[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
JUSTICE FOR ALL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-92
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-770 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
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 GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 28, 2005................................. 1
Statement of:
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland; and Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Minority
Whip, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Maryland................................................... 20
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.................................. 20
Hoyer, Hon. Steny H...................................... 34
Satterfield, Lee F., presiding judge, District of Columbia
Family Court; Eugene Hamilton, senior judge, District of
Columbia Superior Court; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of
police, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department; and Vincent Schiraldi, director, District of
Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services..................... 42
Hamilton, Eugene......................................... 58
Ramsey, Charles H........................................ 77
Satterfield, Lee F....................................... 42
Schiraldi, Vincent....................................... 83
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia:
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Prepared statement of Mr. Black.......................... 17
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 23
Hamilton, Eugene, senior judge, District of Columbia Superior
Court, prepared statement of............................... 60
Hoyer, Hon. Steny H., Minority Whip, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of. 36
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 12
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 111
Ramsey, Charles H., chief of police, District of Columbia
Metropolitan Police Department, prepared statement of...... 80
Satterfield, Lee F., presiding judge, District of Columbia
Family Court, prepared statement of........................ 45
Schiraldi, Vincent, director, District of Columbia Youth
Rehabilitation Services, prepared statement of............. 86
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 7
JUSTICE FOR ALL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM
----------
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Issa, Dent,
Waxman, Cummings, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger,
Higgins, and Norton.
Also present: Representative Cardin.
Staff present: Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; John Hunter,
counsel; Rob White, press secretary, Drew Crockett, deputy
director of communications; Victoria Proctor, senior
professional staff member; Shalley Kim, professional staff
member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Kristin Amerling, minority
general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority senior policy
advisor & communications director; Michelle Ash, minority chief
legislative counsel; Mark Stephenson, minority professional
staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Cecelia
Morton, minority officer manager; and Kim Trinca, minority
counsel.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``Justice for All: An
Examination of the D.C. Juvenile Justice System.'' This is a
continuation of the Government Reform Committee's oversight of
the city's juvenile justice system.
Earlier this year, Police Chief Charles Ramsey testified
before the committee that, in 2004, Metropolitan Police
Department officers arrested approximately 2,950 juveniles for
crimes ranging from homicide, robbery, and weapons violations,
to various misdemeanor offenses.
The District is the defendant in the Jerry M. class-action
lawsuit filed in 1985 by the D.C. Public Defender Services and
the American Civil Liberties Union. The complaint alleged that
the District failed to provide adequate care and rehabilitation
services to the committed youth at the Oak Hill Youth Center.
In July 1986, the parties entered into a Consent Decree,
and a monitor was appointed to assess the District's
compliance. Despite the existence of the Consent Decree, for
many years the city failed to address the atrocious conditions
at Oak Hill, allowing the committed youth to languish in an
overcrowded facility that was unsafe and unhealthy.
Oak Hill has become a symbol of a broken system. Too many
of the city's young people are finding themselves victims of
crime. Too many of the city's youth are committing crimes, many
of them violent. And too often, those who enter the city's care
are not getting rehabilitated.
After years of non-compliance and several million dollars
in fines, Mayor Anthony Williams' administration is continuing
its commitment to terminate the city's involvement in lengthy
court cases, as it has done for D.C. child welfare services in
the LaShawn case.
The District averted a complete court takeover when it
agreed to the appointment of an arbiter. In order to comply
with the terms of the Consent Decree, the city must perform a
top-to-bottom reorganization of the YSA, the Youth Services
Administration. Therefore, YSA was renamed the Youth
Rehabilitation Services [YRS], and elevated to cabinet-level
status.
A youth who is arrested in D.C. comes under the auspices of
the Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. Family Court, and
Youth Rehabilitation Services. Coordination among these
agencies is critical.
We hope this hearing will provide a forum to address
system-wide problems and review implementation of new
initiatives to improve operation of the city's juvenile justice
system. What I don't want to see is the District of Columbia
juvenile justice system function as a feeder to the adult penal
and correctional systems. Kids should not be sent to languish
in a chaotic system that places the public and the children in
danger.
The Post recently reported on the death of Marcel Merritt,
a 16-year-old who had been under the supervision of the
District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services. Marcel was
suspected of several killings and robberies, and had been
charged twice for gun possession.
Despite recommendations from Peaceoholics, a non-profit
group that had mentored him, to keep him at a detention center,
he was released to his relatives' care in August, and then
couldn't be located by District officials. The system simply
lost track of Marcel. The death of Marcel Merritt raises
serious concerns regarding the city's juvenile justice system.
I have written the District; I hope they can shed some light on
this incident.
On the upside, the Post ran an article in August that
praised Vincent Schiraldi, the new Director of the Youth
Rehabilitation Services. In January, the Mayor appointed Mr.
Schiraldi to lead the overhaul of YRS. The department has also
made great strides under his leadership, but further
improvements to the system are needed.
Today, we want to hear about the District's reform
strategies. We will not only hear from Mr. Schiraldi, but also
from Chief Ramsey, and Judge Satterfield, the presiding judge
of the District of Columbia Family Court, and Judge Hamilton,
senior judge of the District Superior Court and former chairman
of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and
Juvenile Justice Reform. I look forward to an informative
discussion.
The committee will also examine H.R. 316, a bill introduced
by Congressman Ben Cardin, which provides for the disposition
of Federal property located in Anne Arundel County, MD; a
portion of which is currently used by the District of Columbia
as the Oak Hill juvenile detention facility. I want to welcome
Congressman Cardin and Mr. Hoyer. Both will speak on this
proposal today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.002
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
important hearing to examine the District's juvenile justice
system, which for years has been plagued with problems. I know
that you are dedicated to finding ways to fix this system.
I believe that any effort to improve the juvenile justice
system must include a focus on preventing youth from entering
the system in the first place. I am pleased to hear that there
are new efforts in the District for early intervention,
prevention, and education. And I look forward to hearing more
about them today.
