Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.  My name is R. Daniel Okonkwo and I am the Executive Director of DC Lawyers for Youth. Among our core values at DCLY is the belief that one of the best ways to improve the local juvenile justice system is to invest in youth early so that they do not become court-involved in the first place.  As a result, I am here today to support the Metropolitan Police Department’s goal of reducing the incidence of juvenile violent crime through early investment, provide additional context to the data on juvenile violent arrests reported in MPD’s February 2011 letter to this Committee, and make a few recommendations.

Trends in Juvenile Arrests

Using arrest data obtained from the Metropolitan Police Department, we conducted an analysis of juvenile arrest trends in the District.[1]  The data shows positive trends regarding juvenile crime that should always be included in any discussion of juvenile crime in the District, but that are unfortunately often ignored in favor of more “attention-grabbing” negative trends.   I implore both MPD and this Committee to get into the habit of publicly touting the positive trends together with the negative trends as such a practice will result in a better-informed public and more effective public policy. 

First and foremost, the data shows that overall juvenile arrests decreased approximately 9% between 2009 and 2010 and that adults (individuals over the age of 18) actually were arrested far more frequently than juveniles (individuals 10 to 17) in 2010.  Indeed, while juveniles made up approximately 8% of the District population, juveniles only comprised 7% of all arrests in the District in 2010.  In contrast, adults made up about 81% of the population but 93% of all arrests. 

Second, juvenile arrests for serious offenses (i.e., Part I offenses)[2] decreased almost 21% between 2007 and 2010. The decline in juvenile arrests for Part I offenses came primarily from large decreases in juvenile arrests for aggravated assault (down 28%), unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) (down 62%), and theft/larceny (down 7%).  In fact, juvenile arrests for serious Part I offenses decreased to the point that, in 2010, over 98% of District youth between the ages of 10 and 17 were NOT arrested for a serious Part I offense.  

Despite these positive trends, MPD is correct that the number of juvenile arrests in the aggregated category of violent offenses[3] has increased over the last few years.  However, as MPD stated in its February 14, 2011 letter to this Committee, “its important to look at the details.” When the data on juvenile arrests for violent offenses is broken down by offense, it becomes evident that the increase in juvenile arrests for violent offenses can be attributed almost exclusively to an increase in juvenile arrests for robbery.  Between 2007 and 2010, juvenile arrests for aggravated assault decreased 28%, and juvenile arrests for homicide and rape/sexual abuse remained relatively flat.  Meanwhile, however, juvenile arrests for robbery increased substantially (almost 48%) and now account for approximately 69% of all arrests of juveniles for violent offenses.  Thus, when MPD states that juvenile arrests for violent offenses have increased, it’s not that juveniles are increasingly being arrested for all types of violent offenses, but that a recent spike in juvenile arrests for robbery has overshadowed the decreases in juvenile arrests for all other violent juvenile offenses.

Providing the positive trends while correctly framing the negative trend as an increase in juvenile robbery arrests not an increase in juvenile violence generally is important for a two reasons.   First, the more we talk about juvenile violence without qualifying it within the proper context, the more the public becomes frightened of our District’s young people.   This is not fair to the almost 99% of District juveniles were not arrested for a violent offense last year and counterproductive to the extent that it deters people from engaging DC youth in positive relationships.  Second, by narrowing the issue to the true concerning trend – an increase in juvenile robbery arrests – we can better study the data, identify the root causes of the trend, and collaboratively create an early investment/intervention strategy that works to reverse this trend.[4] 

Before I close, there is one other trend that we have identified worth mentioning and worth additional study.  According to MPD arrest data, between 2007 and 2010, juvenile arrests for the “other misdemeanors”[5] arrest category increased 122%, from 555 arrests in 2007 to 1,233 arrests in 2010, and arrests in this category now account for 33% of all juvenile arrests.  The causes behind this increase in arrests for “other misdemeanor” offenses should be carefully studied to understand why so many youth are getting arrested for “other misdemeanors.” 

Closing Remarks:

We echo Chief Lanier’s belief that juvenile crime is a complex issues with a variety of root causes.   We hope to work with MPD, the Council, and community based service providers to create a comprehensive early investment strategy to reduce the number of youth arrests and improve outcomes for our District’s youth.  Our recommendations are listed below.  Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.  I am available to answer any questions this Committee may have.

Recommendations:

Include both positive and negative trends regarding juvenile arrest trends as well as bigger picture context when discussing and creating public policy;

1. Further analyze the MPD arrest data regarding juvenile arrests for robbery in an effort to determine root causes;
2. Engage the community in a collaborate early investment strategy to reduce juvenile robberies;
3. Further analyze the MPD arrest data regarding juvenile arrest for “other misdemeanors” in an effort to determine the nature of these arrests and their root causes;
4. Engage the community in the creation and implementation of the “JuvenileStat” program and ensure that this data provides both positive and negative trends as well as overall context;
   1. JuvenileStat should not be used to widen the net and pull additional youth into the juvenile justice system;
   2. While JuvenileStat should be reported publicly on a regular basis (ideally monthly), the confidentiality of youth should be strictly maintained;
   3. JuvenileStat data should be collected and analyzed with an eye to providing services to needy communities and improving front-end service provision and delivery.

