Newsroom: Today's Headlines

Teens and Young Adults are not Mosquitoes

September 2, 2010
By Eric Fidler

If you're under 25, you're not quite welcome in Chinatown. A new "Mosquito" device at the street level of the Metro entrance at 7th & H Streets in Chinatown is emitting shrill noise at 18 KHz, a high frequency that only young people can hear.

Similar devices have been installed in Britain with the same purpose of discouraging young people from congregating outside shops. According to Councilmember Jack Evans, the founder of the Gallery Place development had the device installed on his company's Gallery Place building.

These devices are wrong and most likely illegal as well.

This device was placed at a popular Metro entrance and just a few feet from a popular bus stop. Toddlers, teenagers, and young adults waiting for the bus or emerging from the Metro will now have to endure a shrill screech purposely aimed at annoying them and driving them away. WMATA's Lisa Farbstein voiced concerns about this to the Post.

Though I too am concerned about the incivility and criminal behavior that occurs in Chinatown, police supervision is the proper response. Though I'm 25 now, as a teenager I strongly resented our society's habit of treating young people as criminals and nuisances.

Before the age of suburban development and private shopping mall, cities always included grand public spaces for relaxation and socializing. Sometimes these spaces were formal, grassy parks and sometimes these places were paved plazas like the piazzas in Italy.

Unlike private shopping malls, which serve as the de facto gathering places in most suburbs, public streets, squares, and parks in cities are by their virtue open to the public. With the bright lights, movie theaters, restaurants, and ample seating space on the steps of the museum, Chinatown is a unique attraction for nightlife of all ages. The fact that it sits atop three Metro lines makes it accessible and a convenient meeting place for people coming from all over the city.

Criminal behavior and ill-behaved teenagers do reduce the enjoyment of the space for everyone else, including the vast majority of well-behaved teenagers. This must be addressed through police patrols; Chinatown's popularity and importance warrants a continuous MPD presence the way the NYPD constantly patrols Times Square.

Even still, public spaces by definition are open to the public and must remain that way. Part of the charm of Chinatown is that it is unpredictable and boisterous. Its liveliness, let's remember, is largely owed to the liveliness of excited, but law-abiding, youth.

Just as teens skateboarded in Silver Spring's plaza because they had no better place, if young people are hanging out in Gallery Place, the better approach would be to give them a better place to go that meets their needs instead of just trying to annoy them away somewhere else.

More importantly, this device probably violates the law.

The DC Human Rights Act makes it illegal "to deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations." (Our emphasis)

Unequal treatment is illegal if it is "wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual." (Our emphasis)

Whoever installed this device clearly did so with the intention of driving away young people who have an equal right to be at the Metro entrance. The device's manufacturer doesn't mask the age-discrimination motivation of the Mosquito and even markets it as "a simple, safe and benign way to disperse crowds of anti-social youth." There's no explanation as to how the device knows who is "anti-social" and who isn't. Few people would describe a toddler or infant as "anti-social", but the device doesn't care for such nuance.

The ethical problem with the device is clear: it purposely aims to annoy and deny equal use of public accommodations to law-abiding people solely on account of their age. All insidious forms of discrimination derive from desire to withhold one's goodwill from a person for characteristics that don't merit distinction.

Several papers are reporting the installation, but few are addressing the civil rights aspect of it. Young people are equally entitled to use these public places lawfully and social interaction in the public sphere is a key part of urban life, even if it occasionally gets rowdy. Police patrols are a more effective means of maintaining order in Chinatown as they can address activities that are actually illegal.

The developer probably doesn't care much for the ethics of the matter, but the DC Human Rights Act makes its use illegal. An investigation by the city's Office of Human Rights is a call the developer will hear loudly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Peaceoholics, Lots of Money, Little Oversight

September 2, 2010

How Adrian Fenty's favorite non-profit worked the system in D.C.

By Rend Smith and Jason Cherkis

If there’s been a constant thread through Mayor Adrian Fenty’s term in office, it’s a mania for measuring performance with standards and statistics. From the Metropolitan Police Department to D.C. Public Schools to the city’s flock of social workers, every facet of city government is—in Fenty’s narrative, at least—subjected to rigorous evaluation. If the stats don’t look good, there’s hell to pay.