Also, it is imperative that any juvenile justice system
deal with what happens to juveniles who have been committed,
upon their release. After transitioning out of the system,
those children, all too often, are lost.
The District, as well as other jurisdictions, does not have
a good track record with providing a continuum of care for such
youth. Many times, juvenile offenders are released back into
the situation that led them to crime in the first place. We
need better training and education for juveniles while they are
in custody, and better opportunities and aftercare once they
are out.
Finally, we need to realize that children are different
from adults, even those children that commit crimes. They have
different needs and ways of being rehabilitated. These children
need community-based services and support systems. I understand
that the current plan for revamping the District's juvenile
justice system involves creating a number of home-like
facilities. I am interested in hearing how these facilities
will work, how many juveniles will be in those settings, and
how many juveniles will remain at the larger facilities.
In addition to reviewing the overall juvenile justice
system run by the District, I understand that this hearing will
also address the specific issues of the Oak Hill Youth Center
in Laurel, MD. Everyone agrees that the current conditions at
Oak Hill cannot continue. Under the District's plans, the
current facilities are due to be torn down. I believe there is
widespread support for that initiative.
The issue is, what happens to the property? The District
wants to build new, smaller District juvenile justice
facilities on the same site. Others have suggested that the
District build on other locations. And I am hopeful that all of
the interested parties can work together to resolve this issue.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of my colleagues from
Maryland on this property.
We all share the goals of public safety, and rehabilitation
and accountability for young people in the juvenile justice
system. Today's hearing can bring us closer to those goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.005
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton, any opening statement?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just state, all Members will
have until the end of the day to submit written statements.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me on
this hearing concerning what the District and the Federal
Government are doing to improve the life chances of children
committed to the city's juvenile justice system, and the
progress the city is making in meeting court and congressional
juvenile justice mandates.
Notwithstanding Home Rule and the District's responsibility
for its own children, this is an appropriate congressional
hearing, because a major part of the juvenile justice system,
the D.C. courts, are Article I courts, fall under Federal
jurisdiction; although the applicable laws are enacted and
enforced by the District.
Local and State governments, regardless of the nature and
income of their residents, have been significantly unsuccessful
in answering the question: What should society do when children
commit crimes? Judging by newspaper reports, the District,
Maryland, and Virginia are not exceptions. However, the
District, one of America's big cities, has more of the
conditions that breed not only juvenile delinquency, but also
the serious crimes that children in cities and suburbs alike
commit today.
Regrettably, the District's facilities themselves have been
so inadequate that public and governmental attention have been
disproportionately focused on the facilities, more so than on
the children. The District has responded by opening a new,
first-class facility in the city for juvenile detainees, a very
important step in reducing the housing of children who are
being detained separately from those who have been committed.
In addition, the Forest Haven juvenile facility was closed
several years ago. This leaves one facility for detainees and
committed youth, the Oak Hill Youth Center located in Laurel,
MD. The committee will be particularly interested in this
facility today.
I appreciate the thinking of my good friend and colleague,
Representative Ben Cardin, due to testify here today, who has
worked to find a practical way to move Oak Hill from his
district, and has offered some innovative and attractive ideas.
These ideas, however, depend on finding a realistic
alternative site, as I believe he recognizes; notwithstanding
that his bill, H.R. 316, contemplates the closure of Oak Hill
and the transfer of the land to the National Park Service and
to his district, Anne Arundel County, MD.
Representative Cardin's bill seeks a ``win-win,'' with the
bordering National Security Agency paying for the construction
of a new facility. Finding a location in the District, as his
bill prefers, or elsewhere, poses a structural barrier to
moving such a bill, however. The District is a small and
constricted city whose land is disproportionately occupied by
the Federal Government; the major reason that Congress located
the facility outside of the city in the first place.
I am pleased that today's hearing presents all involved an
opportunity to get this and other ideas on the table for public
discussion. This hearing will offer a bonus if it moves us
pragmatically to solutions which burden no community, while
focusing us on the District's most disadvantaged children.
These are not children in a state of teenage rebellion
typical of these ages. These children have been cheated out of
childhood itself. Most have been cheated from the beginning,
from birth, out of every child's birthright: two caring
parents, or an extended family. Many are fatherless, have
struggling single mothers, or no family; live in high-crime
neighborhoods long ago deserted by jobs, where thugs ply the
underground economy that has replaced the jobs once available
to their fathers and grandfathers.
We are all implicated in making a mess of the lives of
these children in our country. The bankruptcy of national,
State, and local thinking and approaches is perhaps best shown
by the move toward more and more adult sentences, even for
small children, and the outcry by some when the Supreme Court
ruled that juveniles under 18 should not be subjected to the
death penalty.
I hope that today's hearing will help us get beyond where
and how juveniles are housed, to how to keep them out of
detention and commitment, and how to make sure that those who
nevertheless must be committed do not turn the mistakes of
childhood into the crimes of manhood.
I will listen to all of today's witnesses with intense
interest. I am grateful to each of the witnesses for their work
and efforts for the District, and for coming forward today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.070
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for this hearing. I think it is a very important hearing. We
have two major priorities at this hearing today. And
Congresswoman Norton, I agree with you that these children in
the detention center, whether it is Washington, DC, or anywhere
in our country, are very high priority, one of our highest
priorities in the criminal justice system. And we have to get
to these children before they become adults, before they get
out into our society, and give them the chance to be functional
members of our community.
We also have another priority here, though. And that is the
priority of the land where Oak Hill is located. Just recently,
the decision was made to bring over 5,000 jobs to Fort Meade
and the NSA area. This area was chosen because NSA now exists
with Fort Meade. NSA is one of the country's oldest and largest
intelligence agencies. It plays a critical role in fighting the
war against terror, and also provides real-time intelligence
for our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, one of the reasons that the commission, the BRAC
Commission, decided to bring the jobs into this area is because
it had the ability to grow near NSA and Fort Meade. In the
intelligence arena, it is not only our NSA and our military and
the CIA, but it is also the private sector that works with them
and has contracts with NSA. And they tend to locate near this
area.