[1] See “Juvenile Arrest Trends in the District of Columbia (2007-2010),” DCLY Issue Brief, January 2011 (attached); “Comparison of Juvenile, Young Adult, and Adult Arrests in the District of Columbia (2010),” DCLY Issue Brief, March 2011 (attached).

[2] Part I offenses include aggravated assault, arson, burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, UUV, and larceny/theft.

[3] Violent offenses include homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. 

[4] Please note, however, that early intervention should not mean increased incarceration and does not need to mean intervention through the judicial system.  The juvenile justice system should not function as a de facto safety net.  Moreover, we should not be widening the net of the juvenile justice system to include youth who are not a danger to the community but need substantial services from the District in order to become productive adults. 

[5] The “other misdemeanors” arrest category includes the following charges: cruelty to animals; false statement – unemployment/ social security; allowing dangerous dogs to go at large; false alarm of fire; false charges of unchastity; false report of a crime to the police; kindling bonfires; wild animal, fishing license regulation; harbor regulations; other misdemeanors (not categorized); playing games in the street; possession of the implements of crime; obscene material – possession; misprisons by officer or jail employee; riot; sale of tobacco to a minor; taking property without right; threats to do bodily harm; stalking; unlawful entry on property; manufacturing, possession of explosive; and placing explosives with the intent to injury/destroy.

DCLY Issue Brief March 2011 - Comparison of Juvenile, Young Adult, and Adult Arrests in the District of Columbia (2010)

Committee on Human Services, DYRS Oversight Hearing

Testimony of Daniel Okonkwo, Executive Director, DC Lawyers for Youth

Wednesday, February 26, 2011

Good morning Chairman Graham, thank you for the opportunity to give testimony before the Committee on Human Services. My name is Daniel Okonkwo and I am the Executive Director of DC Lawyers for Youth as well as a Ward 1 resident.  In our last appearance before your Committee, we related from DCLY’s perspective, where the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) has been successful; where we believe the agency can be strengthened in order to further improve its services to our young people; and finally to offer some suggestions to the Committee on where it might concentrate its oversight efforts. Today, however, I would like to express our support for the Lead Entities Services Coalition (LESC) Initiative and community-based services for youth, discuss how the District can more effectively invest in the juvenile justice system to insure better fiscal and programmatic outcomes, and address the need for stable leadership at DYRS.

Lead Entities Services Coalitions and Community-Based Care

We fully support the LESC Initiative. Data and research shows that treating young people in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety reduces recidivism, allows young people to successfully re-integrate into their communities, and ultimately makes our communities safer while saving the District money. It must be stated that this model has only been in place for less than 18 months. I believe that in that short time, while there is definitely room for improvement, this model has had some successes and should have the full support of this Committee and the resources to fully implement the model.

First, it is essential to public safety and to juvenile justice reform that DYRS, the Lead Entities, and service providers commit to more effective monitoring of outcomes. Part of that requires that DYRS have objective and uniform standards which are known and followed by all stakeholders in the LESC Initiative. This is one area that the current leadership at DYRS should focus on in order to insure that all stakeholders in the Lead Entities Initiative understand what is expected of them.

The Lead Entities and the community-based service providers serve the majority of youth committed to DYRS.  The perception of how well the Lead Entities and community-based service providers are performing is essentially how the performance of the District’s juvenile justice system will be judged. Therefore, it is critical that DYRS focus on creating a comprehensive and effective spectrum of community-based services.

In addition, DYRS and the Lead Entities need to improve the process of referral and accountability.  Two suggestions of how DYRS can accomplish this are 1) allowing the Lead Entities and their service providers earlier and/or more access to youth held in secure detention; 2) re-instating the monthly meetings that consisted of senior-level staff at DYRS, the Lead Entities, and the Trust and include a representative of the service provider community; and 3) creating and memorializing clear lines of responsibility among DYRS, the Lead Entities, and the service providers.

While there are certainly areas in which this model can be further built up and strengthened, this Committee and the Council should know that this model of community-based supervision of young people committed to the juvenile justice system is evidence based and the best way to successfully rehabilitate our young people. Further, is it also the most effective system from an programmatic and fiscal standpoint.

Fiscal and Budgetary Considerations

Given current budget climate, it is critical that the District invest its resources where it will see the most return.  It is our belief that investment in the prevention end of the juvenile justice spectrum will result in better outcomes for young people and better fiscal and safety outcomes for the District. To that end, it is much more fiscally responsible to invest in youth development before youth are committed to DYRS or even become court-involved.

Chairman Graham, I know that you are interested in substance abuse and treatment and its place in juvenile justice. How the District treats substance abuse issues is an example of how the District should examine its strategy on where to place its resources. Treating substance abuse on the back end through the juvenile justice system or other intense treatment areas is more expensive and less effective than investing in substance abuse prevention on the front end. Similarly, investing in community-based care and building the capacity of our communities to engage our young people will yield similar results. That is, instead of spending large amounts of money on residential treatment centers and secure facilities, we should be investing in community-based service providers and front-end services which are less costly and ultimately result in better outcomes.