Every facet, that is, except one. When it comes to Peaceoholics, the Ward 8-based non-profit organization founded by ex-offenders that works with at-risk kids, the mayor simply goes on faith. Fenty has appeared at Peaceoholics’ go-go shows-turned-campaign rallies, praised them effusively to reporters, and talked them up before voters at mayoral debates. “I’ve met the kids, I mean, I don’t need any statistics,” Fenty told one community activist last month.

Now Fenty’s dogged support of the group, which says its work on the streets quashing gang beefs that would otherwise return D.C. to its days as the nation’s “murder capital,” is becoming one of the great mysteries of his struggling re-election campaign. In the past, no one in the Wilson Building questioned the group’s willingness and dedication to take on some of the city’s most troubled kids and entrenched gang warfare. But a review of contracts and tax documents detailing money Peaceoholics has gotten from the District during Fenty’s administration, as well as interviews with former Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services staffers, suggests the group may not be delivering the sustained results Fenty usually demands. Money made its way to Peaceoholics outside the usual channels, and without meaningful government oversight or detailed explanations of what services the District wants. Add in the very public ways the group’s co-founder, Ron Moten, has boosted Fenty’s re-election campaign, and the situation looks downright strange.

Peaceoholics has received more than $10 million in grants and loans since 2005 through DYRS, MPD, DS, D.C. Council earmarks, and other agencies—most of the money coming from no-bid contracts. The payments started before Fenty took office. But during Fenty’s term, a steady trickle of cash became a flood. By 2007, tax records show, Peaceoholics was doing so well that its two highest-paid employees, Moten and director Jauhar Abraham, were making around $100,000 each. (No federal tax records are available after 2007.) In 2008 and 2009, DYRS alone paid the group about $1 million a year. In exchange, they worked with an average of just 22 kids per month, according to the group’s own records.

This year, copies of city contracts show Peaceoholics got $500,000 in federal cash through the District’s Justice Grants Administration, which doesn’t need council approval. The contract lists only broad categories that Peaceoholics planned to spend the money on: $99,000 for personnel; $16,830 for “fringe benefits”; $11,000 on travel; $4,500 for supplies; $7,000 for equipment. A full $251,000 was earmarked for “contracts/consultants,” with no further explanation in the document. Under “other,” they listed $110,170 in expenses.

A source familiar with dealings within DYRS says the grant was part of a larger plan: Fenty wanted Peaceoholics to receive $900,000 for the year: “$500,000 from JGA, and $400,000 from DYRS.” Last month, Washington City Paper reported Fenty was pushing DYRS and the D.C. Children & Youth Investment Corporation to find the other $400,000. Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells, who chairs the committee that oversees DYRS, says the administration dropped the effort once it became public.

Other years, money went to Peaceoholics without the group being named as the recipient. Documents obtained by the Fraternal Order of Police through a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to City Paper show that in 2008, at least $100,000 from the Metropolitan Police Department went to two projects, Reaching Out to Provide Enlightenment and the Ward 4 Petworth “Rebuild the Village” Project, for which Peaceoholics served as fiduciary agents. Documents pertaining to those contracts give only vague breakdowns of how the money was spent or what work it paid for. Fenty’s office didn’t respond to requests for clarification.

Public documents give little indication that the rigorous standards Fenty holds city agencies to applied to Peaceoholics. In 2007, for instance, the organization took in about $2.2 million, according to Internal Revenue Service records—all but $34,008 of it in government contributions. It spent more than $1 million on “consultants,” without any disclosure of what that covered; $21,000 on bank charges; and $36,000 on telephones. (Other money went to staff training, youth field trips, supplies and youth stipends.) That same year, Peaceoholics pledged in one of its own progress reports to “continue to strengthen internal processes and procedures” and “forge collaborative relationships” with other D.C. agencies and non-profits.

Moten says Peaceoholics is performing a valuable service, one that’s hard to measure using conventional stats: “We’re doing something most people can’t do.”