So we will have a tremendous growth along the 295 corridor,
and Oak Hill is needed as a part of this growth with respect to
NSA, or the private sector that works with NSA. This should be
a ``win-win'' situation for all. The land is valuable enough
that we should be able to sell the land, or whatever we do with
the land, and build a first-class, functional facility for Oak
Hill.
The problem and the issue we have to resolve is: Where do
we put the facility? And it is very important that we
prioritize where we are going to put this facility. And we
should be able to resolve this issue by sitting down together
and finding out what is best for our juveniles from Washington,
DC, and also for our national security.
I support Mr. Cardin's H.R. 316. I am glad that both of my
friends from Maryland are here, Congressman Hoyer and
Congressman Cardin, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank
you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Watson. Can I make an opening statement?
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this most
important hearing on an issue that has major short and long-
term effects on the District of Columbia, and really around the
country. Rehabilitation of our Nation's youth after they have
committed crimes is vital for them to become law-abiding
citizens and make positive contributions to society.
D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Services must operate
cohesively and productively, so that when these youth finish
their sentences they will be ready to face a brighter future.
In my home State of California, nearly 6,000 young people
are hospitalized every year for some form of violent injury
they receive on the streets, including assault, child abuse,
domestic violence, and rape. This number does not include
incidents inside correctional facilities, where violence
happens on a regular basis.
Many youth who commit crimes come from broken homes,
disastrous backgrounds; are in need of more than just a program
to change their thought patterns and habits. They need parental
support. Many of these youths have never had a parent at home,
and look to the streets to provide their surrogate mothers and
fathers.
It is our job as legislators to ensure that whatever crimes
they have committed before entering a correctional institution,
they will not commit them again, and look to become leaders,
not followers.
If a youth is arrested by the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department, and is placed in a juvenile detention facility,
that facility should operate under acceptable standards. It
should not be another haven for crime and danger. Correctional
institutions should not be as dangerous as on the streets. Yes,
there are youth in their facilities that have significant
problems, but their lives should not be lost or put in distress
while serving their time.
In a time of budget cuts and financial scarcity in all
areas of Government, I know it is extremely hard to have the
most elaborate program in these institutions. It is also
important to realize that these are our children--all of them.
Yes, they have made mistakes; but they will be a part of this
society once they are released. We want them to leave the
rehabilitation facilities rehabilitated; not worse than they
were when they came in.
Mr. Chairman, our goal should be to do whatever we can to
orient correctional facilities more toward rehabilitation, and
less toward punishment. We must ensure that the medical,
psychological, educational, and vocational needs are met for
these youth in D.C. and elsewhere in our Nation.
And so thank you for your willingness to come, the members
of the panel, and testify. And I appreciate all of your efforts
in continuing to make the District of Columbia's Youth
Rehabilitation Services the best in the Nation and a model for
the rest of the Nation. And please let us know what we can do
to help in these efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much. Again,
Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the
record.
I would ask unanimous consent that the statement of Bill
Black, the Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, be
entered into the official record. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.008
Chairman Tom Davis. On our first distinguished panel, we
have the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Congressman from the
State of Maryland, who has legislation that could help remedy
this problem; and we have the Honorable Steny Hoyer,
distinguished Minority Whip, from the State of Maryland, too.
Mr. Cardin, do you want to start?
STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; AND HON. STENY H. HOYER,
MINORITY WHIP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MARYLAND
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you very
much for conducting this hearing on a very important subject
that involves the juvenile services within the District, but
also an 800-acre-plus piece of land that is located in the
Third Congressional District of Maryland.
I also want to thank Eleanor Holmes Norton for her
leadership. We have had many discussions, and they have all
been positive, and we are going to be working together to try
to resolve these issues. And I concur in her statement.
I want to thank Mr. Ruppersberger, who has part of the area
that we are talking about. The National Security Agency and
Fort Meade are located in the Second Congressional District of
Maryland, which Dutch Ruppersberger represents. And I am
pleased to be here with Steny Hoyer, who has been a real leader
on these issues in this region. The three of us represent parts
of Anne Arundel County, along with Wayne Gilchrest. So it is in
four congressional districts, the county itself.
The legislation which I have introduced, H.R. 316, involves
a piece of land, 800-plus acres, located about 30 miles south
of here, off of the BW Parkway. It is federally owned property.
It is adjacent to Fort Meade; it borders Fort Meade.
If you look at the east of the property, you will see that
it is where Fort Meade is located, as well as its major tenant,
the National Security Agency. The property is located in the
Third Congressional District of Maryland, and on the property
is the Oak Hill Juvenile Detention Facility for the District of
Columbia, that houses today a little bit in excess of 150
children.
The legislation deals with three needs. First, the closing,
the relocation, and construction of a new facility for the
District of Columbia. The current system, the current facility,
is dilapidated, and does not meet the needs of our juvenile
facilities.
The children there are not being properly provided for.
Since 1985, there have been court cases pending in regards to
Oak Hill. Since 1986, there has been a Consent Decree that
points out the need for community-based facilities for these
children. There have been 60-plus court orders; millions of
dollars of fines.
In 2001, the District of Columbia had a blue ribbon
committee that reported back, recommending the closure of Oak
Hill and the relocation to community facilities within the
District. I fully concur with that blue ribbon commission's
recommendation.
In July 2003, the Washington Post ran a series of articles
on the failures at Oak Hill. So there is no question that we
need to do something concerning the facilities. There is a
photograph over there, Mr. Chairman, that shows one of the
buildings that is not being occupied; shows you the condition
of the property.
I have been there. I know that Eleanor has been there, and
Congressman Hoyer has been there. The property cannot be
rehabilitated; the property needs to be knocked down. There is
an issue of community safety. There have been children who have
escaped from the facility. So we need a new facility.
Second, the National Security Agency needs the protection
of the perimeter areas. The Deputy Director, Mr. Black, has
issued a statement for the record that you referred to,
indicating that he wants, and the NSA would like to have, the
exclusive use of the northern sector of the property for the
National Security Agency. That happens to be where the juvenile
detention facility is currently located.