Stable Leadership at DYRS

DYRS has gone without stable leadership for far too long and the performance of the agency has suffered as a result.  For example, the Lead Entities Service Coalition Initiative is just over 16 months old.  However, DYRS has not had permanent director in 13 months.  This turnover and uncertainty has hindered DYRS’ ability to work with the two Lead Entities to create a streamlined, effective process for referring youth to the Lead Entities and to build a robust, sustainable coalition of service providers.  As such, I urge this Committee to work with Mayor Gray to swiftly nominate and appoint Neil Stanley, DYRS’ current interim director and former General Counsel, as the permanent director for the agency.  Mr. Stanley will provide the much-needed stability, focus on process, and commitment to public safety, and depth of knowledge of DYRS and DC youth necessary to continue to improve the agency. 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify today and I am available to answer any questions you may have for me.

DCLY Issue Brief January 2011 - Juvenile Arrest Trends in the District of Columbia (2007 - 2010)

Over the coming months, DC Lawyers for Youth (“DCLY”) will be publishing a series of briefs exploring a variety of issues relating to DC's juvenile justice system.  The first issue brief in the series - Juvenile Arrest Trends in the District of Columbia (2007-2010) - analyzes Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) juvenile arrest data over the last four years and identifies five important trends in juvenile arrest data.  Click here to read about these trends.  

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to again testify before this Committee. I appear before this committee on the behalf of DC Lawyers for Youth.  I have testified before this Committee on numerous occasions since DCLY’s founding three years ago. I have consistently expressed support for the bold and forward looking reforms undertaken by DYRS in the last 5 years. In supporting these measures, I also recognize that there is still work to be done. DYRS and this Committee must work to continue the trajectory of reform as well as work to strengthen the oversight over service providers and community partners to insure that the reforms are not derailed by failing confidence in community-based services. 

 Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the path of reform DYRS has taken since taking over YSA.  Today, however, I want to talk about the path I and many of the advocates in the District and around the country believe DYRS should take in continuing juvenile justice system reform in D.C. 

First, the leadership at DYRS, the Mayor’s office, and this Committee must continue to engage with the service provider and advocacy community. I know that the Interim Director has met with various advocates and service providers and I would encourage him to continue to do so. The District’s model of community-based services necessitates that the leadership at DYRS maintain an open line of communication with the service providers and the advocate community. Further, the Interim Director and this Committee should invite parents, families, and youth to share their experiences in the juvenile justice system and take those experiences into account in making decisions on policy matters. 

Second, DYRS (and for that matter Court Social Services) should openly share data on programming, outcomes, and recidivism.  Recognizing, as you have Mr. Chairman, that public and political support for the reforms is important accurate data on recidivism and decision-making should necessarily be made available. It is important that recidivism data be accurately reported and that data must accurately reflect actual behavior of youth. To that end, I believe that including re-arrests in calculating recidivism rates is misleading to this committee and the public. Arrest data points to adult behavior, not youth behavior.  Including the fact that a young person is merely arrested in recidivism calculations assumes that a re-arrest is evidence of re-offending. It also wrongly infringes on the presumption of innocence. Further, service providers and DYRS must share accurate outcome data. It does a disservice to our youth and our community if programs that aren’t fulfilling their duties are allowed to continue to operate. 

Third, this Committee must continue to recognize that the juvenile justice system is not solely DYRS. We must take a holistic approach to oversight of the juvenile justice system in D.C. If we continue to scrutinize only DYRS, the system is overlooking the rehabilitation of over 2,000 youth in our city. We know anecdotally that judges are releasing youth to CSS supervision 4-5 times before committing them to DYRS. What does that say about the effectiveness of CSS? We cannot rely solely on DYRS to rehabilitate our youth. Any sincere, credible, and evidence-based examination of the District’s juvenile justice system must take into account the young people under CSS supervision not only those committed to DYRS. 

Mr. Chairman, you have said that without popular support, the reforms are going to fail. I believe that engaging service providers and advocates in policy considerations, sharing accurate data, and undertaking a holistic examination of the juvenile justice system are all necessary to garner that support for reform. That being said, however, the evidence, research, and results are clear that a rehabilitative system that provides community-based, evidence-based programming results in positive outcomes for committed youth and results in safer communities. I encourage the Council to continue to hold DYRS to the high standard of providing rehabilitative care rather than allowing the Agency to fall back on “get tough” policies which have been proven to be ineffective at treating juvenile offenders.   

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. 

DC Council Testimony in Support of Re-Examining Youth Placement

Testimony of E. Michelle Tupper, Board Member, DC Lawyers for Youth

Members of the Council, good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Tupper. I am an attorney with Dickstein Shapiro and a board member of the recently founded non-profit organization D.C. Lawyers for Youth (www.dcly.org), which consists of alumni of Georgetown University Law Center’s Juvenile Justice Clinic. I am here today to encourage the Council to reexamine the process by which D.C. youth end up at D.C. Jail and whether placement at the D.C. Jail serves the interests of the youth and of the communities to which they will return. As residents of the District and lawyers who have worked closely with District youth in many capacities, we urge the Council to adopt a new policy for youth charged as adults, one that takes into account the science now available to us regarding youth behavior, the potential rehabilitation of juveniles, and the need to examine each case on its own individual merits.

I. CURRENT YOUTH IN D.C. JAIL

A. Two Methods of Transfer

Current statutory law in the District of Columbia provides two means by which juveniles may be charged as adults and detained at the D.C. Jail.