But Fenty’s unhesitating praise, apparent willingness to give the group anything it asks for, and the lack of effective oversight into Peaceoholics’ activities have been a problem. “I think a tremendous burden was placed on them, and there was no way they could have lived up to the expectation,” says Kenny Barnes, who runs ROOT Inc., a group that works with families of homicide victims and frequently interacts with Peaceoholics.

The controversies swirling around Peaceoholics—poor accounting of their activities and a refusal to play well with others—were evident even before Fenty won the 2006 election.

By then, their reputation was rising. Moten had proven himself as someone who could handle a press conference as well as a gang fight.

When the group helped organize a sitdown between then-Mayor Anthony Williams and Ballou Senior High School kids after a student was killed, The Washington Post was there. When they brokered a truce between two rival gangs, a Post reporter wrote it up. If a teen was killed in the city, Moten was always ready to share his wisdom.

The DYRS brass saw potential, one former official says. “They were activists in the field,” the official explains. “They always had kids around them. They always traveled with delinquent kids. They would provide us with good information.”

But according to several DYRS sources and another contractor familiar with Peaceoholics, the organization lacked the things resilient non-profits need. “They had zero infrastructure,” says the former official. “They didn’t have their own organization… Ultimately, I’d like them to stand on their own. But they just couldn’t.”

They needed a crash course on all the boring stuff every 501(c)(3) must do to succeed—grant writing, accountability, and staff development. So city officials encouraged Peaceoholics to work through its organizational issues with the national non-profit Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP), based in Harrisburg, Pa. Moten and Abraham initially agreed, and YAP helped Peaceoholics win a DYRS grant. Moten presented himself as a charismatic charmer with deep connections—the kind of guy YAP wanted to work with, says one former YAP staffer. But after the grant was awarded, the relationship quickly soured. “When we started working with them on the program, we realized the model wouldn’t work,” Moten says. “They didn’t really understand D.C.”

That wasn’t the issue, says the YAP staffer, noting that their collaboration never got past those initial meetings. “They wanted to kind of fly without strings,” the staffer says. “It was at the early stages that they sort of bailed on us. I never got any glimpse as to how they managed their money.”

After Fenty became mayor, Peaceoholics didn’t need to worry about that. Peaceoholics had something few non-profits had with Fenty: a history. Moten and Abraham say their relationship with the mayor grew out of a mutual respect. Like many on the D.C. Council, Fenty frequently called on them to assist in settling gang tensions in Ward 4 during his tenure.

But Abraham says he never lobbied Fenty for any no-bid contracts. “I never would have that conversation with the mayor,” he says. “It’s disrespectful.” He does admit their relationship is closer than most. When does he talk to Fenty? “Whenever I need to.” Moten says he and Fenty went to junior high together, but hadn’t known each other then, and still aren’t particularly close. “If we talk, we talk about stuff for the city... We’re not friends,” he says. “I’ve never been over to his house. He’s never been over to my house.”

Still, Fenty started pushing for the group to get funding, former DYRS staffers say, and Attorney General Peter Nickles joined in.

“They so much had the mayor’s ear and Peter’s ear,” recalls one former agency official. “Pressure went way up.” Top DYRS officials—including then-Director Vinny Schiraldi—resisted handing Peaceoholics easy money.

During one meeting, former staffers say Nickles ordered Schiraldi to give Peaceoholics a no-bid contract, saying the order came from Fenty. It had to be done. “[DYRS staffers] thought they were full of shit, that they were just political puffers—that they were getting a grant not because of their work, but because they were loud,” one former agency employee says. “They were wired to the Fenty administration.” (Nickles says the conversation “never happened” that way, and he “never advocated for a no-bid contract” for Peaceoholics.)

As the money piled up, the former DYRS officials say, Peaceoholics began to demand that they be responsible for fewer and fewer kids. The work they did was sloppy. Several sources who worked with them recall a curriculum for incarcerated youths filled with typos, and a life-skills program at a middle school that never actually materialized.