And the third area that we are trying to address by this
legislation is to deal with the community, the needs of the
people in the immediate vicinity. There is sensitive
environmental property that needs to be dealt with. The Little
Patuxent River flows through it and provides an opportunity for
the community. And as Dutch Ruppersberger has pointed out, we
need additional land for private development to deal with the
contractors that work with the National Security Agency and the
tenants at Fort Meade.
The recent BRAC decision made yesterday indicates that
about 5,000 more jobs, positions, will be coming to the
National Security Agency at Fort Meade. This will generate a
need for a lot more private contract work. We need land to
locate the private companies that are going to be working with
the National Security Agency to deal with the intelligence
needs of our community.
H.R. 316 deals with all three. I know you have a map in
front of you, so let me just cover it quickly. First, it
disposes the land to three major stakeholders. First, the land
that is to the north and west of the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway would be transferred to the Park Service. The Park
Service currently operates the BW Parkway because of the desire
to have a direct access between Fort Meade and the Nation's
Capital. The land that is to the north and west is mostly
environmentally sensitive land; needs to be kept in open space
and wetlands. And the National Park Service would be the best
entity to handle that.
The property that is to the north of the Little Patuxent
River, marked ``2'' on the map, would be turned over to the
National Security Agency for their exclusive use. This is the
land that they believe they need for perimeter security for
NSA.
The largest tract is the part that is south of the Little
Patuxent River. That would be transferred to Anne Arundel
County, and used for development.
The reason why this is a ``win-win'' situation is that the
development of the land south of the Little Patuxent River will
allow us to have the resources to build the new facility for
the District of Columbia. That is one of the problems we have
had, is finding the money to do the transfer. So this bill will
provide a structure where we will be able to get the dollars.
From a structural point of view, we have the Secretary of
the Army originally paying the cost, but we expect that the
money would be paid for through the development of the land
that is south of the Little Patuxent River.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill will allow us to
move forward. It gives us the financing; it disposes of the
land properly. We do need to find a location. I agree with Ms.
Norton: we need to find a location. It may be helpful if we can
get involved in that. I don't know.
This legislation allows us to move forward, though. It puts
in place the proper use of the land and a method to finance the
new facility, which has been the major hang-up over the last 20
years. So I think it is a positive step for this legislation to
move forward, and will allow us to say at last we are not going
to allow the status quo to continue to remain as it is. We
can't do it, for the sake of the children; and it is not fair
to the people in Anne Arundel County; and it is not fair for
the national security needs of our area.
One last point. Anne Arundel County is committed to putting
in a lateral park along the river for recreational purposes for
the community; so that we have, I think, all the stakeholders
who are in support of how we need to move forward in regards to
a replacement facility for Oak Hill and the distribution of
this very important property.
And I thank you, and I look forward to working with the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.019
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Cardin, thank you very much.
Mr. Hoyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today, I am
here to support H.R. 316, which, as has been said, transfers
portions of the 800 acres of Federal property located in Anne
Arundel County to the National Park Service, the Secretary of
the Army, for the use of NSA, and to GSA, who in turn will
convey the property to Anne Arundel County for parkland and
recreational use.
Additionally, this legislation requires the District of
Columbia juvenile detention center known as Oak Hill to be
closed, and provides--and this is critical--for construction of
a new facility on a site yet to be determined. Obviously,
``site to be determined'' is the difficult part of this
equation.
For well over 15 years, problems have plagued the various
juvenile facilities located on this property. Originally, Mr.
Chairman, as I am sure everybody in the room knows, they were
designed for juveniles who, as Ms. Norton characterized them,
were simply juveniles who had behavior problems, as opposed to
criminal involvement.
From dilapidated buildings and run-down facilities to
rampant escapes and inadequate treatment programs, the property
became nothing but a problematic neighbor and a public nuisance
to the people in nearby communities; not to mention the
challenge that it was causing to District of Columbia
officials.
Working with the District of Columbia officials, promises
were made to address improvements in not just the
infrastructure, but the quality of treatment received by the
youths detained in the facilities and the security measures
offered. Again, the security measures were inadequate, because
the facility was originally designed for essentially what we
would call children in need of supervision, as opposed to
children who had been involved in possible criminal activity,
either detained to determine their involvement, or having been
found to be involved.
Many of the most troublesome programs were shut down, and
youths transferred to more adequate placements. However, when I
represented this area--and I do not now--but when I represented
this area, Cedar Knoll was the particular focus. And Mr.
Chairman, I started to call it ``Cedar Sieve,'' and the reason
for that is it simply was not designed to hold the types of
young people that were being held at that facility.
However, the Oak Hill facility remains. Security concerns
continue, and the youth of the District of Columbia are still
not receiving the treatment they need or the environment to be
held either pre or post-finding.
I am encouraged by the advances made by Mayor Williams and
his administration over all the juvenile justice system. It is
a difficult task, and I want to congratulate them for
addressing it.
Making Youth Rehabilitation Services a cabinet-level
position, and placing Mr. Schiraldi in charge of revamping all
of the juvenile services programs, shows a strong commitment,
in my opinion, to do what is right to assure that every effort
is made to modernize services and establish an effective
treatment program for incarcerated young people.
With the commitment of everyone involved to build a new,
state-of-the-art facility, we have an opportunity, Mr.
Chairman: an opportunity to provide appropriate housing, sound
treatment, and the security measures needed to reassure the
public. We must take this opportunity to work together to find
the most suitable location for such a facility, while assuring
that the Federal land involved is used in the most appropriate
and cost-effective manner.
As my colleague, Mr. Cardin, stated, this plan offers
options to the many stakeholders involved. And I want to
congratulate him for working closely with Ms. Norton, as I have
in the past, to solve what is a very difficult problem. It is
easy to demagogue about these issues. It is difficult to solve
them. But we can do so, working together.