First, under the "judicial transfer" method, certain juveniles over the age of fifteen are charged as adults only after a hearing in which a family court judge determines the child should face prosecution as an adult.1 However, we cannot find any recent data indicating that a judicial transfer hearing led to adult charges against the youth now held at the D.C. Jail.  

The second method allows the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to file a complaint directly in the adult criminal system against juveniles over the age of sixteen for certain crimes. This "direct filing" method places the youth immediately in the custody of the Department of Corrections ("DOC") without any hearing by a judge.

Direct filing gives prosecutors and only prosecutors the unilateral power to divert certain juveniles to the adult system without any hearing whatsoever. Moreover, once charged as an adult, current law does not allow for a reverse waiver hearing before the criminal judge. The result is that the juvenile is treated as an adult from the moment the prosecutor decides to charge him with a particular crime, without any hearing by any judicial officer or any examination of the juvenile being charged, and without any potential for the juvenile to be returned to the family court system. This places discretion entirely in the hands of the prosecutor—the very opposing counsel to the youth and likely an individual who has never spoken with nor evaluated him—without any opportunity for judicial review of the prosecutor’s decision.

Once discretion is removed from the judge and handed to the prosecutor it apparently disappears, as research shows that every youth who has been statutorily eligible for adult charges in the past eight years has in fact been charged as an adult. 

Applying such a blanket policy defeats the intent of federal lawmakers by failing to take into consideration any individual needs and prospects for rehabilitation of youthful offenders.

Furthermore, the distinctions in those charges are often a simple matter of wording, as our amicus brief explains in the case of Palacio v. United States, which is currently on appeal before the D.C. Court of Appeals. In that case, the substitution of one charge for another closely related charge, chosen by the prosecutor, resulted in a minor’s diversion to the adult criminal system without any judicial review. The youth ultimately was not convicted of the crime that resulted in his diversion to the adult system, but of a lesser included crime that could have and should have been heard by the Family Division.

B. Difference in Detention by Juvenile and Adult Systems

Juveniles charged as juveniles in D.C. who require secure detention enter the custody of the Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services ("DYRS"), which holds them at the Youth Services Center in D.C. There, they receive a range of services, including academic programs provided by D.C. Public Schools, 24-hour onsite health and medical services provided by contracted medical staff, counseling and other extensive mental health care provided by the D.C. Department of Mental Health. If a charged juvenile is then found "involved" and requires commitment to the District’s custody following conviction, DYRS places the child at Oak Hill Youth Center in nearby Laurel, Maryland, which is currently benefiting from major reform. There, convicted juveniles receive academic services through the Oak Hill Academy, operated by D.C. Public Schools, and the University of the District of Columbia provides pre-vocational and vocational programs. Importantly, youth who are not yet found involved are housed separately from those whose cases have already been adjudicated, highlighting the recognition of a presumption of innocence and a policy of not wanting to associate those not yet adjudicated delinquent with those who have been labeled as such.

Youth charged as adults, on the other hand, face a far different situation when detained at the D.C. Jail, which is simply not equipped to provide anything resembling the services provided to youth in the juvenile system, nor is the facility designed to provide juveniles with recreational or programmatic space.

Juveniles charged as adults and detained in adult facilities are much more vulnerable to abuse, sexual assault, suicide, and death. For this reason, federal law requires the segregation of juveniles from the adult population.3 The D.C. Jail, however, is not equipped for the juvenile population. Though the boys are housed in a separate wing, apart from the adults, the facility cannot accommodate the special needs of the juvenile population there. A recent visit to the D.C. Jail revealed boys in administrative segregation or protective custody on lock down for as many as 23.5 hours a day, during which time they generally just slept in their cells. Girls do not have a separate wing. The Washington Post recently reported that one female charged as an adult had been in D.C. Jail since August of 2006 and forced to spend 23.5 hours alone locked in her cell. 

Unlike juveniles in family court, once adult charges are brought, pre-trial youth are housed together with convicted youth at the D.C. Jail, even though many of those charged will never be convicted. Moreover, pre-trial youth often languish in the D.C. Jail for months – three months, on average, as reported by recent research. 

Most importantly, there is very little programming, educational services, or treatment at the D.C. Jail for this population of youth who are most in need of it. There is no indication that these teenagers receive any sort of regular education while detained at the D.C. Jail, nor are any mental health services available. You know of one program, Free Minds, and its success for the youth the book club is able to serve. But space limitations prevent Free Minds from hosting more than a dozen or so youth each week.

Thus, the youth charged with the most serious crimes in the District and those most in need of guidance receive the least amount of services available in this city—and then the city returns them to their community, after months of spending hours alone in their cells, and expects them to somehow re-integrate into society in a productive way. The current system sets these kids up for failure before they ever return home, and their communities suffer for it along with the youth.

