
Commission signed the report except the United States'
attorney's representative. It had whatever reasons it had for
not doing so, but otherwise, every community representative, it
was a broad-based community representation, every other member
signed it.
Senator DeWine. That was November 6, 2001.
Judge Hamilton. Correct.
Senator DeWine. Well, it is hard to know where to begin
when you look at the magnitude of this problem. I will go back
to what I started in this discussion, to me, the most shocking
thing is this commingling of these kids. I mean it is all
shocking. It is all shocking, but then you start with kids who
do not really--who clearly have problems.
The kid runs away. The kid has some problems. Then you dump
that poor child in with another child who has huge problems,
who is a sex offender, and are many times a predator, who preys
on this one child. So now you have created more problems. It is
just unbelievably unfair to that child.
Then you look at the cost. I mean it is not like this was
being done cheaply. Judge and Mr. Sullivan, I asked the first
panel this question. I am going to ask you, just so we can
understand. For close to $90,000 a year, what are the services
that are being provided these kids out there?
Judge Hamilton. Mr. Sullivan may know better than I, but I
am hard put to put my finger on any treatment programs that are
being provided for these children. No. 1, there is no reliable
assessment system, so we do not really know what the kids
problems are, and we do not really know what treatment programs
need to be provided. Then if we know what the problems are,
what treatment programs are needed, there are none.
For example, the major class of offender, who is committed,
are car theft offenders, UUV offenders. There are no programs
that are targeted for UUV offenders. There are no sex offender
programs. There are no treatment programs that are identifiable
that can address the variety of problems that these committed
children have. That is serious.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. I agree 100 percent. The District simply
warehouses children, both at Oak Hill and in the shelter house
system. There are precious little, if any, therapeutic
mechanisms to address any of the issues that the children have.
The District, I will say, has shown some improvement with
respect to the education system, but only after that system was
put in receivership, and a receiver made some substantial
changes.
Senator DeWine. Judge, you called Oak Hill, and I quote,
``A cruel training place for more sophisticated juvenile
offenders.'' I would assume that the recidivism rate coming out
of there must be pretty high.
Judge Hamilton. It is. It is the worst thing that you can
do to a child, to send him to Oak Hill. But unfortunately, in
all too many cases, there are no alternatives. We need
reasonable and equitable community and local alternatives to
the incarceration of minors, as was established in the State of
Ohio, because there are so many kids that do not need
incarceration at all. They can be treated in the community. We
just do not have it.
Senator DeWine. I want to explore that with you a little
bit, Judge. The unique challenge that the District has is that
the District is not a State. The District does not have the
local resources that a State like Ohio does. As you know, I am
very familiar with the Reclaim Ohio program. I was very much
involved in the development of that.
Part of the principle of that program is that you try to
tailor the program for each child. Your incarceration fits the
child, and you try to do whatever is appropriate for the child.
You try to do it locally, if you can. You only send, in Ohio,
we only send, quote, to the State those kids who just cannot be
dealt with locally.
How does that, though, apply to the District, that does not
have the local government resources? I mean that is the
challenge, is it not, that the District has? To play the
devil's advocate, the people who would look at this maybe from
the other side would say, ``Well, look, we do not have the
resources.'' How do we answer that?
Judge Hamilton. Well, they may not have the resources, but
they have had 20 years to come to the Congress and say that
they did not have the resources to make treatment of juveniles
local. There is a lot of treatment that can be done right in
the communities that these children come from. If these
resources are developed, and if there is a change from putting
this money out in places like Oak Hill into these community
treatment facilities, that is what we have been trying to get
for 20 years here in the District of Columbia.
Senator DeWine. So our total--what is the total operating
cost then of Oak Hill? Does anybody in the room know that? Does
anybody have that? I have not done the math here, so I do not
know what the----
Judge Hamilton. I have no----
Mr. Sullivan. I do not----
Senator DeWine. Mary has it here. Is that Oak Hill? That is
not just Oak Hill, though. That is YSA. Well, we will get that
before the hearing is over, if somebody can do that for us.
I mean the bottom line is, you have a pot of money.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Senator DeWine. You would have to figure out, I guess, if
you closed it, what do you do with that pot of money? Maybe it
is going to take more money to provide the resources. But at
close to $90,000 per child, I would think that you could buy
some services for those kids somewhere else.
Judge Hamilton. That is a lot of money.
Senator DeWine. It is a lot of money. There has to be
secure facilities. I mean some of these kids are, I assume,
pretty tough kids, and you are going to have buy secure
facilities for some of these kids. But a truant, it is going to
be a different story----
Judge Hamilton. Right.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Too. I mean some of these kids
were truants, according to what I hear.
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct. As the Inspector General's
report pointed out, there are even unused monies available to
the District--with respect to drug treatment programs.
Regrettably, it is not a difficult proposition to follow
the Blue Ribbon Commission report. At least try. Then if the
District says we do not have enough resources, then come to the
appropriate authority, and request them. But the Mayor actually
recently submitted legislation that is antagonistic to the
goals of the Blue Ribbon Commission's----
Senator DeWine. Well, I guess my question to this group,
and I was not chairman at the time, when the Blue Ribbon
Commission came out, but I guess my question is back to what I
asked the Judge before, is whether or not there was a consensus
in regard to the Blue Ribbon report. Because if there is a
consensus, then it is only a question of getting the resources.
Judge Hamilton. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. Then it is just the question of, can you
put the resources together, and then can you move
incrementally, and put piece by piece of the report together.
You might not get it all in the first few years, but at least
you try to build from that report.
Judge Hamilton. Absolutely, Senator DeWine. Every member of
that Commission signed the report, and endorsed the report,
after long and serious discussions, except one. That is the
fact of the matter.
Senator DeWine. Well, I appreciate your testimony. Senator
Landrieu is here. Mary, I do not know if you have any opening
statement, or if you have any questions. We are about to move
to the third panel.
Senator Landrieu. No. I only heard the last few minutes of
the last----
Senator DeWine. Okay. Good. Well, Judge, we appreciate your
testimony----
Judge Hamilton. Thank you.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Very much. We look forward to
working with you on this problem. We look for you to maybe help
us as a consultant.
The Federal Government, in the past, has made some
contribution here. What else we can do in the future is
something we are going to have to work with you on.
Judge Hamilton. Well, I emphasize----
Senator DeWine. I understand what you are saying, and we
want to help.
Judge Hamilton. All right.
Senator DeWine. We would not have this hearing if we did
not want to help. That is why we have the hearing. We want to
see what we can do.
Judge Hamilton. I would be delighted to, sir.
Senator DeWine. We want to work with you.
Judge Hamilton. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Sullivan, it is good to see you again.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, sir. Let me invite our third
panelists, the City Administrator and Deputy Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Robert Bobb. He served in a similar
capacity in four other cities, spanning nearly 30 years.
Beginning in 1974, he was appointed to serve in Kalamazoo,
Michigan, as assistant city manager. After Kalamazoo, he served
as city manager in Santa Anna, California, for 2\1/2\ years, in
Richmond for 11\1/2\ years, and Oakland, California for 5\1/2\
years.
He is accompanied by Ms. Alexander, interim Director of the
Youth Services Administration. Mr. Bobb, thank you for joining
us.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BOBB, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND
DEPUTY MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MARCELINE D. ALEXANDER, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR, YOUTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
MARK D. BECK, INTERIM SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOUTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bobb. Thank you. Good morning.
Senator DeWine. You have had the opportunity to listen to
all of the other testimony. You can make your own statement,
respond to any questions or comments that have been made so
far. If you can confine it to 5 minutes, that will give us a
chance to have a good dialogue with you.
Mr. Bobb. Thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Thank you for joining us.
Mr. Bobb. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia. My
name is Robert C. Bobb, City Administrator and Deputy Mayor for
the District of Columbia government.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this
morning to testify on behalf of Mayor Williams. Our Mayor is
deeply committed to improving the status of children throughout
the District of Columbia, and in particular, those who are
under the guidance of the Youth Services Administration.