“Even though they have that street-level thing going, that can only take you so far,” says a District social worker. “You are dealing with kids with serious mental illness, and serious family issues—multiple layers of trauma. They can’t do the clinical stuff.”

A 2008 DYRS study showed only 40 percent of Peaceoholics’ kids completed their program, and 37 percent of their kids went on to commit more crimes. Asked about the report, Fenty says he is unfamiliar with it. “Most of our children are successful,” Moten says. “We don’t have specifics. I think we do [have specifics] because we’ve given them to people before. I’m sure we do.”

Moten adds: “In three-and-a-half years, nobody has been a victim of homicide or committed a homicide while they were in our program. I don’t know any other program that can say that.” Moten isn’t counting the defendants charged with murdering Shaw Middle School principal Brian Betts. All three had spent time at a Peaceoholics retreat.

Some of Moten’s work on another high-profile case, the South Capitol Street drive-by shootings that left four dead in March, isn’t going over so well. A campaign song Moten has produced for Fenty, “Don’t Leave Us, Fenty,” praises the mayor for his handling of the drive-by, and Peaceoholics have printed up memorial T-shirts to try to raise awareness of the incident.

But one victim’s mother isn’t impressed. “There’s typos on everything they do,” says Nardyne Jefferies, whose 16-year-old daugher Brishell Jones was killed in the drive-by. She says using the shooting for Fenty’s political purposes is “disrespectful” and “insensitive.”

Which only underscores how the blind devotion the mayor has shown Peaceoholics has sometimes led the group astray. If not for Moten’s involvement in the campaign, the organization might not have become the lightning rod it’s turned into this year. And former city officials think Peaceoholics might have done better with a little tough love. Without accountability, the group never had to improve its work.

“At some point, it switched from a sincere effort to help young people and it turned into a money grab,” explains one former DYRS staffer. “They never stopped being hustlers. They found a legal and more lucrative hustle. I believe when they started, they were absolutely sincere. But I do believe it turned into a hustle.”

Reforming D.C.’s Juvenile Justice System: The Critics vs. What Really Works

August 30, 2010

Editor’s Note: NAM contributor David Muhammad, who helped reform Washington, D.C.’s juvenile justice system over the past four years, discovered that when it comes to criminal justice issues, change is not always welcome. America is addicted to incarceration, Muhammad writes, and any attempt to make improvements is likely to stir up fierce resistance. That’s what happened in the nation’s capital, where the reforms he worked on contributed to lower recidivism, lower juvenile crime, and higher community placements for youth upon release. But he and his colleagues also came under fire after several high-profile murders by teenagers, and the Washington Post published numerous editorials implying that they were soft on crime.

On the cover of Parade magazine last year was an article by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia deploring America’s fixation with locking up as many people as possible. Just this summer, the cover of The Economist declared, “America locks up too many people.”

When even a senator from a red-leaning state like Virginia, or a publication as conservative at the Economist starts calling for prison reform, you know the system is seriously troubled. And what better place to start fixing what’s broken than the juvenile justice system in Washington, D.C., a city with a long, sad history of failing its youth? Yet the opposition my colleagues and I encountered — despite our many achievements — shows just how difficult it will be to end this country’s addiction to incarceration.

In the mid-2000s, D.C.’s juvenile justice system was in horrible shape, despite a 20-year court battle to improve conditions. Recidivism rates were astronomical. The notorious Oak Hill Youth Center, built in the 1960s to hold 180 juveniles, housed 250 instead. Education at the facility was a joke. The report of a court-appointed monitor described rats and roaches in cells and inmates urinating and defecating on themselves because guards wouldn’t allow them out to use the bathroom.

This was the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) that a new group of juvenile justice advocates and reformers inherited. We went to work right away to make radical and far-reaching transformations.

We closed that old, dilapidated facility and opened a state-of-the-art treatment center based on an interactive, personal approach — small residential settings, intense peer and professional counseling. Known as the Missouri Model, this approach was developed by the state of Missouri, which has the lowest rate of juvenile repeat offenders in the nation.