And the numbers of youth in this situation are staggering. Just two years ago, D.C. Jail housed approximately a dozen youth charged as adults. As of May of this year, that number has nearly quadrupled, with 42 youth at the D.C. Jail. Only 9 of those youth were reported to be receiving any kind of education, let alone any sort of substance abuse counseling, mental health treatment, or vocational training. And already in 2007, the population of youth held at D.C. Jail is generally two to three times the size held there in 2006, despite data from the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") that juvenile crime has dropped in 2007.4 This density of youth in the D.C. Jail without any kind of regular education or other services is damaging to themselves, threatens the community to which they will eventually return, and inevitably strains the DOC charged with their custody.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

The absence of programs and services for youth at the D.C. Jail means the child will return to the community without education, without job training, and without mental health treatment, yet with increased anger and apathy and the stigma of adult incarceration. It is no wonder to us, then, that the recidivism rate for juveniles tried as adults is high. This is especially troubling in light of extensive research that youth are amenable to rehabilitation – a fact largely unknown to lawmakers at the time current laws were enacted. The treatment of a youth as an adult by the criminal justice system does not change the psychology of that juvenile. We now know the effectiveness of rehabilitation for juveniles and we owe it to our youth and to the communities in which the youth will live as adults to ensure that children charged with crime are provided with the opportunity to become a productive part of our society. Research by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency ("NCCD") further shows that the public strongly believes that rehabilitative services will help reduce crime, and the majority do not believe children under eighteen should be kept in adult facilities at all. Writing off our juveniles in adult detention and failing to provide services to them that are known to work is a grave disservice to our entire community.

To that end, we offer suggestions for the Council to consider as it addresses this crucial issue. 

First, all youth charged as adults need a hearing before a family court judge to determine his or her potential for rehabilitation. That decision must be made by a trained judicial officer and neutral party – not a biased prosecutor.

Second, reverse waiver must become an option for youth in the adult system so that a criminal judge is empowered to return a child to receive appropriate rehabilitative services if the judge finds the adult criminal system is the wrong place for that child.

Third, end the pre-trial detention of youth in the D.C. Jail. The research we provide you with today includes examples from other major metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, where youth charged as adults are nonetheless housed in juvenile facilities, apart from the population charged as juveniles.

Fourth, end the detention of convicted youth at the D.C. Jail. With reforms under way at Oak Hill, now is the time to explore this option and encourage the Bureau of Prisons to contract with DYRS and provide a separate place for youth charged as adults to have the opportunity to complete an education and receive other basic services appropriate for their age group.

Finally, data needs to be collected and analyzed on an ongoing basis for youth tried and sentenced as adults.

The current process of charging youth as adults without judicial review and then detaining them without providing necessary services has eliminated any possible rehabilitation for many District teenagers

– rehabilitation we have come to know works since these laws were passed. Instead, the system sends these youth back to their communities in a significantly worse position than at the time of their arrest. Investing in programs and legal reforms now will save tax dollars in the long run and will serve the youth population, the Department of Corrections, and the public, which greatly supports these changes and to which these young people will return.

I am happy to address any questions of the Council or be of additional service. Please feel free to contact me at tupperm@dcly.org or 202-420-3292. Thank you for your time.

DC Council Testimony in Opposition to Juvenile Auto Theft Prevention Act of 2008

Testimony of E. Michelle Tupper, Board Member, DC Lawyers for Youth

Members of the Council, good morning.

My name is Michelle Tupper.  I am a board member of D.C. Lawyers for Youth and an attorney with Dickstein Shapiro in the District of Columbia.  I am here today to express concern regarding proposed Bill 17-710, “Juvenile Auto Theft Prevention Act of 2008,” which mandates “sentences” for Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle (“UUV”) adjudications.  I urge the Council not to eliminate judicial discretion through this bill but to instead allow the juvenile court judges, as charged under the D.C. Code, to make the individual determinations of what will best rehabilitate a juvenile offender.[1]

  I.          The Juvenile Justice System Is Rehabilitative, Not Punitive

The juvenile justice system is not a miniature adult criminal system.[2] The purpose of the juvenile justice system in the District of Columbia is to rehabilitate, not punish, in order to “creat[e] productive citizens and to recognize that rehabilitation of children is inextricably connected to the well-being and strength of their families.”  D.C. Code § 16-2301.02(5).  As specified in the D.C. Code, juvenile court judges are to address the needs of juveniles in delinquency court by, among other things:

Ensuring due process;

• Promoting youth development and preventing delinquency through early  intervention, diversion, and community-based alternatives;
• Preserving and strengthening families whenever possible and removing a child from the custody of the child's parents, guardian, or other custodian only when in the child's best interests or when necessary for the safety and protection of the public;
• Taking into consideration an adjudicated delinquent’s age, education, mental and physical condition, background, and all other relevant factors;
• Placing a premium on the rehabilitation of children with the goal of creating productive citizens and recognizing that rehabilitation of children is inextricably connected to the well-being and strength of their families;
• Serving children in their own neighborhood and communities whenever possible;
• Holding the government accountable for the provision of reasonable    rehabilitative services;
• Providing for the safety of the public; and
• Achieving these goals in the least restrictive settings necessary, with a preference at all times for the preservation of the family and the integration of parental, guardian, or custodial accountability and participation in treatment and counseling programs.