I also would like to report on substantial progress that we
are making and have made in addressing a number of deficiencies
at the Youth Services Administration, as identified by the
Inspector General, and the code monitor in the Jerry M.
litigation.
Joining me this morning at the witness table are two
members of my management team, Marceline D. Alexander, Interim
Administrator of the Youth Services Administration, and Mark D.
Beck, Interim Special Council for the Youth Services
Administration.
Based on my recommendations, Mayor Williams appointed these
capable managers on December 3, 2003, to help my office conduct
a top-to-bottom review of the Youth Services Administration,
and to stabilize the agency.
On October 15, 2003, 9 days after my first day on the job,
I attended a meeting with the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth,
Family, and Elders, and attorneys from the Office of the
Corporation Counsel, to discuss the status of the Jerry M.
litigation and coordination issues between the various District
departments providing services to our youth.
For those of you who may not know, the Jerry M. litigation
is a class action filed in 1985 by the D.C. Public Defender
Service and ACLU National Prison Project against the District
to address certain issues involving the care and custody of
detained committed youth in the District's juvenile justice
system.
Following that meeting, I convened a number of subsequent
meetings in October and November, 2003, to confront the issues
facing the Youth Services Administration. I assembled a team of
in-house government experts to sit around the table together,
in order to drive resolution of the issues, so that I could
take action to stabilize this agency. That team included my
chief of staff, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice
Operation, and directors of the Departments of Human Services,
Mental Health, and Corrections.
The first order of business was to professionalize the
perimeter and the entrance security for Oak Hill Youth Center,
because there were concerns of whether security was tight
enough for persons entering that secure facility. Working with
the team, I issued orders to terminate for convenience the
contractor who had been providing those services, and to put
the Department of Corrections in charge of external security,
because I wanted to have the director and the District security
experts accountable and responsible to me for providing an
increased level of security for our employees and visitors.
The Department of Corrections began providing security at
Oak Hill Youth Center beginning November 16, 2003. A memorandum
of understanding between the Human Services and Corrections are
in place throughout the balance of this fiscal year.
On November 21, 2003, I spent time at Oak Hill. I also
visited a number of group homes to get a better picture of how
those homes were operating. I reconvened that team that I had
assembled in October and shared my views and thoughts, and that
we immediately needed to stabilize the Youth Services
Administration.
While I was city manager of Richmond, Virginia, I hired an
expert in juvenile justice to assist in designing a continuum
of care services program for juveniles. That was the right
approach for what was needed in those circumstances where we
were developing an entire new continuum of care program. Based
on my 30 years of city management experience, I concluded that
a different approach was needed for the Youth Services
Administration, because of the instability caused by the
departure of the administrator, her two deputy administrators,
the chief administrative officer, and the Oak Hill Youth
Center's superintendent.
I personally selected and recommended to the Mayor, new
leadership for the Youth Services Administration. I chose Ms.
Alexander as interim administrator, because she is someone who
knows the District government, and who knows how to get things
done in this city.
Beginning in early 2003, Ms. Alexander had been assigned by
the City to various troubled agencies within the District of
Columbia, and did an outstanding job. As an 18-year employee of
the District of Columbia, a fine lawyer, and a certified public
manager, Ms. Alexander is the right person for the job. I am
fortunate to have her on my team.
Since her arrival on December 3, Ms. Alexander has moved to
fill critical vacancies in the Youth Services Administration,
hiring 33 new employees, including the assistant superintendent
for treatment, for both Oak Hill Youth Center and the Youth
Services Center. We have also employed additional correctional
officers, five treatment team leaders. These are critical hires
for the agency, because these are the employees who provide
direct services to our youth.
We also employed Dr. Sybil Smith-Gray as an assistant
superintendent, who is a licensed clinical psychologist, and
who had worked collaboratively with the Department of Mental
Health, to provide additional mental health services and to
improve our therapeutic atmosphere in working with youth at the
Oak Hill Youth Center.
The Mayor has also proposed in his 2005 budget, a
significant increase in funding of $18 million, or a 40 percent
increase over the base year of 2004, wherein, we are hiring 71
additional full-time employees in the Youth Services
Administration to staff a new Youth Services Center in the
District, to implement Jerry M. compliance and organizational
improvements, and to fund other service delivery. The new Youth
Services Center is an 80-bed diagnostic facility, which will be
located on Mount Olivet Road, here in the District of Columbia.
As part of our management team, management reform
initiative, Ms. Alexander is reorganizing the agency, and
filling several key management positions in that agency.
The Office of the Inspector General's Inspections
Evaluation Division issued its report, which we received a copy
of today. The Department of Human Services provided its
comments to the 45 findings and 96 recommendations, pursuant to
the Inspector General's report.
During the course of the Part I inspection, the Inspector
General also issued seven management alert reports on matters
that the inspection team found required the immediate attention
of the District of Columbia government officials. The Youth
Services Administration responded to each of these management
alert reports, and is taking specific action to address each of
the deficiencies identified in the report, as detailed in my
written statement, which provides much more detail.
The subcommittee has asked me to testify about whether a
receiver should be put in place for the Youth Services
Administration. Let me begin by expressing my understanding
that the presiding Chair requested that the parties not try the
motion in the media. Of course, I am mindful of the court's
ammunition.
However, the subcommittee has specifically requested that
the District present testimony on this important issue, and I
will do so. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held
a 3-day hearing on the motion in February, and I testified on
the government's behalf on the third day of the hearing.
Of course, I leave representation of the District of
Columbia and the Jerry M. litigation in the capable hands of
our corporation council and his assistants. I understand that
the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that a
transitional receiver should be appointed to oversee the Youth
Services Administration, and the trial court must consider the
six factors identified in my written statement.
We have urged the court in our findings not to impose a
receiver, and we urge the same result this morning. The Jerry
M. consent decree entered by the court in 1986 comprised 185
provisions and 43 pages of requirements governing the delivery
of services by the Youth Services Administration. These
provisions cover a broad range of complex issues, including
diagnostic and treatment services, education, mental health,
medical services, discipline and training, recreation
transition, and after-care services environment, and sanitation
and community programs.
The District has made incremental progress over the course
of the last 2 years. The monitor's fifty-first report, the
latest, measured the 6 months between July 1 and December 31,
2003, the time period following the departure of the former
administrator, who provided stable leadership prior to her
departure. This was a period of great transition.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I cannot say that I am satisfied with the District
remaining under the litigation nearly 18 years after it was
first initiated. I can say, however, that I am very confident
in our current direction, and with the progress that we are
making, and feel that our current approach, not a transitional
receiver, is without question the best way for the District to
meet the requirements of the consent decree. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Bobb
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the U.S.
Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia. My name is Robert C. Bobb and I serve as the City
Administrator and Deputy Mayor for the District of Columbia Government.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to
testify on behalf of Mayor Anthony A. Williams and to share with this
subcommittee the substantial progress that we are making in addressing
a number of deficiencies at the Youth Services Administration as
identified by the Inspector General and the Court Monitor in the Jerry
M. litigation.
Joining me this morning at the witness table are two members of my
management team: Marceline D. Alexander, Interim Administrator of the
Youth Services Administration, and Mark D. Back, Interim Special
Counsel for the Youth Services Administration. Based on my
recommendation, Mayor Williams appointed these capable managers on
December 3, 2003, to help my office conduct a top-to-bottom review of
the Youth Services Administration and to stabilize the agency until we
can put a permanent, juvenile justice professional in place.
A short autobiographical history is appropriate before I address
the deficiencies at the Youth Services Administration and the pending
issue of receivership. Before assuming my duties as the District of
Columbia's City Administrator and Deputy Mayor on October 6, 2003, I
already had served in a similar capacity in four other cities spanning
nearly 30 years. Beginning in 1974, I was appointed to serve in
Kalamazoo, Michigan as Assistant City Manager. I served as Assistant
City Manger in Kalamazoo for 2 years before becoming Acting City
Manager and then City Manager and serving an additional 8 years. After
Kalamazoo, I served as City Manager in Santa Ana, California for 2\1/2\
years; in Richmond, Virginia for 11\1/2\ years, and in Oakland,
California for 5\1/2\ years. In Oakland, I also served as the Executive
Director of the City of Oakland Redevelopment Agency.