We kicked out the public school and hired the See Forever Foundation, a private organization that had been effective in running charter schools in D.C. Before long, we had instituted a series of educational improvements, including five innovative new vocational training programs, better student-teacher ratios and high-tech teaching aids like SMART boards in every classroom. The new education program, known as the Maya Angelou Academy, was so successful that today, the New Beginnings Youth Development Center (as Oak Hill’s replacement facility was renamed) attracts juvenile justice leaders from around the world looking for ideas and inspiration.

But it wasn’t enough to revamp how we dealt with young people while they were locked up. Once they were released back into the community, they needed better supervision and more services to make a successful transition and end the cycle of crime. We adopted several so-called “evidence-based practices”— methods of dealing with troubled juveniles that have stood up to rigorous evaluation by the federal government. One was Multisystemic Therapy, an intensive family- and community-based treatment program that focuses on the entire world of chronic and violent juvenile offenders —their homes and families, schools and teachers, neighborhoods and friends. Another was Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care — a cost-effective alternative to regular foster care that relies on trained foster families, therapists, and case managers to provide youth with the skills and structure the need to modify their behavior and reduce delinquency.

Then we added employment readiness programs and civic participation initiatives, and we significantly increased the amount and quality of the supervision ex-offenders receive. Probation officers and social workers saw their caseloads drop nearly in half, while the number of regular contacts with kids under their supervision jumped from one per month to six per month. Higher-risk youths began receiving daily monitoring.

These “reentry” reforms culminated with the launch of Regional Service Coalitions, a groundbreaking initiative that gave community organizations a greater role in providing services to former offenders and reduced the involvement of government bureaucracies. Larger nonprofits with proven track records created networks of community-based providers that helped young people reintegrate into their own neighborhoods so they would be less likely to re-offend.

Together these reforms were known as Positive Youth Development. Instead of punishing young offenders and focusing on their deficits, we established a system that sought to build on their strengths and assets.

Many juveniles suffering in the city’s old Oak Hill facility were not violent and were not threats to the community. Many were just waiting for a bed in a group to become available. But they would wait for many months in horrifying conditions, surrounded by older, higher-risk youths who served as their negative role models. Over time, they would become lost, too.

We succeeded in reducing the number of young people who were incarcerated, improving the educational outcomes, and reducing recidivism. Indeed, there is mounting evidence that the practices we established are far more effective and cost-efficient than the old corrections model.

But doing what works is also controversial. We were constantly accused by a small vocal group of “coddling criminals.” Critics continually looked for evidence that the reforms were failing, seizing on exceptional cases to “prove” their point. Though these cases sometimes had little to do with DYRS and were statistically insignificant, the critics tried to convince the public otherwise.

One of the most sensational and tragic stories involved three young men under the supervision of DYRS who were accused of the murder of a popular middle-school principal. Though all three had already spent more time incarcerated as juveniles than they would have in the adult system, critics argued that they should have remained locked up until their 21st birthdays (the longest sentence allowed by law). Though research shows that more prolonged incarceration would likely have made these youths even more hardened and violent, it’s also inarguable that if they had been locked up, that particular tragedy would not have occurred.

No question, that case deserved the attention it received. But the media’s other coverage of the agency sometimes verged on the bizarre. One example involved a teenager who had been committed to DYRS for relatively minor offenses, then turned his life around: he graduated from high school, got an internship on Capitol Hill, and went off to college. With financial assistance from DYRS, he had two very good semesters at a university in West Virginia. While home for the summer, he had a job and checked in frequently with his case manager. But one night in a park across the street from his house, the student and an acquaintance started exchanging insults —known as “playing the dozens.” In a tragic tale of easy access to firearms and the devaluing of life, the student was gunned down by the man whom he had known as his friend.

A few local pundits, apparently hell-bent on returning to the bad old days of juvenile justice in Washington, blamed DYRS for the murder. Instead of going to college, they said, the young man should have been locked up, where he would have been “safe.”

In a 2007 report entitled “Motivating Offenders to Change,” the Department of Justice looked at evidence-based practices and why they are not being widely utilized. The report lamented: “Criminal justice is one of the few fields that still tolerates quackery, and what is done in corrections would be grounds for malpractice in medicine.”