Mr. Cardin's plan offers the Fort Meade community the space
needed for the population increases brought on by BRAC, as
referred to by Mr. Ruppersberger, who represents this area of
our State; NSA, the property it needs to continue its important
work and maintain security; and Anne Arundel County, space for
park and recreation use. And most importantly, Mr. Chairman,
the funding for a secure treatment option to serve the District
of Columbia's youth and the District of Columbia citizens.
Closing Oak Hill is the right thing to do, and I look
forward to working to develop a plan, and a solution, which
serves the needs of the District, its youth, and the community
at large. And I thank you for this opportunity.
I have a longer statement, which I will submit for the
record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, it will be entered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Steny H. Hoyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.023
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you both. Let me just say, this
brings back the days of Lorton Prison; the same kinds of issues
that we had with the city, and it took us years to work
something out. It is constructive. I think the key is to find
an alternative. If we can find an alternative spot, I think we
can bring all the parties together. You are providing a way
that we could get funding, that we could take this asset, turn
it into something that could produce some revenue so that the
city wouldn't be disadvantaged. But it is a question of finding
a spot.
And I know this committee looks forward to working with you
on that. I know Ms. Norton would work with you. And we could
try to make this a ``win-win.'' But the legislation is a first
start.
Any thoughts on that? Do you have any thoughts, in terms of
where else you can locate kids? Unlike the Lorton situation--
and there was a youth component to that--but we moved those
prisoners into the Federal prison system. We did put a mile
radius, so they wouldn't be too far away. But with kids it has
to be a little closer. And there is just no immediate sites in
the city for this, it seems.
Mr. Cardin. My understanding is that the size of the
facility is modest, as far as the need of how much land is
actually needed. I don't want to minimize the challenge. I know
that there have been lands that have been made available to the
District through this committee, and I am not prepared to try
to designate any specific site. But I really do think we should
look at the properties that could be made available.
The city administration has told me there are some zoning
issues with properties, and other issues. But I think we need
to take a look at it because, obviously, all the reports have
shown that the best location would be closest to the families
within the District, that is an important part of the equation
here. So I think that needs to be, by far, the first order of
business, is to make an effort to try to find----
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me interrupt. I think that is
constructive. Let me interject something. The Federal
Government has a lot of property in the area, a lot of it
surplus. We are transferring a piece of that, or we are in the
process of transferring a piece of that, to the city in
cooperation with the administration. But if we can get an
inventory of all Federal properties, working with Mr. Hoyer and
the other affected Members, maybe we can find an appropriate
transfer that works in this case.
The Federal Government has some responsibility here, with
our oversight with the District, and maybe there would be an
appropriate transfer on that. And I think we would have to look
at all of these.
We are in the process of trying to get a complete data base
of all Federal properties in Washington, and see what is
utilized, what isn't utilized, what could be utilized, and see
if there is a way around this. But I think you have identified
what appears to be a major problem; and try to come up with a
constructive solution.
Ms. Norton. If I could just say----
Chairman Tom Davis. Go ahead.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Because I don't have a question. I
simply want to thank my colleagues for doing what they always
do; which is working with me to try to find a solution. And
they have handled this very difficult problem, it seems to me,
in the way that this region does in fact operate.
I just want to say, just for the record, that the District
was not responsible for putting this facility in someone else's
district. And I could not sympathize more with the Members. The
District did not have Home Rule when this decision was made.
And I don't think the Congress made it because it was punishing
Maryland, either. I think it had to do with available land. And
very frankly, the Federal Government has taken the lion's share
of the land that is not used for residential use or is not used
for commercial use.
But I join the chairman in saying I still believe that Mr.
Cardin's idea is a very fruitful idea. The major problem you
have in these kinds of things usually is how you are going to
get the money to do it. Now we have a question of, ``Where are
you going to put it?'' And we obviously know we don't need all
of that huge space out there in Laurel, MD. But, you know,
Congress put it out there in that huge space; we didn't do it.
There ought to be a way, as the chairman says, with all the
Federal land all around this region, to find a smaller space
where we could accommodate this facility, and move it out of a
district where people have every right to say, ``Why is it in
my district?'' So I thank you, both of you, for the way you
have handled this matter.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And Mr. Ruppersberger,
before I recognize you, let me just say this isn't just about
where it is located; this is about the kids. This is a program
that is not working for the kids, and it has been documented
now for over 15 years. So that remains a huge problem. And
perhaps a locational change could add to new management and
giving these kids a shot.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
agreeing to work with us. And a lot of issues in this town
can't be resolved, unfortunately; but this is an issue that we
all, if we put our heads together, can do the right thing. And
I think the children will benefit, and our national security
will also benefit.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I know NSA submitted a statement.
Basically, the key to this statement is that they want to make
sure there is a security buffer zone for Fort Meade-NSA, for
national security. And that is really most of the extent of
their testimony.
And Mr. Cardin, it is a good plan, and you are a smart man.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tom Davis. You can take that and run with it.
Mr. Cardin. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do any other Members have questions?
[No response.]
Chairman Tom Davis. If not, thank you both.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. We will take a 3-minute recess, as we
get ready for the next panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We are ready to resume our second
panel. Without objection, Congressman Cardin will be permitted
to sit in.
It is a distinguished panel. We have the Honorable Lee
Satterfield, presiding judge, District of Columbia Family
Court; the Honorable Eugene Hamilton, the senior judge of the
Superior Court--Judge, nice to see you again--Charles Ramsey,
the chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department, and
no stranger to this committee; and Vincent Schiraldi, the
director of the District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation
Services. And this is your inaugural visit here, Mr. Schiraldi.
We appreciate your being here.
It is our policy that all witnesses are sworn before you
testify, so if you would, just rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Judge Satterfield, we will start with you. And we
appreciate your being here today.
STATEMENTS OF LEE F. SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT; EUGENE HAMILTON, SENIOR JUDGE, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT; CHARLES H. RAMSEY, CHIEF OF POLICE,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND
VINCENT SCHIRALDI, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YOUTH
REHABILITATION SERVICES
STATEMENT OF LEE F. SATTERFIELD
Judge Satterfield. Good morning. Thank you. Chairman Davis,
Congresswoman Norton, other members of the committee, thank you
for the invitation to testify today about the role of the D.C.