D.C. Code § 16-2301.02.  In other words, juvenile court judges are charged with focusing on rehabilitation and not punishment of a child in the juvenile justice system and to do so in the least restrictive environment possible, including the child’s family and community whenever possible.  Most states share DC’s focus on rehabilitation, which is prospective in nature and seeks what is in the best interests of the juvenile offender with the understanding that those goals often coincide with the community’s long-term interests.[3]  This proposed bill counters that philosophy and the very basis of our juvenile justice system by mandating specific punishments – not rehabilitative measures – even when doing so may not be in the best interest of the child to achieve rehabilitation.[4]  

II.        Juvenile Court Judges Have Discretion to Authorize These Measures

 Judges already have discretion to do all that is necessary to achieve rehabilitation of a juvenile, regardless of the crime, including what is required under this bill.[5]   In our current system, the determining factor in disposition of a child or pre-trial detention of a child is not the crime charged but the child’s individual circumstances.  The D.C. Code enumerates the factors for the judge to consider when determining a juvenile’s pre-trial detention or an adjudicated juvenile’s post-trial disposition.  See D.C. Code § 16-2310. Whether a misdemeanor, drug offense, UUV charge, or even violent offense, the juvenile court judge may already do what is mandated by Bill 17-710 for specific UUV charges.  In fact, the judge may now even do more than this bill requires if the judge finds it necessary to achieve rehabilitation of the child and to promote public safety. Although the gravity of an offense may of course indicate a greater need for treatment, no necessary relationship exists between the nature of the offense and the need for or duration of treatment.

Bill 17-710 eliminates the discretion of juvenile court judges by mandating “sentences” related to UUV adjudications, driver or passenger,[6] and inadvertently diminishes the rehabilitative goal of the juvenile system.  Under this bill, the judge does not look to the individual offender but to the crime charged and doles out the prescribed  punishment regardless of how that may achieve the juvenile’s rehabilitation.  And this particular punishment could be counterproductive to rehabilitation.  If a child faces a mandatory requirement of 500 hours of community service, then that may take away from other services or activities that the judge would find more useful and order at disposition, such as counseling, drug treatment, other supervision, or academic tutoring. 

What’s more, there is no guarantee that these 500 community service hours would serve any rehabilitative goal nor is there a guarantee that the city can provide 500 meaningful community service hours that would play a positive role in rehabilitation.  It is just as likely that this community service, which many youths will view as strict punishment, will only contribute to a juvenile’s resentment for the system and lead to more delinquent behavior.  Currently, a judge has discretion to balance the amount of community service or suspension of driving privileges with other needs that the judge determines must also be addressed.  See D.C. Code § 16-2320(a).

Likewise, the suspension of a license may not serve the rehabilitation of a child but could mean the loss of a juvenile’s job where transportation is necessary, or an inability for the juvenile to assist in family responsibilities – any array of possibilities.  The judge can delay the acquisition of a learner’s permit or license where necessary but to require it could conflict with the very stated goals of the juvenile justice system.  Indeed, Bill 17-710, which mandates at least 500 hours of community service, perhaps considerably more for a second offense, but then eliminates what might be many family’s only method of getting the juvenile to the designated community service site, could pose a significant burden for many families, especially those where the juvenile’s parents or caretakers are away at work during the day.   

These are only a few of a myriad of considerations DC’s family court judges currently have at their disposal.  By taking away a judge’s discretion to determine what is necessary for rehabilitation of a juvenile adjudicated delinquent, mandated punishments such as these may commonly be given that are neither in the best interests of the individual offender or this city. By permitting the bill to go forward, the Council opens the door for other prescribed punishments – focusing on the charge and not the child – and threatens the very role of the judge in juvenile proceedings.

III.       Current Trends In Juvenile Crime Do Not Warrant These Measures  

It is also crucial to note that there is zero indication that this measure is necessary at this time.  The Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services (“DYRS”) is making great strides in building a system that adequately addresses juvenile delinquency issues in the District by focusing on  rehabilitation and other measures – so much so that the Department was recently recognized for its efforts in being named one of the top 50 programs in the Innovations in American Government Awards Competition, as well as being awarded the Annie E. Casey Innovations Award in Children and Family System Reform.  In addition, DYRS has successfully collaborated with the probation unit, Court Social Services (“CSS”), which among other things has established a vocational liaison with the Department of Employment Services, special rehabilitative services for girls, and a unit for intensive supervision for serious and repeat offenders.  This bill fails to capture the benefits these services provide.  

Most importantly, trends in juvenile UUV arrests are down.  To illustrate, between 2003 and 2006, juvenile UUV arrests declined annually by 10%, 13% and 2%, respectively.[7]  Though 2007 UUV arrests showed a slight annual 5% increase, 2008 has again followed the general downward trend, as juvenile UUV arrests through the end of May are 15% lower than they were at this time last year.

In short, the efforts of DYRS and the juvenile court judges are succeeding.  Nothing calls for the punitive measures demanded by this bill that would undermine the very basis of the juvenile justice system in the District.  To mandate certain punishments for any crime opens the door to undoing the positive accomplishments thus far and permanently altering the nature of the system by requiring other punishments for other crimes.  The purpose of the system is to look at the juvenile’s circumstances and provide services to “place a premium on the rehabilitation of children with the goal of creating productive citizens and to recognize that rehabilitation of children is inextricably connected to the well-being and strength of their families.”  D.C. Code § 16-2301.02(5).  By mandating punishments without any examination of the juvenile’s need for rehabilitative services contradicts the stated purpose of the system and threatens to undermine the successful efforts of DYRS to fully rehabilitate a juvenile and continue the downward trend in juvenile crime.  