I leave Washington, D.C., happy and proud of the great work we did, though I am also concerned because there remains much work to do. But sometimes you only have the four- or eight-year cycle of a mayoral or gubernatorial administration to make lasting reforms.

I now move on to the Big Apple, teaming up again with the recently appointed commissioner of New York City’s Department of Probation, Vincent Schiraldi, the man who brought me to Washington. The reforms in New York will be much different but just as important: doing what works and what’s right so that the public is safer and those who have committed crimes get the accountability and rehabilitation they need.

(The writer is the outgoing Chief of Committed Services for the juvenile justice system in Washington, D.C. and the incoming Deputy Commissioner of Probation in New York City.)

Juvenile Justice Chief Must Pass Mayor's Test or Hit the Pavement

August 27, 2010

By: Freeman Klopott

If the newly appointed interim director of the District's troubled juvenile justice agency wants to become its permanent chief, he must show Mayor Adrian Fenty that he can strike a balance between keeping dangerous offenders behind bars and allowing young criminals back into the community for rehabilitation, Fenty told The Washington Examiner.

The mayor fired the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services previous interim director last month after at least 10 of the agency's wards had been accused of murder and at least six others had been killed this year. Fenty replaced Marc Schindler with Robert Hildum, who up until then headed the D.C. attorney general's public safety division.

"At times, we probably have not reviewed the cases as tightly and professionally and thoroughly as we should have," Fenty said Friday while meeting with The Examiner's editorial board. "That is why in making the permanent director move, we're not going to send someone to the council until we've got that perfect blend" of keeping the most dangerous juvenile criminals off the streets and allowing less dangerous offenders back into the community.

Fenty said Hildum was chosen because he believes he has the background and managerial skills to strike that balance.

Under Schindler's leadership and that of his predecessor Vincent Schiraldi, who left in January to take a job with New York City's justice system, DYRS focused on community placement, a system in which young offenders are placed in group homes under the care of organizations that teach them life skills. Critics of the program say DYRS was too quick to put sometimes dangerous criminals back on the streets. Proponents of the program say the failure was that of the community groups DYRS relied upon to rehabilitate the youth.

Hildum is in the process of reviewing all 900 juvenile cases to make sure the agency's wards have been placed according to his new standards, which lean more heavily toward locking kids up. He has 180 days from his July 19 appointment to prove he can strike the mayor's desired balance.

But if Fenty's not re-elected, the decision on keeping Hildum likely would be made by Fenty's top mayoral rival, D.C. Council Chairman Vince Gray. As a rule, Gray won't talk about whom he might keep from Fenty's administration.

During his meeting with The Examiner, however, Gray also said a balance has to be struck, although his balance tilted more on the side of rehabilitation than on keeping young offenders in jail.

Gray said he feared returning to a "punitive; nonproductive juvenile justice system" that taught kids to be better criminals rather than teaching them skills to succeed as citizens.



DYRS and Nickles Start Spinning Ward Escapes

August 17, 2010

The Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services was quick to spin The Washington Examiner’s story regarding two wards briefly escaping into an overcrowding issue.

The reason is simple. It’s clear from Attorney General Peter Nickles’ report on the troubled agency that he wants more secure facilities to house young criminals.The report recommended DYRS add 35 to 50 beds to house more delinquents. That means building or buying a new facility in a addition to New Beginnings’ 60 beds.

New Beginnings cost the public $42 million to build. To gather support for another such project, Nickles and his former deputy attorney general Robert Hildum, who now heads DYRS, will have to convince the public that the overcrowding has put it in danger, too. Two young criminals escaping while being shipped out the facility to reduce overcrowding presented the perfect opportunity.

The full quote from the agency’s spokesman Reggie Sanders, supports that conclusion (emphasis added):

“As to the population at New Beginnings this has been a source of concern for some time. The overcrowding is caused by youth who are awaiting placement at other facilities.  We are exploring every safe and reasonable option for alternate secure placement. Youth have been moved to other secure placements in the last few days but for security reasons we cannot discuss the specifics.”