Superior Court's Family Court in the District's juvenile
justice system.
The Family Court has jurisdiction to hold youth in secure
detention prior to trial, to release youth with conditions pre-
trial, to conduct a trial and, if the youth is found involved--
which is the equivalent of guilty in the criminal system--to
sentence him or her.
There are only two sentencing options available to Family
Court judges: a judge can place the child or youth on
probation, or commit the youth to the custody of the city.
Under current D.C. law, Family Court judges cannot sentence
youth to a period of incarceration in a secure facility, but
may only commit them to the city's Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services. At that point, even if the youth
violates his probation conditions repeatedly, or commits other
crimes, even serious or violent crimes, the judge has no
control over where the youth is placed. We submit to you that
this distracts from the accountability that we are trying to
instill in young people and children in this case.
Our juvenile delinquency caseload represents about 25
percent of the Family Court caseload. One of the Family Court's
goals, as set forth in the transition plan required by the
Family Court Act and submitted to Congress in April 2002, is to
provide early intervention and opportunities for juveniles
charged with offenses to enhance rehabilitation and promote
public safety. Prevention, public safety, accountability, and
rehabilitation are key goals of the Family Court. Continued
accountability directly to the sentencing judge is a key
element in public safety and successful rehabilitation.
Our Family Court Social Services Division plays a vital
role in our response to juvenile delinquency, and is
responsible for supervising juvenile offenders who are pre-
trial, or those serving a probationary sentence and that are
not committed to the city's care. Our division currently
supervises about 1,900 juvenile offenders, a number that
represents the majority of youth in the juvenile justice
system.
I have submitted for the record a manual that outlines how
the Court Social Services supervises youth, and the role that
they play in accountability and keeping the community safe.
Also, in my written testimony, I review the juvenile
delinquency guidelines that were established by the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges for the purpose of
improving court practices in juvenile cases. And I discuss
those goals, and how we meet those goals, in my written
testimony. In the interest of time, I will not go over them
now.
I would like to tell you about a new program that we have
implemented in Family Court just last week, and it relates to
truancy. As you know, the short-term consequence of truancy is
often delinquency, and the long-term consequences of truancy
are also incarceration, illiteracy, and unemployment.
We have launched just last week in the Garnet-Patterson
Middle School a program to divert youth out of the system, or
away from the system. This new program is a Truancy Court
diversion program for middle-school students, and was developed
by the Family Court in partnership with the District of
Columbia Public Schools; the District of Columbia School Board;
the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders; and
the Child and Family Services Agency.
Students who have more than 15 unexcused absences and who
could be referred to Family Court for prosecution are eligible
to participate, with their parents or guardians. This is a
voluntary program. The goals of the program are to increase
attendance, improve grades, and improve behavior. In addition
to the students and parents, other participants include the
teacher, attendance counselor, and the family advocates who are
social workers.
I conduct hearings at the school weekly, and the social
workers work with the families to provide services that
strengthen the families, to ensure that the students remain in
school.
I also want to talk just briefly about parental
participation because, as you know, if you want to help
children, you must help their parents. And sometimes, helping
parents means holding them accountable.
Involving parents is a key part of the Family Court's
juvenile justice prevention and intervention response. We enter
participation orders in just about every juvenile case, unless
it is not in the best interests of the child. In 2005, we
entered participation orders in 91 percent of the cases:
requiring parents to participate in the rehabilitation process
with their children; requiring parents to participate in
parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and monitor their
children's curfew and school attendance.
Let me just conclude by saying that our goals for the
future are to continue to sustain our current programs; to
launch an adolescent girls' program for girls that are on
probation; to continue our partnership with MPD in gang
intervention; to open drop-in centers for youth to receive
services and be closely monitored in the community; and to
acquire global positioning system technology, so that we can
better monitor the movement of youths to provide for our
juvenile probation officers.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I welcome
any questions that you may have.
[Note.--The District of Columbia Superior Court, Family
Court report entitled, ``Court Social Services, a Division of
the Family Court,'' may be found in committee files.]
[The prepared statement of Judge Satterfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.036
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Judge Hamilton, good to have you back.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE HAMILTON
Judge Hamilton. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms.
Norton, and other members of the committee. It is a pleasure to
be here this morning to address this very timely and critical
subject of juvenile justice in the District of Columbia.
I am privileged to be here today as a result of having
served as chairman of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on
Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform. This was a commission
which was appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and 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 a seamless network of youth service
ideals that treat children as children. This is an approach,
Mr. Chairman, with which I fully agreed, and I was happy to
devote time and energy to that very important task.
The commission completed its study, and issued a very
comprehensive study of the juvenile delinquency system in the
District of Columbia. The commission made a series of very,
very specific recommendations, including time lines within
which it was hoped that these recommendations would be
accomplished.
I should note, and am pleased to note at this time, that
many of the commission's recommendations have now found their
way into legislation of the District of Columbia, in the
Omnibus Juvenile Justice Act of 2004, which was enacted into
law in March of this year. 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 should note that this legislation is in some important
respects inconsistent with the recommendations of the
commission; in that it allows for the transfer of more children
out of the juvenile justice system and into the adult criminal
system. This is diametrically opposed to the recommendation of
the Blue Ribbon Commission. The commission's position on this
was that the rules should not be relaxed for the transfer of
children from the juvenile system into the adult system.
The commission also recommended that the Oak Hill facility
be closed. Now, the recommendation of the commission was not
just that the present Oak Hill facility be closed; but that the
present Oak Hill facility be closed, and a new, state-of-the-
art facility be built on that particular site. The two went
hand in hand, because you can't close a secure commitment
facility unless and until you have provided for a replacement
of that secure commitment facility which is closed.
Everybody agrees that Oak Hill has outlived its usefulness.
It is not serving the rehabilitative purposes of juveniles
within the District of Columbia and, of course, it should be
closed. The omnibus legislation which was enacted in March of
this year provides that it be closed and that a new facility be
constructed on the site.