Prior to agreeing to my current position, I reviewed a series of
newspaper articles on the issues facing the District of Columbia and
the Williams Administration, one of which was the Youth Services
Administration. I had prior experience with juvenile justice issues in
Richmond, Virginia where I was responsible for both city and county
functions. One of those functions included responsibility for the
juvenile courts as well as the juvenile detention facilities. In
Richmond, I appointed a juvenile justice expert to put in place a
continuum of care services where the courts could decide, based on the
severity of the youth's offenses and other issues, whether to place the
youth in a community-based program, in the city's detention facility,
or in Hanover County's more stringent juvenile facility. In the
District of Columbia, the decision of where to place a detained youth,
a youth who is awaiting court disposition of charges, rests with the
court. For committed youth, a youth who has been adjudicated by the
Court as involved in criminal activity, placement decisions reside in
the Youth Services Administration. The point is that I am familiar with
juvenile justice issues and I was aware of many of the issues
concerning the Youth Services Administration prior to my arrival.
On October 15, 2003, 9 days after my first day on the job, I
attended a meeting with the then Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth,
Family, and Elders and attorneys from the Office of the Corporation
Counsel to discuss the status of the Jerry M. litigation involving the
Youth Services Administration and coordination issues between various
District departments providing services to our youth. For those of you
who may not know, the Jerry M. litigation is a class action filed in
1985 by the D.C. Public Defender Service and the ACLU National Prison
Project against the District to address certain issues involving the
care and custody of detained and committed youth in the District's
juvenile justice system.
Following that first meeting, I convened a number of subsequent
meetings in October and November 2003 to confront the issues facing the
Youth Services Administration. As is my management style, I assembled a
team of in-house government experts to sit around the table together in
order to drive resolution of the issues so that I could take action to
stabilize that agency. That team included my Chief of Staff, the Deputy
Mayor's for Public Safety & Justice and Operations, and the Directors
of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Corrections.
It is important to recognize that the Youth Services Administration is
one of five administrations within the Department of Human Services.
The first order of business was to professionalize the perimeter
and entrance security for the Oak Hill Youth Center because there were
concerns of whether security was tight enough for persons entering that
secure facility. Working with the Deputy Mayors for Public Safety &
Justice and Operations, the Chief Procurement Officer and the Director
of the Department of Corrections, I issued orders to terminate for
convenience the contractor who had been providing those services and to
put the Department of Corrections in charge of external security. I
wanted to have the Director of our Department of Corrections, as the
District's security expert, accountable and responsible to me for
providing an increased level of security for our employees and
visitors. The Department of Corrections began providing security at the
main entrance to the grounds and at the sally port entrances to the
facilities at the Oak Hill Youth Center beginning November 16, 2003,
and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Corrections provides for continued security services by
Corrections through the end of the fiscal year.
I have been quoted as calling ``the entire system just broken''
shortly after my visit to the Oak Hill in November 2003. This quote is
accurate but is best understood in context. The Administrator who had
run the Youth Services Administration for 5 years had resigned in July
2003, and there were a series of Acting Administrators; the Deputy
Administrator for Secure Programs (which includes the Oak Hill Youth
Center) resigned in October 2003; and the Oak Hill Youth Center
Superintendent, the Deputy Administrator for Court and Community
Programs (which includes oversight of aftercare services and court
liaison activities), and the Chief Administrative Officer were each
terminated on the day of my visit. On November 21, 2003, I spent a
little over an hour touring the facility and talking with senior level
staff. I also visited a number of group homes to get a better picture
of how those homes were operating. Following these unannounced visits
to Oak Hill and the group homes, I reconvened the team I had assembled
in October and shared my views and thoughts that we immediately needed
to stabilize the Youth Services Administration by putting a management
team in place to stabilize the infrastructure and to address all of the
issues surrounding the agency. I candidly admitted in my testimony to
the court that ``there was no management to any large degree in
place.''
I have already testified that while I was City Manager in Richmond,
Virginia, I hired an expert in juvenile justice to design a continuum
of care program. That was the right approach for what was needed in
those circumstances where we were developing an entirely new continuum
of care program.
Based on my 30 years of city management experience, I concluded
that a different approach was needed for the Youth Services
Administration because of the instability caused by the departure of
the Administrator, her two Deputy Administrators, the Chief
Administrative Officer, and the Oak Hill Youth Center Superintendent. I
personally selected and recommended to the Mayor new leadership for the
Youth Services Administration. I chose Ms. Alexander as Interim
Administrator because she is someone who knows the District of Columbia
and who knows how to get things done in this city. Beginning in early
2003, Ms. Alexander had been assigned by the Deputy Mayor for
Operations to the then troubled Office of Property Management as Chief
of Staff, Deputy Director and then Interim Director. She stabilized
that agency and began the process of turning it around until we could
put a more permanent professional in place. While Ms. Alexander has
some juvenile justice experience from her time in the Abuse and Neglect
Section in the Office of the Corporation Counsel, her selection as
Interim Administrator of the Youth Services Administration was premised
on her ability to stabilize the agency and to reform its management
infrastructure while we conduct a nationwide search for a permanent,
juvenile justice expert to lead the agency. As an 18-year employee of
the District of Columbia, a fine lawyer, and a certified public
manager, Ms. Alexander is the right person for the job and I am
fortunate to have found her.
Since her arrival on December 3, 2003, Ms. Alexander has moved to
fill critical vacancies in the Youth Services Administration, hiring 33
new employees, including the Assistant Superintendents for Treatment
for both the Oak Hill Youth Center and the new Youth Services Center
(which is set for beneficial occupancy in late August 2004), 18 Youth
Correctional Officers, and 5 Juvenile Justice Institutional Counselors
(otherwise known as Treatment Team Leaders). These are critical hires
for the agency because these are the employees who provide direct
services to our youth.
Dr. Sybil Smith-Gray, the newly-hired Assistant Superintendent for
Treatment, is a licensed clinical psychologist and has worked
collaboratively with the Department of Mental Health (which previously
retained her as a contractor) to reform our diagnostic and assessment
unit. With Dr. Gray's leadership, and in concert with the Department of
Mental Health, the Youth Services Administration has developed a
therapeutic atmosphere for securing detained and committed youth. The
Youth Services Administration is a human services organization and its
service delivery is predicated upon the concepts of Corrective
Treatment and Balanced and Restorative Justice or BARJ. The fundamental
goal of corrective treatment for the juvenile offender is the
development of a healthy and adaptive respect/obedience for authority
as evidenced by discipline, order, respect and compliance. As
clinicians in social services, our aim is to accomplish this goal
through repeated clinical interactions that replicate the phases that
characterize the healthy caregiver-child relationship: positive
engagement, interpersonal stress, reparation of the damaged
interaction. Ultimately, this effort will support the juvenile
offender's ability to develop healthy interpersonal relationships and
that are characterized by mutual trust, empathy for others, and the
ability to exchange ideas and share feelings effectively. With regard
to BARJ principles, victims/survivors of crime, offenders, and the
community are viewed as equal consumers of the juvenile justice system.
Therefore, each of these entities is given equal consideration when
developing and implementing programmatic responses. The three over-
arching goals of BARJ for juveniles are: accountability, competency,
development and community protection.
As of this writing, 392 of the Youth Services Administration's 480
authorized FTE's are filled. Of these remaining positions, 65 are in
recruit status and 23 are vacant. The Mayor has proposed in his fiscal
year 2005 budget, a significant increase in funding, in order to hire
an additional 71 FTE's in the Youth Services Administration to staff
the new Youth Services Center and to implement Jerry M. compliance and
organizational improvements. The new Youth Services Center is an 80-bed
diagnostic facility located on Mt. Olivet Road that will serve our
detained youth prior to adjudication. Understandably, the ongoing
nationwide recruitment effort by the D.C. Office of Personnel for a
permanent Administrator is made especially difficult while plaintiffs'
motion for appointment of a transitional receiver is pending before the
Superior Court in the Jerry M. litigation. Nevertheless, we are
actively moving forward to recruit a top juvenile justice professional
to lead the organization as we work diligently to stabilize it.