[1] The D.C. Code establishes the following goals for delinquency cases in the family court at § 16-2301.02 as follows:  

(1) To provide due process through which juveniles and all other interested parties are assured fair hearings, during which applicable constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced;  

(2) To promote youth development and prevent delinquency through early intervention, diversion, and community-based alternatives;

(3) To preserve and strengthen families whenever possible and to remove a child from the custody of the child's parents, guardian, or other custodian only when it is determined by the appropriate authority to be in the child's best interests or when necessary for the safety and protection of the public;

(4) To hold a child found to be delinquent accountable for his or her actions, taking into consideration the child's age, education, mental and physical condition, background, and all other relevant factors;

(5) To place a premium on the rehabilitation of children with the goal of creating productive citizens and to recognize that rehabilitation of children is inextricably connected to the well-being and strength of their families;  

(6) To serve children in their own neighborhood and communities whenever possible;  

(7) To hold the government accountable for the provision of reasonable rehabilitative services;

(8) To provide for the safety of the public; and

(9) To achieve the foregoing goals in the least restrictive settings necessary, with a preference at all times for the preservation of the family and the integration of parental, guardian, or custodial accountability and participation in treatment and counseling programs.

[2] See D.C. Code § 16-2318 (stating that juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions and are not to impose civil disabilities that ordinarily result from adult criminal convictions). 

[3]  See, e.g., Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-227 (stating that the “welfare of the child and the family” is a paramount concern of the Commonwealth), In re Thomas J., 752 A.2d 699 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (stating that the overriding goal of Maryland’s juvenile statutory scheme is to rehabilitate and treat delinquent juveniles so that they become useful and productive members of society).

[4]  The Council has also previously recognized that it “shall be the policy of the District of Columbia that with respect to these juveniles the District of Columbia shall be guided by the assumption that juveniles who previously have had little or no contact with the juvenile justice system and who do not represent a danger to the public safety may benefit from an alternative to adjudication that is noncriminal, reformative and protective in nature. . . . Accordingly, the District of Columbia recognizes the appropriateness of alternatives to adjudication, which may include diversion programs and services, for certain juveniles who are in need of supervision or who are arrested for certain nonviolent offenses.”  D.C. Code § 16-2305.01.

[5]  Maryland and Virginia also give juvenile court judges wide discretion. See, e.g., Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-227 (stating that “the judge [of the juvenile court] shall possess all necessary and incidental powers and authority, whether legal or equitable in their nature”); Md. Code Ann. § 3-8A-02 (giving the juvenile court judge the freedom to balance a wide range of factors in juvenile dispositional proceedings including “the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of [the child and] . . . to provide for a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation consistent with the child's best interests”).

[6]  The charge of UUV in the District of Columbia does not differentiate between driver and passenger, though in certain circumstances the distinction may be a factor in the judge’s determination of culpability and subsequent appropriate rehabilitative services.

 [7]  Metropolitan Police Department, Washington D.C.  Criminal Justice Information System Arrest Data for All UUV Related Charges from Calendar Year 2003 through 6/17/08.

DC Council Testimony in Opposition to Parental Responsibility and Youth Safety Act of 2007

Testimony of Daniel Okonkwo, Board Member, DC Lawyers for Youth

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee:

My name is Daniel Okonkwo, I am here today on behalf of the members of a new organization called DC Lawyers for Youth, an organization founded and staffed by alumni of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Juvenile Justice Clinic. Let me start by stating that we absolutely support measures to keep our youth safe and that make it less likely that they will become victims of crime. However, the current proposed legislation, does not take a collaborative approach to solving the problems of ensuring the safety of D.C.’s youth. The proposed Parental Responsibility and Youth Safety Act of 2007, well-intentioned though it may be, is a punitive rather than supportive measure, a quick-fix rather than a long-term sustainable solution and we owe it to our youth and D.C.’s parents to engage in a more collaborative process before enacting legislation that redefines neglect.

First, the available data does not support the effectiveness of either the presumption of neglect or a 10 PM curfew at safeguarding our youth. This proposed legislation is not likely to address the victimization of juveniles 13 and under as the peak hours for juvenile victimization occur before 10 PM. In fact, the peak hour for violent crimes against youth ages 12 to 14 is around 3 PM. Furthermore, the majority of violent crime dangers to juveniles occur in places and at hours that are not addressed by the proposed legislation.

Second, the available data does not support the effectiveness of either the presumption of neglect or a 10 PM curfew at reducing the crimes committed by juveniles. Available data shows that violent crimes committed by youth offenders peaks at 3 PM during school days and 8 PM during non-school days. Additionally, data from the Metropolitan Police Department shows that 94 percent of all arrests and 82 percent of violent arrests were committed by adults. Therefore, what is essentially a 10 PM curfew with the added burden of the possibility of a neglect investigation against parents will not effectively curtail juvenile offenders.

Third, this proposed Act is not a comprehensive, holistic approach to the problems of reducing juvenile offenses or victimization. The District should utilize other alternatives to the punitive approach taken by this Act to ensure the protection and supervision of D.C.’s children and youth. One area of need is that parents need a safe place to send their children while they are at work. Therefore, the city should focus on keeping recreation centers—which provide a safe, supervised and most likely air-conditioned place for kids—open later at night. It should invest in more youth programs, and improve employment opportunities for youth.