We must understand that the Blue Ribbon Commission
recommended that the present facility be replaced with a new,
state-of-the-art, secure facility at the present campus, and
that this facility be consistent with the Missouri model.
Now, any other site must offer all of the resources of the
Oak Hill site: open space; fresh air; and it must be removed at
a reasonable distance from the District of Columbia, but it
must remain accessible by family, friends, and treatment
providers. H.R. 316, unfortunately, does not address this
concern.
The District of Columbia can now accomplish the Blue Ribbon
Commission's objective of moving away from institutionalizing
children in a non-rehabilitative environment by providing for
the construction of a new, state-of-the-art facility at the
present campus, or some other location which offers all of the
resources that the present campus offers.
And those resources are very, very important. It is not
just a building. It is not just a brick building. It is not
just a residential facility. But it is a residential facility
in an appropriate setting. And I cannot emphasize that too
much.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a full statement, and I
ask that it be attached to the record and made a part of the
record in this matter. And of course, I am willing to answer
any questions that any members of the committee might have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Judge Hamilton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.053
Chairman Tom Davis. Judge, thank you very much.
Chief Ramsey, thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY
Chief Ramsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Norton, and other members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony concerning the District
of Columbia's juvenile justice system. Juvenile crime is a
serious concern today, and it will continue to be so in the
future, as the juvenile population is expected to increase by
24 percent over the next two decades.
The Metropolitan Police Department is one of many
entities--public, private, and non-profit--that compose D.C.'s
juvenile justice system. While the MPD has unique
responsibilities within the system, we certainly share in the
overarching goals of protecting our youth and protecting our
communities through prevention, intervention, and enforcement
strategies.
Our agency may have primary responsibility for enforcement,
but we do work very hard--and, I believe, quite successfully--
on a number of prevention and intervention initiatives, as
well. Let me provide just a few examples.
In partnership with the faith community, the Metropolitan
Police Boys and Girls Clubs, and other community leaders, our
department offers a range of recreational and social
opportunities for young people; in particular, those from
economically challenged families and communities.
This past summer, we operated summer camps in our police
districts, and we once again staffed Camp Brown in partnership
with the Boys and Girls Clubs. Along with our clergy police
community partnerships, we held ``40 Days of Increased Peace''
this summer, a series of family crime prevention and community
building events. And individual police districts conducted a
variety of programs, from athletic leagues to fashion shows.
Our objective is to provide opportunities for young people to
explore and experience positive, new activities in a safe
environment.
In the area of intervention, our department is in the
process of revamping and expanding our innovative OPAT program,
``Operation Prevent Auto Theft.'' Auto theft in D.C. is a
serious crime, in and of itself. Auto theft and unauthorized
use of a vehicle are also gateway crimes for our youth.
Involvement in these offenses often signals more serious
criminal activity in the future.
OPAT takes first-time offenders and provides them with
intensive education and intervention services, focusing on
community impact and their own lives. To date, there have been
95 participants in the program; with 10 being rearrested for
auto theft, and another 12 rearrested on other charges. And
while our goal is zero recidivism, these initial numbers are at
least encouraging.
Other intervention strategies include increased enforcement
of curfew and truancy laws. So far this year, MPD officers have
picked up more than 2,700 curfew violators, or over twice the
total from all of 2004. In addition, officers have picked up
more than 2,000 truants this calendar year, also an increase.
Our goal in both areas is to get young people off the street
during times when they are most vulnerable to crime, either as
victims or offenders.
This school year, the MPD also assumed management
responsibility for security inside D.C. public schools. This
reform is not only helping to enhance security inside the
schools; it is also providing for additional coordination
between our school safety and community crime-fighting efforts.
In the area of enforcement, our department's activity
remains high, and highly focused on priority crime types. Last
year, MPD officers arrested close to 3,000 juveniles for a
variety of offenses, an increase of 15 percent from 2003. This
year, our arrest numbers are tracking at about the same level
as 2004, slightly below last year's level.
We are paying particular attention to the crimes of auto
theft, UUV, and robbery. Citywide, robbery and weapons
violations are the only serious crimes that are on the rise
this year among juveniles. We have had an 11 percent increase
in robbery arrests so far this year, and a 17\1/2\ percent
increase in weapons violations arrests. These increases have
been fueled, in part, by juvenile offenders, in terms of the
crimes themselves. We are targeting these crimes through a
number of enforcement initiatives, and have arrested several
juvenile suspects in recent weeks.
Probably the most encouraging statistical trend we have
seen this year is a sharp decline in the number of juvenile
homicide victims. So far this year, there have been 10 young
people, age 17 or younger, murdered in D.C. That compares to 23
at this time last year. And of the 10 victims this year, three
were young children or infants who were killed by family
members or other caregivers. Ten juvenile homicides is still 10
too many, in my mind, but we have begun to see a reversal of
last year's particularly violent trend.
For our juvenile justice system to be even more effective
in the future, there must be even greater cooperation and
information sharing among all of the entities involved. This
issue has come into sharp focus in recent days, with the
homicide of 16-year-old Marcel Merritt and subsequent
information about his criminal activity and detention history
over the past few years.
Currently, the Metropolitan Police Department is not
receiving juvenile justice information that I believe would
assist us in our mission of protecting young people and
safeguarding communities. For example, when young offenders are
assigned to group homes or given home detention, I feel
strongly that our police officers have a right to know who
these young people are, where they have been sent, what their
juvenile history is, and any conditions on their release such
as curfews, stay-away orders, and the like.
Currently, our department is not receiving this
information, because it is considered part of the social files
on juveniles. And let me assure you that everyone in our
department is not interested in seeing psychological
evaluations, treatment plans, or similar information contained
in these files. But we should have access to basic detention
and criminal history information that is essential in helping
us protect our neighborhoods.
Our police officers cannot be expected to enforce a
juvenile's conditions of release, if we don't even know what
those conditions are. We should also be informed immediately
when juveniles abscond from any facility in the juvenile
justice system and when there is any change in a juvenile's
status.