As part of her management reform initiative, Ms. Alexander is
reorganizing the agency under four Deputy Administrators as follows:
(1) Deputy Administrator for Secure Programs (responsible for
operations at both Oak Hill Youth Center and the new Youth Services
Center); (2) Deputy Administrator for Court and Community Programs
(responsible for aftercare services for committed youth and for court
activities); (3) Deputy Administrator for Support Services
(functionally, the Chief Administrative Officer responsible for all
administrative activities); and (4) Deputy Administrator for
Performance Management (responsible for risk management, program
evaluation, data collection, contract monitoring, policy and
accreditation). The Deputy Administrator for Court and Community
Programs has already been hired and the other three deputies have been
recruited and are awaiting selection. The incumbents for these
management positions will be involved in hiring direct report managers
within their respective operational responsibilities. This new
structure will rationalize the organization and provide for enhanced
management and accountability to ensure that the youth are being
comprehensively and efficiently served.
INVESTIGATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
The Office of the Inspector General's Inspections and Evaluations
Division began an inspection of the Youth Services Administration in
April 2003. The inspection is being conducted in two parts. Part One,
which is covered in a draft report submitted to the Department of Human
Services for comments on March 4, 2004, includes management,
administrative services, and all operations at the Oak Hill Youth
Center. On March 22, 2004, in accordance with the Office of Inspector
General's standard auditing procedures, the Department of Human
Services provided its comments to the 45 findings and 96
recommendations contained in Part One's draft report of investigation.
We await the Office of the Inspector General's final report. Part Two,
which was commenced in February 2004, includes the remaining operations
of the Youth Services Administration.
During the course of the Part One inspection, the Inspector General
also issued seven Management Alert Reports on matters that the
inspection team found required the immediate attention of District of
Columbia government officials. The Youth Services Administration
responded to each of these Management Alert Reports and is taking
specific action to address each of the deficiencies identified in the
reports.
Fire Safety
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
a number of fire safety deficiencies, including inaccessible fire
extinguishers, a lack of fire drills, and a lack of posted evacuation
plans. In responding to the report, the Youth Services Administration
abated each and every fire safety deficiency. However, the Youth
Services Administration disagrees with the Inspector General on the
issue of accessibility of fire extinguishers. The Youth Services
Administration follows American Correctional Association (ACA)
standards pertaining to ensuring the safety and well-being of its
residents and staff at the Oak Hill Youth Center. To that end, all fire
extinguishers are concealed in locked wall areas on each unit. The unit
manager and supervisory Youth Correctional Officer or YCO on each unit
have keys to open the locked wall boxes. In order to provide additional
safety measures to each housing unit, the Youth Services Administration
is installing a lock box in each of the security office's to ensure
that the keys are available on the unit should a fire emergency occur.
The Youth Services Administration has mounted its fire evacuation
plans, is recruiting to fill the position of Health and Safety Officer,
and is documenting its ongoing fire drills in weekly fire inspection
reports.
Security
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
breaches of security at entrances at the Oak Hill Youth Center due to a
lack of adequate search procedures, and the employment of security
guards without completed criminal background checks. These findings and
recommendations were made during the time prior to November 2003 when a
contractor was providing these security services. That contractor was
terminated for convenience and, effective November 16, 2003, the
Department of Corrections began providing these security services with
an approximately 23-member squad and each of its correctional officers
have undergone criminal background checks.
Female Youth
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
certain deficiencies in the female housing unit that impair the ability
of YCO's to effectively maintain the safety and security of residents
and to ensure their own safety as well. These deficiencies included a
lack of proper security monitoring equipment, insufficient perimeter
lighting, a lack of proper communication equipment, and failure to
provide all YCO's with keys to resident rooms in the event of an
emergency. In the responding to the reported deficiencies, the Youth
Services Administration issued four additional two-way radios to the
unit supervisor in Unit 6 for female youth. In the event additional
radios are necessary, instructions have been given to the Officer of
Day to ensure that any staff member who needs access to a two-way radio
receives this equipment immediately. In order to provide additional
security measures that will allow faster evacuation of the housing
units, including Unit 6, the Youth Services Administration is
installing a lock box in the security office, and the unit manager,
supervisory correctional officer and the officer of the day will have
access in the event of a fire or other emergency. The Youth Services
Administration has repaired the electronic security monitoring system
in Unit 6 and the metal detector and hand wand equipment at Unit 6 have
been replaced. The equipment is operational and the staff has been
instructed to have this security equipment operational at all times.
Finally, the Youth Services Administration is aware of the need to
upgrade the facility's exterior lighting, and arrangements are under
way to upgrade the electrical power so that institutional lighting can
be enhanced for Unit 6.
Communication Equipment
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
a lack of sufficient and reliable communication equipment that
threatens overall safety and security and impairs the ability of YCO's,
transportation officers, treatment team leaders, and social services
representatives to perform their jobs effectively. The Youth Services
Administration, in conjunction with the Department of Human Services,
the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and Verizon Communications,
completed a thorough assessment regarding the telecommunications needs
of the agency are in the process of establishing a corrective action
plan. In the interim, while the longer term solution is planned and
implemented, the Youth Services Administration has repaired the broken
equipment, issued additional two-way radios and cell phones, and
repaired broken electronic monitoring systems.
Illegal Substances
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
illegal substances, such as marijuana and phencyclidine (PCP), smuggled
into the Oak Hill Youth Center. These allegations arise at a time when
a contractor was providing security but, candidly, the presence of
illegal substances persists. In a recent testing, 14 of 159 youth or
8.8 percent testified positive for the presence of marijuana. The Youth
Services Administration already is investigating the report's
allegation that YCO's are engaged in illegal conduct (i.e. providing
illegal substances to youth), in addition to the investigation being
conducted by the Department of Human Services Office of Investigations
and Compliance. We agree with the Inspector General that the use of
Department of Corrections officers to provide perimeter and sally port
security at the Oak Hill Youth Center will assist in the interdiction
of contraband entering the facility. The agency is utilizing shakedowns
and other measures within the facility to detect such contraband in the
housing units. The Youth Services Administration also is working with
the Metropolitan Police Department's canine unit to buttress its drug
interdiction measures inside of the facility. The canine unit already
has visited the Oak Hill facility on four unannounced visits, and the
longer range objective is to enter into a memorandum of understanding
to provide the Oak Hill Youth Center and subsequently, the new Youth
Services Center, with a permanent canine detection program.
Abandoned Buildings
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
documentation of 28 vacant and abandoned buildings on the same grounds
as the Oak Hill Youth Center, many of which are unsecured and have been
entered and vandalized. While the report improperly attributes the
maintenance of these properties to the Youth Services Administration,
the agency currently occupies only limited buildings located on the old
Forest Haven site. Nevertheless, the District is responsible for these
buildings and will, as part of its overall strategy for the future of
this 888-acre site, take affirmative action to secure these properties.
As to the allegations that the utilities should be terminated, the
Youth Services Administration has learned that the Forest Haven
facility was constructed prior to current water, sewer and electrical
standards and therefore these services cannot be disconnected because
these electrical systems provide the street lighting necessary to
maintain security visibility at Unit 6 for the female youth), along
each street in the parcel of the land, for the Training Academy, and
the Union's facility. In addition, YSA must maintain water flow because
it provides water to all fire hydrants on the property and serves the
Woodland Job Corps, which was originally a part of this site.
In light of the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation to demolish
and rebuild the Oak Hill Youth Center at or near its current location,
the Williams Administration has received proposals from both government
and private groups for use of the land and must determine the most
appropriate approach. I have tasked the members of my team to work with
other government officials and the various stakeholders to develop a
recommendation in May.