Finally, the Council should not rush to amend the law. Every summer the District finds youth crime an emergency and appears to rush to enact new legislation and emergency measures. It is troubling to us, however, that the District does not seem to have the same community programs, the District takes its time to evaluate the available resources and how best to spend them rather than enacting emergency measures or fast-tracking amendments to existing law. It appears that the District treats its youth like adults when it is convenient, yet does not afford them the same consideration or respect when it regards their individual liberties. The safety of our children is no doubt of paramount importance; however, punitive measures such as the proposed Act will not effectively address this problem.

Thank you very much for your time.

DYRS Oversight Testimony in Support of Juvenile Justice Reform

Testimony of Eduardo R. Ferrer, Executive Director, DC Lawyers for Youth

My name is Eduardo Ferrer. I am an attorney with Howrey LLP and the Executive Director of DC Lawyers for Youth, a non-profit organization whose mission it is to improve the District’s juvenile justice system. I am here today to explain why these reforms are necessary in order to create a juvenile justice system that both fosters youth development and improves public safety, to express our support for the reforms currently underway at the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, and to urge this Committee to continue to support these reform efforts.

As this Committee well knows, DYRS is charged with the incredible challenge of safely reconnecting court-involved youth to the community in a city where a great number of the law-abiding youth feels disconnected or forgotten. This mission involves two very closely-related responsibilities. First, from a youth development perspective, DYRS is tasked with providing court-involved youth the opportunity to become more productive citizens. Second, from a public safety perspective, DYRS is tasked with devising a way to lower the rates at which court-involved youth re-offend. The reforms that DYRS has begun to implement – in particular, the creation of a community-based continuum of care – are essential to effectively fulfilling these twin responsibilities of rehabilitation and recidivism reduction.

I think it is important here to ask two interrelated questions. First, why are these current reform efforts necessary? And, second, why should we expect these reform efforts to be effective?

Reform is necessary because D.C.’s approach to the treatment of court-involved youth under past leadership – an ineffective punitive correctional model that treated youth as small adults – was based, in large part, on false premises. Specifically, this past policy, along with many other aspects of our city’s current juvenile justice system, came chiefly from a tough-on-crime mentality that arose in the 1990’s out of the myth of the imminent emergence of a teen "superpredator," the fear that juvenile crime was on the rise despite all evidence to the contrary, and the high-profile nature of a few exceptional cases of juvenile crime.

And this is exactly what DYRS has begun doing. Since January 2005, DYRS has instituted a number of reforms that restore the focus of the treatment of court-involved youth to rehabilitation and recidivism reduction as opposed to merely punishment. Importantly, these reforms are not novel, untested theories unilaterally imposed by a person or organization with a political agenda. Instead, these reforms are based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Juvenile Justice & Public Safety, a working group comprised of a diverse group of community members and stakeholders in the juvenile justice system that spent months researching and deliberating the best practices of other jurisdictions before issuing its suggestions for reform.

I would like to highlight one particular reform effort that is particularly indicative of DYRS’s commitment to research-tested policies for improving rehabilitation and reducing recidivism – the creation of its community-based continuum of care. Prior to 2005, youth stayed an average of just over 60 days at Oak Hill, irrespective of the seriousness of the offense.

Yet the superpredator never materialized, the rate of juvenile violent crime continues to decrease, and the high-profile exceptional cases of juvenile crime remain just that – sensationalized outliers to the norm. As a result, reform is necessary not only to return the focus of D.C.’s approach to the treatment of court-involved youth to rehabilitation, but also to rid the system of the false premises on which it came to be based and instead moor its policies on research, data, and best-practices.  However, under the current reform efforts, youth who are convicted of more serious offenses stay at Oak Hill between nine months and one year. In other words, DYRS is confining youth with serious offenses – those typically most in need of services and most at risk for re-offending – for longer periods of time in order to more effectively work with them. The effect is four-fold. First, it improves D.C.’s short-term public safety by keeping those most likely to re-offend under intense supervision. Second, it improves D.C.’s long-term public safety by improving the recidivism rate of the offenders. Third, it allows DYRS to focus resources on working with the most serious and chronic youthful offenders. And fourth, it saves money because youth who do not pose a serious risk to public safety are now being served in less costly, more effective community-based alternatives to incarceration. This continuum of care approach has not only been proven to work in other jurisdictions, but has been endorsed by a host of research-focused non-profits and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Palacio v. United States

DCLY recently filed its first amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a man who had been tried and convicted as an adult while he was 16 years old. Under D.C. law, juvenile offenders may be tried as adults if they are charged with certain crimes listed by statute. When the prosecutors overcharged this teenager with assault with intent to murder, the youth was automatically transferred to the adult criminal justice system from the more rehabilitation-focused Family Court. Although he was eventually convicted of a lesser charge, which normally would have been brought through the juvenile justice system, he has spent the past nine years in an adult correctional facility. Hopefully, through this and future amicus efforts, DCLY can educate the court on the importance of letting experienced Family Court judges, and not prosecutors, decide which children should be tried as adults.

DC Council Testimony in Opposition to 2007 Curfew Bill

Daniel Okonkwo appeared on behalf of DCLY before the DC Council to deliver public testimony against the Parental Responsibility and Youth Safety Act of 2007, which attempted to impose an across-the-board curfew on children as an emergency measure.  As Okonkwo stated, the curfew was an ineffective, band-aid solution to a more endemic problem--the lack of constructive activities for children in the evening and nighttime hours.  The bill ultimately did not muster enough votes for the curfew to go into effect.