Transportation
The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to
employees operating government vehicles without valid State driver's
licenses and government motor vehicle identification cards, and
vehicles being operated with expired inspection stickers. The Youth
Services Administration has taken affirmative steps to ensure that
employees who do not possess a valid District of Columbia driver's
license or government motor vehicle identification card are not be
permitted to operate one of its vehicles. The Youth Services
Administration has requested additional vehicles to keep from operating
vehicles with expired inspections stickers, but those vehicles must
continue to be operated, on the grounds of Oak Hill for maintenance use
only, until such time as the new vehicles arrive.
The Youth Services Administration is cooperating with these ongoing
investigations and is looking forward to working with the Office of the
Inspector General to correct these and the other deficiencies
identified in the Part One draft report of investigation.
RECEIVERSHIP
The subcommittee has asked me to testify about whether a receiver
should be put in place for the Youth Services Administration in
connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a
Transitional Receiver filed in the Jerry M. litigation in December of
2003. Let me begin by expressing my understanding from the attorneys in
the Office of the Corporation Counsel who represent the District in the
litigation that the presiding judge requested that the parties not try
the motion in the media and, of course, I am mindful of the court's
admonition. However, the subcommittee has specifically requested that
the District present testimony on this important issue and I will do
so. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a 3-day hearing
on the motion on February 23-25, 2004, and I testified in the
government's behalf on the third day of the hearing along with Ms.
Marceline D. Alexander, the Interim Administrator, Mr. John M. Manuel,
the Acting Deputy Administrator for Secure Programs, and Ms. Martha B.
Knisley, the Director of the Department of Mental Health.
Of course, I leave representation of the District of Columbia in
the Jerry M. litigation in the capable hands of the Corporation Counsel
and his assistants. I understand that the plaintiffs bear the burden of
demonstrating that a transitional receiver should be appointed to
oversee the Youth Services Administration. District of Columbia v.
Jerry M., 738 A.2d 1206, 1214 (D.C. 1999). The trial court must
consider six factors in determining whether appointment of a receiver,
transitional or otherwise, is justified: (1) whether there have been
repeated failures to comply with the court's orders; (2) whether
additional efforts to bring defendants into compliance would lead only
to confrontation and delay; (3) whether leadership is available that
can turn the tide within a reasonable period of time; (4) whether
defendants acted in bad faith; (5) whether defendants are wasting
resources; and (6) whether appointment of a receiver would provide a
quick and efficient remedy. Dixon v. Barry, 967 F. Supp. 535, 550
(D.D.C. 1997). We have urged the court in our filings not to impose a
receiver, transitional or otherwise.
The Jerry M. Consent Decree, entered by the Court on July 24, 1986,
comprises 185 provisions and 43 pages of requirements governing the
delivery of services by the Youth Services Administration. These
provisions cover a broad range of complex issues including diagnostic
and treatment services, education, mental health and medical services,
discipline and training, recreation, transition and aftercare services,
environmental and sanitation, and community programs. The District has
made incremental progress over the course of the last 2 years,
achieving compliance with 35 additional provisions of the 185
provisions of the Consent Decree and reducing by two-thirds the number
of non-compliant findings reported by the Court Monitor between
September 30, 2000, and June 30, 2003. The Monitor's 51st Report
measured the 6 months between July 1 and December 31, 2003, the time
period following the departure of the former Administrator who provided
stable leadership prior to her departure in August 2003. This was a
period of great transition, during which there were two different
interim administrators for brief periods of time before leadership was
stabilized by the Mayor's appointment of Ms. Alexander. Some slippage
during this less stable time period is not unexpected. Nonetheless, the
District still maintained compliance with 23 additional provisions
since September 30, 2000, and, essentially, maintained the two-thirds'
reduction in non-compliant findings. This record contradicts the Jerry
M. plaintiffs' assessment that nothing short of appointing a
transitional receiver can be done at this stage of the litigation.
Because the District has made incremental progress over the last 3
years, albeit, not as quickly or as comprehensively as anticipated or
required, it is unreasonable to conclude that additional efforts to
secure compliance will be futile and lead only to confrontation and
further delay.
I cannot say that I am satisfied with the District remaining under
this litigation nearly 18 years after it was first initiated. I can
say, however, that I am very confident in our current direction and
with the progress we are making and feel that our current approach, not
a transitional receiver, is without question the best way for the
District to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. I can say that
appointment of transitional receiver does not provide a quick and
efficient remedy. Ms. Alexander and Mr. Back have been on task for
nearly 4 months and their labors are beginning to bear fruit. I would
like to highlight their accomplishments for the record:
Security Improvements at Oak Hill Youth Center
Security Enhancements--MOU with DOC for Security at Perimeter
Locations and at the Facility Checkpoint.
Security staff added to the entrance of Central Administration
Building.
YSA is in working collaboratively with (MPD, CFSA, Court Social
Services and OCC) to establish an absconders unit who will return all
youth in ascendance status to YSA custody.
YSA has introduced drug sniffing dogs at Oak Hill.
Increased staffing on housing units additional supervisors (2).
YSA has changed location for visiting in order to provide better
observation and security.
Substance Abuse Enhancements/Treatments at Oak Hill Youth Center
YSA has established a therapeutic atmosphere at Oak Hill that is
based on the concept of Corrective Treatment and Balanced and
Restorative Justice. This therapeutic atmosphere serves as the
foundation for additional services including substance abuse.
YSA is entering into a short-term MOU with APRA to provide
substance abuse counseling until the Substance Abuse Free Environment
or SAFE Program is implemented. This MOU would entail APRA supplying
YSA with two Certified Substance Abuse Counselors for approximately 6
months. YSA would use Unit 9B, which is designated for substance abuse
treatment, and YSA would pay for this service by using Re-entry Funds.
Contained in the MOU is the number of hours that the substance abuse
counselor reports to OHYC. At present, it is anticipated that YSA will
utilize the services of the counselors for approximately 21 hours per
week at a cost of $28.00 per hour.
RFP for the Residential Substance Abuse Program at Oak Hill was
issued on February 15, 2004 and will close on April 2, 2004. YSA held a
Pre-Bidder Conference at the Office of Contracting and Procurement on
March 1, 2004 and 15 people attended, representing 12 different
organizations. It will take approximately 4 to 6 months before services
associated with this residential treatment program will begin.
YSA has also established a SAFE Program for Unit 6.
YSA has identified YCO's who are certified addiction counselors who
will be placed in unit 9B on a permanent basis.
YSA is reassigning youth with substance abuse needs to unit 9B.
Voice and Motion Players (VAMP) will increase numbers of times they
visit the housing units to 2 times a week.
YSA has hired an additional rehabilitation specialist with a
background in addiction treatment.
Training
YSA continues to provide Specialized Training to all Diagnostic
Treatment Team Leaders: These specialized training session will consist
of:
--Writing and Implementing the Effective ISP,
--Interviewing Youth,
--Planning Successful Team Management.
Continues to train case managers in conjunction with Dr. Marty
Beyer--Jerry M. Consent Decree expert--which consist of:
--Strength Based Assessments,
--Treatment Plans.
Staffing Enhancements
YSA has hired two Assistant Superintendents for Treatment.
YSA has hired 18 additional YCO's, 2 Licensing Monitors and 1 Chief
of Licensing from CFSA, 6 program analysts, and 5 Juvenile Justice
Institutional Counselors.
YSA has filled one and is currently recruiting to fill for 3 Deputy
Administrators for:
--Secure Programs,
--Court and Community Programs (filled),
--Performance Management,
--Deputy Administrator for Support Services (Chief Administrative
Officer).
YSA is also currently recruiting to fill:
--Oak Hill Youth Center Superintendent,
--Training Manager,
--Intensive after care workers,
--Cooks,
--IT professionals.
Community Enhancements
YSA has entered into an MOU with D.C. Parks and Recreation's Roving
Leaders to provide services to youth in community based programs.
YSA has assigned a staff member to ensure that all youth are
reviewed for Medicaid Eligibility once they enter the system.
YSA launched its licensing of group homes in March and has
implemented additional monitoring/inspection procedures for all group/
shelter homes.
YSA has signed a statement of work for three group home
solicitations: generic, therapeutic, and therapeutic substance abuse.
The generic group home is scheduled to go through the District's
Procurement Review Committee for approval on April 2, 2004. The
therapeutic group home is ready for placement on the web and should be
on the web by March 31, 2004. The therapeutic substance abuse group
home will be ready by April 15, 2004, provided that revisions are
finalized and the Procurement Review Committee approves it. In the
interim, YSA is working on additional statements of work for shelter
and vocational group homes.
Educational Programming/Enhancements--Oak Hill Academy
Consistent with the Jerry M. Consent Decree, all youth entering Oak
Hill receive education assessments within 72 hours. DCPS has on staff 2
Assessors who provide this service.
DCPS staff involved in the diagnostic process come together every
Tuesday to assess the youth's educational and vocational test scores as
well as educational history in an effort to develop an educational
track/plan.
Changes In Educational Services
Oak Hill Academy has instituted two changes in Educational Services
to meet the individual needs of its students: how to schedule students
in their classes, and increase in programs to support the school's
focus on reading and mathematics across all content areas.
DCPS has requested and YSA will provide additional YCO's who will
be specifically designated as DCPS YCO's who will reside in the school
to support the needs of the new and revised day and after school
programs.
During the 3rd Advisory, students' class schedules will better
reflect their Individual Service Plan (ISP), school credit, and
interest needs.
Students will be scheduled in classes based on educational
programming dictated by their ISP.
DCPS received an AOL Grant in the amount of ($10,000). This grant
will enable 15 students needing remediation services for graduation, or
college/college preparation classes to take computer courses online.
DCPS will be expanding its evening program to include a school
band, book club, public speaking class, typing class, chess class,
debating team, math and reading tutorials.
DCPS will also offer athletic intramurals such as football and
basketball.
DCPS has also hired a Reading Specialist, who will support
teachers' efforts to modify instruction to meet the reading deficits
that impact students' learning.
DCPS Volunteer Groups
Georgetown University and American University enable DCPS to
provide tutorial services in such areas as job preparation, GED
training, improvement in communication skills and self-esteem building.
American University's Washington College of Law has 13 tutors who
each assist one male student, academically and socially. They meet
every Friday from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the main school building.
Georgetown University provides tutorial services for female
residents on Unit 6. This group is comprised of 8 tutors, working on a
one-on-one basis to help the female students attain higher academic
success in need areas. These tutors are on Unit 6 every Sunday from
3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
DCPS has arranged for the Public Defender Service to provide
evening classes on Street Law.
DCPS in conjunction with YSA conducts Interdisciplinary Community
Transition Planning Meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to
develop the aftercare plans that will address the needs of committed
youth within the context of the Balanced and Restorative Justice
principles of community safety, accountability, and competency. These
meeting are held 90 days prior to a youth's projected release date.
DCPS has also established Oak Hill Transition Specialists Program
Guidelines and established in DCPS are 5 individuals responsible for
transition/coordination services related to Oak Hill youth. The youth
transition into four schools Anacostia, Ballou, Cardoza and Roosevelt
Senior High Schools. Students are also transitioned into other charter
schools as applicable.
Moreover, plaintiffs seek to provide 6 months for the transitional
receiver to prepare a work plan and an additional year to put the plan
in place. On the other hand, I directed Ms. Alexander to prepare and
submit her comprehensive work plan for achieving Jerry M. compliance to
me in May, and I fully expect that the plan will include further
organizational adjustments gleaned from the past 4 months and a
recommendation of whether the Youth Services Administration should
become a cabinet-level agency. The selection of a new transitional
receiver itself would take weeks, in addition to the delay identified
above in preparing a plan and implementing it. The quicker and more
efficient remedy is to permit the current Interim Administrator to
continue her stabilization efforts and concentrate on recruiting for a
permanent Administrator to assume the reins of a reinvigorated Youth
Services Administration.
I believe that I have demonstrated in my testimony to the court on
February 25, 2004, and before this subcommittee this morning, that
leadership is available that can turn the tide within a reasonable
period of time at the Youth Services Administration. In addition to
developing a comprehensive work plan for the Youth Services
Administration by May 2004, Ms. Alexander's priorities include hiring
staff, identifying and obtaining needed resources, developing more
collaborative relationships with other agencies and stakeholders, and
finalizing an organizational structure for the agency. Ms. Alexander
already has hired 35 new staff and created a new organizational
structure. She prepared fiscal year 2005 budget enhancements for the
new Youth Services Center and is working to bring that facility on
line. She and her senior staff have met with sister agencies and other
stakeholders, including Councilmember Sandra Allen (Chair of the
Council of the District of Columbia's Committee on Human Services) to
develop collaborative strategies in delivering improved services to our
youth. Ms. Alexander has met with Dr. Margaret Beyer, the parties'
stipulated aftercare expert, about moving forward with the agency's
group and shelter home solicitations and other Order B issues. Ms.
Alexander is putting in place a management team that address each of
the deficiencies identified in the Inspector General reports, the Court
Monitor's 51st Report, and the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. We fully
expect the Court Monitor's 52nd Report to substantiate the progress we
are making in the first half of the current calendar year.
Ms. Alexander and her special counsel, Mr. Back, have direct access
to me for consultation, review or assistance with any issue on a 24/7
basis. In addition, the team that I began to assemble in October 2003
continues to provide its support to this multi-agency reform
initiative. In short, the Youth Services Administration is a top
priority of the District of Columbia. The Williams Administration is
resolved to making all necessary reforms to continue to make
improvements in the delivery of services to our detained and committed
youth.
I want to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of Mayor Williams concerning the progress made at the Youth
Services Administration. Ms. Alexander, Mr. Back, and I are available
to answer any questions.
Senator DeWine. Well, we thank you very much for your
testimony. Let me start by asking: you had the opportunity to
hear the previous witnesses testify?
Mr. Bobb. Yes.
Senator DeWine. What is your opinion about the Blue Ribbon
report?
Mr. Bobb. Well, I have read the executive summary of the
Blue Ribbon report. It does make a lot of very good
recommendations as to how the District of Columbia can move
forward in providing services to youth, and in particular, to
juveniles within the District.
The Mayor had appointed a committee in December of 2003
that is now taking the basics of the Blue Ribbon Committee,
coming up with a series of recommendations and strategies as to
how we can move the Blue Ribbon Committee's report forward in
the District. So that is currently under review.
Senator DeWine. How do you think that Oak Hill fits into
this or does not fit into it, and get to the comments of the
two previous panel members. I mean their recommendation is that
you close Oak Hill. What is your opinion about that?
Mr. Bobb. Well, the recommendation, I will give you my
candid opinion. The recommendation that we sunset----
Senator DeWine. That is what we like. We like candid.
Mr. Bobb. The recommendation that we sunset the Oak Hill
facility and close it at a future date is one what will require
very careful study and analysis, because at the end of the day,
Oak Hill closes its doors, and then we have to place all of
those facilities within the District of Columbia. That, too,
will have to be--you would have to bring the entire community
along with you, because you are going to run into the NIMBY
concept, or not in my back yard.
In addition, we are also going to have the issue of whether
or not we want to impact--typically what happens is, many of
these facilities, from my experience, are placed in moderate,
low income areas, and so then you have the impaction of whether
or not those communities themselves should be the recipient of
many of these types of facilities.
So I just think that it is going to require very careful
community discussions and conversations in a much broader sense
than perhaps what was done when the committee conducted its
study and its review, and made its recommendations.
Senator DeWine. Well, the description that has been given,
the picture of Oak Hill today, has that been an unfair
description? It has been a pretty bleak description. Now, if
someone went out here, somebody who is in the audience today,
who had not been at Oak Hill, would they see something better?
Mr. Bobb. No. You are not going to see any physical--the
physical conditions of Oak Hill are the physical conditions at
Oak Hill.
Senator DeWine. Well, it is not just the physical
condition. I mean commingling of status offenders, a kid who is
a truant, put in a room with a sex offender. That is pretty
shocking.
Mr. Bobb. Absolutely. I can tell you that those issues
occurred, they were not on--they have not occurred at Oak Hill
since October of last year. If you go--what we would challenge
all of the finders and all of the reports, is to take a look at
Oak Hill since Mayor Williams directed this team to fix a
problem that has been plaguing this District of Columbia for
the last 17 years. In my more detailed testimony, it speaks to
the changes, fairly dramatic changes in a short period of time,
that we have taken at Oak Hill, including putting in treatment
programs, or expanding the treatment programs for youth at that
facility.
Senator DeWine. Tell us a little bit, you touched on this
in your statement, but tell us in a little more detail about
what treatment is available, what programming is available to
the young people who are at Oak Hill.
Mr. Bobb. I will let Ms. Alexander, if you do not mind, go
through----
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Mr. Bobb [continuing]. Some of the details in that regard.
STATEMENT OF MARCELINE D. ALEXANDER
Ms. Alexander. Good morning.
Senator DeWine. Good morning.
Ms. Alexander. As relates to substance abuse treatment,
currently YSA has established a therapeutic atmosphere at Oak
Hill that is based on the concept of corrective treatment and a
balanced and restorative justice approach.
Senator DeWine. A what? I am sorry.
Ms. Alexander. Balanced and restorative justice, which
basically----
Senator DeWine. What does that mean?
Ms. Alexander. It takes--it balances competing
considerations, that of the offender, the community, and the
victim.
We are also entering into a short-term memorandum of
understanding with our substance abuse administration, APRA, to
provide substance abuse counseling until the SAFE program,
which has been the subject of a lot of discussion is
implemented. As relates to the SAFE program, we expect to have
a substance abuse treatment facility fully operational in
September, late August.
We have also established a substance abuse education
program for our females on unit six. I would be happy to
provide the curriculum to you. We have identified youth
correctional officers who are certified substance abuse
counselors, who we placed on specific units within the facility
on a permanent basis to assist us in providing treatment and
counseling for the youth.
The Department of Mental Health is also conducting
individual and group counseling for youth who have been
identified through their treatment plan as requiring
counseling. In addition, we have the Voice and Motion Players,
which is a private vendor that goes out and uses innovative
approaches to working with youth in dealing with substance
abuse and other related issues.
We have also hired a rehabilitation specialist, who
formerly worked in the SAFE program to assist us in providing
counseling and treatment.
I would also say that we have a cannabis youth treatment
service module in preparation for a more intensive substance
abuse treatment program. Those children who have, through their
treatment plan, as being identified as having severe substance
abuse addiction issues are, of course, placed in residential
treatment facilities, so they get more specialized treatment.
Senator DeWine. You say there are children who are placed
in residential treatment facilities.
Ms. Alexander. That is correct. Who, through their
individualized service plan, have been identified as having
overriding substance abuse issues that require more intensive
treatment. They are placed in residential treatment.
Senator DeWine. How many would be placed there? Do you have
any idea?
Ms. Alexander. I do not have those specific numbers, but I
would be happy to supplement the record with that information.
Senator DeWine. Would you do that for me?
Ms. Alexander. Yes, I would.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu has some questions. Go
ahead.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator. I have several other
meetings this morning. I appreciate the chairman's courtesies.
I just wanted to state for the record that I will submit a
quite lengthy statement that I have for the record, and to
thank you all for your testimony, but just to be sure that we
are clear on some of the overall facts, we are dealing with
approximately, Mr. Bobb, 500 children, for a total of $69
million.
The paper reported, I think, that it was about $90,000 per
child, but our figures indicate that we are spending about
$145,000 per child. I am going to clarify and verify those
numbers. But whether it is $90,000 or $145,000 per child, I
think we are all agreed that we can do a much better job than
is being done.
I also think the findings of this this morning are that
since you have come on board, you have tried to put some things
in place, and actually have accomplished some new directions,
and have put in place some refocus and urgency about this
matter, which I want to commend you for, and thank you.
But clearly, the budget does not seem to be the problem. It
is either the management, or the structure, or the focus, or
the arrangements that seem to be, because we could send--these
children are young people. I know that they are offenders. I
know that some of them are violent offenders, and have been
criminal in their actions. But for $145,000 a year, we could
send them to maybe the finest facilities in the world.
So I just want to go on record before I have to leave to
say that I am personally committed to visit Oak Hill. I want to
work with you all in every way that I can to see that we can
find some immediate solutions to these situations, and to
really urge you all to continue to put in place the kind of
leadership team that is going to be necessary, which I think
you are on the right track.
But putting a strong leadership team in place, that has as
its focus finding the proper placement, and retraining, or
rehabilitation for each and every one of these young people,
and not be focused on the contractors, not be focused
necessarily on the facilities, although, Mr. Chairman, I think
it is always nice to have, obviously, a clean and safe
environment. I think sometimes we spend too much energy on
brick and mortar, and not enough on the teaching or the
ministering to of the individuals that we are trying to
rehabilitate.
So with that in mind, I am going to leave my further
questions for the record, but I just want to ask one question.
What is the date that we have to actually find a director for
Oak Hill, or are we looking for a director?
Mr. Bobb. Yes, Senator, we are--we have our executive
recruitment has taken place. We have identified a number of
candidates. We are in the process of now trying to entice those
candidates that come to the District for interviews, and we----
Senator Landrieu. Do we have a time line and a salary
range?
Mr. Bobb. I do not have--some of the salaries will have to
be negotiated, but----
Senator Landrieu. Approximately. A range of person that you
are looking for.
Mr. Bobb. Probably $125,000.
Senator Landrieu. A hundred to hundred-twenty-five thousand
for a director. What is our time frame for identifying this
person?
Mr. Bobb. May. We have already identified--we have a key
candidate that we are working with at the moment. We will have
that candidate, hopefully have that candidate on board by the
first of May----
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Mr. Bobb [continuing]. When, I might add, a comprehensive
report from our interim team is due on my desk.
Senator Landrieu. One other--I know you have probably
submitted this, but for the record, if you would state, how
many youth are in group homes, and how many group homes are
there in the District?
Mr. Beck. There are--we have 82 as of----
Senator Landrieu. Eighty-two----
Mr. Beck. There are 82 youth or shelter homes. We have 82
youth and 10 shelters, and 21 youth, and 3 group homes. Six in
specialized services. That is a total of 103 that are in either
group or shelter homes.
As of March 25, we had 177 children, youth, out in Oak
Hill. On that same date, we had 159 in residential placement,
either inside or outside of the District of Columbia.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Do we have an evaluation procedure
in place for evaluations of group homes? Have we ever had a
contract terminated in the last 12 months?
Ms. Alexander. We have actually started to kick off our
licensing process. We have established a licensing unit,
brought on board, two licensing monitors from the Department of
Health--I am sorry--from the Child and Family Services
Administration, to get their expertise, because they have just
gone through the licensing process of their foster and group
homes. So that process is under way.
Mr. Bobb. Senator, if I may just elaborate on that just for
a second. The District of Columbia does not license group
homes, although, the licensor procedures has been on the books
for about 2 years. When this team came on board, I visited a
number of the group homes unannounced. I convened a meeting
of--I brought in all of the group home operators. This team, we
have met with all of the group home operators. We have issued a
packet of information to them. They are now aware that those
group homes will go through a licensing procedure over the next
several months.
But it is more than just licensing. We are also putting in
place programs, in terms of how are those children, you know,
what are the programs for children who are in group homes? I
was not satisfied with at least one of the group homes that I
paid an unannounced visit to.
So we are tightening the reigns on the group homes, not on
the physical conditions of the group homes, but the
programmatic way in which the group home operators work with
children who are under their care, in addition.
Senator Landrieu. Well, thank you. Finally, Mr. Bobb, I
will just say, I really commend you for those unannounced
visits. I think that is very, very important. You will not hear
a peep out of this chairman or myself if you would decide to
close one or two of those group homes, because I am not for
giving people more time when they are not doing a good job. I
realize there is due process, and I understand that, but I also
understand these children's lives are--a year in a child's
life, or a month, or a short period of time can seem like
eternity for a child that is in the wrong place.
Just for the record, how much are we paying these group
home operators per day, per child? What is the per diem,
currently?
Mr. Bobb. It ranges, I think last--fiscal year 2003, we
spent about $6 million on the group homes.
Senator Landrieu. But what is their per diem rate,
approximately?
Mr. Bobb. It is anywhere between $115 to over $300.
Senator Landrieu. So we are paying $115 to $300 a day for
operators that are unlicensed, and basically, from what we can
tell, not doing very much, in terms of either rehabilitating,
or caring for, or nurturing, or protecting these children. Now,
something has to change immediately. I thank you for your
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I have to go to my other meeting, but I thank
you for the time you are giving to this important subject.
Senator DeWine. How many young people does YSA have under
your jurisdiction, total? Just recap those figures.
Ms. Alexander. It fluctuates on a daily basis.
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Ms. Alexander. Anywhere from 480 to 500.
Senator DeWine. Can you give me the rough breakdown of that
again, where they are?
Mr. Beck. We took--Senator DeWine, we took March 25 as the
date, and we had submitted----
Senator DeWine. That is a good date.
Mr. Beck. For the committed, we had 81 committed, 96
detained at Oak Hill on that day. So that is 177. On that same
day, we had----
Senator DeWine. Wait a minute now. So you have 177 at Oak
Hill.
Mr. Beck. On March 25. These are numbers that we provided
the committee.
Senator DeWine. Right. And they break down how at Oak Hill?
Mr. Beck. On that date, there were 81 committed, 77 of them
male, 4 of them female; 96 detained, 82 of them male, 14 of
them female.
Senator DeWine. All right.
Mr. Beck. There were 82 youth in 10 shelter facilities, 21
in 3 group homes, and 6 in specialized services facilities. So
that is a total of 103 that were in either group or shelter
homes.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Beck. Then we had a total of 159 children in
residential treatment centers. One-hundred-and-one of those
were out of State, out of the District placements, and 58 of
those were in District of Columbia facilities. Again, these
were numbers that we provided the committee.
Senator DeWine. The ones who are, let us take the ones who
are committed, the 81 who are committed at Oak Hill. That would
range from what to what, as far as the reasons?
Ms. Alexander. From the most serious offense to minor
offenses.
Senator DeWine. How minor?
Mr. Beck. It would be up to the court to determine whether
they would be committed. These are adjudicated youth, and it is
up to the Superior Court in sentencing as to whether or not
they are committed. So whatever a Superior Court judge
indicated or thought would be an appropriate offense that would
warrant commitment to Oak Hill.
Senator DeWine. I know, but you know--you can give us some
examples.
Ms. Alexander. Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Simple
assault. Theft.
Senator DeWine. The period of time committed to Oak Hill
will range from what to what?
Ms. Alexander. It varies. I am not sure of the average
length of stay. Indulge me for one second.
Senator DeWine. I do not care about the average--I want to
know what the range is.
Mr. Beck. Of time between----
Senator DeWine. Yes.
Mr. Beck. The average stay is between 45 days and 6 months.
In the District of Columbia, one of seven States where the age
of majority is 21, we can, in fact, we do have children that
stay committed to the care and custody of YSA up to their
twenty-first birthday.
So you are going to have ranging from 14 years old, up to
21. We had submitted to the committee responses about non-
violent offenses. The statistics are that for drug offenses, we
have 24 percent of our kids that are there for drug offenses,
36 percent for property crimes, 2 for driving offenses. That is
the UUV's. Other non-PINS. That is persons in need of
supervision, 2 percent. And then PINS, persons in need of
supervision, 2 percent. So 66 percent are there for non-
violent-type offenses.
Senator DeWine. The figures you gave us indicated that 18
percent of the youth committed to the YSA are basically
runaways, is that right?
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Beck. Yes. Runaways from group homes. We have not had
an escape since 2001.
Basically, a group home is a situation where the child is
returned to the community, so they are going to be going to
school. One of the criticisms has been, well, why can you not
make it more secure? Well, you are stepping them down from a
more secure facility and putting them in the community, so that
they can rehabilitate. They are going to be going to school, so
it is not terribly difficult for them to just keep walking
after school, or not going to school at all.
Senator DeWine. So they are in the community anyway.
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Beck. Right.
Senator DeWine. That is the next step.
Mr. Beck. A lot of them just go home.
Senator DeWine. Now, what about this category of, we have
another category of truants here.
Ms. Alexander. Well, the new----
Senator DeWine. What is this? The PINS' offenses?
Ms. Alexander. Those are children in need----
Senator DeWine. P-I-N-S.
Ms. Alexander. Children in need of supervision.
Senator DeWine. All right.
Ms. Alexander. When the new youth diagnostic center opens
in October, that population of youth will be serviced at that
facility, along with our detained youth, and that is children
who have not had a judicial determination that they have
committed an offense.
Senator DeWine. Okay. What percentage were foster care kids
that ran away?
Mr. Bobb. That was a figure that we were not able to
determine. Those are dual-jacket kids.
Senator DeWine. They were what?
Mr. Bobb. They are called dual-jacket kids.
Senator DeWine. What in the world does that mean?
Mr. Bobb. A child who has an abuse and neglect case
proceeding, and one that also has a charge, an offense----
Senator DeWine. Dual jacket.
Mr. Bobb. Yes. Dual jacket.
Ms. Alexander. They are in both systems. The Child Welfare
System, where they have either been adjudicated or a
determination has been made that they have been abused and
neglected, and through the process, they have also picked up a
juvenile charge.
Senator DeWine. They picked up a juvenile charge, because
of why?
Ms. Alexander. Because they have allegedly, if they were
detained, committed a criminal act.
Senator DeWine. Not just because they ran away. Because
they have run away from a foster home?
Ms. Alexander. No. I do not think that that would be a
basis. Though, I cannot say that with absolute certainty that a
child would be placed in a juvenile justice system because they
have run away from a group home.
Traditionally, these are children who have purportedly
committed a criminal act.
Senator DeWine. Well, that gets them into your PINS, P-I-N-
S. Does that not get them into that?
Ms. Alexander. That would get them into the system, but I
am not suggesting, nor do I believe that most of the kids who
have dual jackets are there because they are PINS.
Senator DeWine. But you have some of these kids detained at
Oak Hill who come under that category, do you not?
Ms. Alexander. We may, in fact, do.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Well, this has been very
enlightening. I think it shows how much work has to be done. I
intend to go look at Oak Hill myself as well. So Senator
Landrieu and I will both be out there.
Again, as Senator Landrieu said, the physical facilities
are one thing, but I think the other question is, what services
are being provided? Whether it is $490,000 or $140,000 is
interesting, but the real question is, what are the services
that are being provided?
Mr. Bobb, your comment about phasing out Oak Hill and going
out into the community is interesting, but I do not think that
anyone is suggesting that you are not going to need a secure
facility, and that you are not going to always have a certain
percentage of these juveniles who are hard core offenders, who
are going to need to be locked up. No one should read this
hearing, or what I have said, at least, as indicating other
than that.
I have been involved in the criminal justice system for my
entire career one way or the other. There are some hardcore
juvenile offenders. They have to be locked up. But there are
also some truants, and there are also some runaways. Part of
what we have learned over the years in the juvenile justice
system is to distinguish the two, and understand the difference
between the two, and to sort them out, and to treat them
differently, and to give the treatment that is appropriate for
the offense and for the offender. I think that is, to me, what
has been the biggest problem with Oak Hill, and the biggest
problem with what is happening in the District of Columbia.
Now, I understand, Mr. Bobb, that your testimony has been
that things are getting better under what you and the Mayor
have been doing. We appreciate that. I guess the question is
whether or not that can get better at Oak Hill, and whether or
not that is the facility where that can be done.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
So anyway, we look forward to working with you all. We
appreciate everyone's testimony. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bobb. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 30, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]