In the interest of protecting our communities--and as in
the case of Marcel Merritt, protecting young people,
themselves--our police officers should have access to basic and
limited information about juvenile offenders in our
neighborhoods. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Ramsey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.056
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Schiraldi.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT SCHIRALDI
Mr. Schiraldi. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Norton, and distinguished committee members----
Chairman Tom Davis. We are in the middle of voting. Your
entire statement is entered. Go ahead.
Mr. Schiraldi. OK. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you and highlight the department's efforts to enact
badly needed reforms in the District's juvenile justice system.
As you are aware, in 1986, the District entered into a
Consent Decree in Jerry M. v. the District of Columbia. Over
the past 19 years, the District has made incremental, but not
significant, progress, in efforts to reform both its locked
facilities and community-based programs. As such, when I took
this position on, we were faced with enormous amounts of reform
required, really, in every aspect of the department's
operation; from deplorable conditions, to inadequate community-
based programming, to poor decisionmaking.
Although faced with a sizable demand for reform, we have
decided not to aim low in our efforts and just meet bare
Constitutional standards. Instead, we are trying to create the
kind of system that any of us would want if our own children
were in trouble.
Though our reform efforts have included many strategies, I
want to condense my testimony and highlight two areas: secure
custody for Oak Hill youth; and development of a continuum of
care. These reforms come right out of the Blue Ribbon
Commission's report, and I am honored to be able to build off
of Judge Hamilton's work and the work of that good group.
Anyone who is familiar with D.C.'s juvenile justice system
has heard of the horrible conditions at Oak Hill. The facility
is outdated, run down, and ill equipped to provide an
environment that is both safe and rehabilitative.
In September, the Mayor submitted plans for a replacement
facility that should be completed in about 2\1/2\ years; which
will provide us with the tools to eliminate the co-mingling of
detained and committed youth, and create a more rehabilitative
and home-like, while still secure, environment.
When I began as director in January, the District was
accumulating millions of dollars in fines. With the opening of
the new Youth Services Center and a modest reduction in the
overall committed population, I am happy to say that fines for
exceeding population limits ceased accruing by March.
Importantly, as Oak Hill's population declined slightly,
serious juvenile crime declined as well; a phenomenon that is
occurring not just here, but around the country, including in
Maryland, in Virginia, and in California, where several members
of this committee come from.
For example, in the first 6 months of 2005, while the
population of youth in locked custody in D.C. fell by 23
percent, serious juvenile arrests declined by 26 percent, and
the number of youths killed was cut in half, as the chief just
mentioned.
Congressman Waxman released a report last year that we
built off of. And basically, what it showed was that kids were
languishing with mental health problems in a lot of these
training schools and correctional facilities, and that they
needed to accelerate their placement into rehabilitative
programming. Essentially, the reduction of population of Oak
Hill could almost exclusively be accounted for by just simply
moving kids more quickly into the programs that they were going
to go to anyway.
So right now, Oak Hill houses about 80 committed youth on
any given day. The replacement facility that we are proposing
will be 36 beds, configured as three home-like, 12-bed units.
We also plan to renovate an existing 24-bed unit; for a total
committed capacity of 60 beds, approximately 20 fewer than the
current population. We are creating far more than 20 community-
based slots to absorb this additional population and to provide
better services to the youths who are already in the community.
As we plan the replacement of Oak Hill, the committee is
interested, of course, in our position on H.R. 316. Right now,
as was mentioned earlier, we have about 888 acres up at Oak
Hill, up on the Laurel campus. We are only sitting on about 20,
25 of those acres. It strikes me that there is plenty of land
for us to accommodate the multiple interests that exist up
there.
We do need some place to put a secure facility, but we only
need about 25 out of 888 acres. And we are certainly willing to
discuss with the other significant players some mutually
beneficial options.
The replacement facility will accomplish little without new
approaches to service delivery, as Judge Hamilton pointed out.
Even before we replace Oak Hill, we intend to dramatically
change the way we do business, creating a therapeutic milieu
modeled on the approach used now for nearly two decades in the
State of Missouri.
This Missouri Model is widely acclaimed right now, because
it puts kids into small, home-like environments. The people
running those facilities--if you are running a 36-bed facility,
you know the life story of every single kid in that facility.
And that dramatically reduces the potential for bureaucratic
foul-ups, and dramatically increases the potential for
rehabilitation.
Missouri, for example, has not been sued in the last 15
years with its model, and its recidivism rate--the feeder unit
that was talked about earlier--the recidivism rate in Missouri
is one-fourth the recidivism rate for D.C.
Now, the lion's share of our kids do not get locked up at
Oak Hill--or any facility, for that matter--just like in most
other States. The lion's share of the kids involved in D.C.'s
juvenile justice system go to the community. Too often,
juvenile justice systems actually jeopardize public safety by
over-focusing on their locked custody and neglecting the
programs monitoring most of their youth.
In order to tackle detention reforms this summer, we joined
with our partners in the courts--Judge Satterfield co-chairs
this committee--and the police--Inspector Overton is on this
committee--defense, probation, and the community, prosecutors,
to form the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.
This initiative is an initiative that has been experimented
with around the country, including in Maryland, Virginia, and
California. And working collaboratively with key
decisionmakers, JDAI has been able to reduce the unnecessary
use of detention in those jurisdictions; lower costs; increase
the use of alternatives; and most importantly, reduce crime,
rearrests, and failures to appear. In Chicago, for example, the
average daily population in detention declined by 37 percent,
while failures to appear and juvenile prosecutions were both
cut by more than half.
On the committed side, we believe we will be able to best
address public safety when we, one, humanely confine those
youth who need to be locked up and, two, create service plans
that fit the strengths and needs of our young people; rather
than fitting them into our bureaucratically predetermined
slots.
To move in this new direction, we are creating several
promising programs which have been researched by OJJDP and
found proven to reduce juvenile delinquency. The purpose of our
continuum is to guarantee that, once a child's needs and
strengths have been assessed, that child will have access to
the proper complement of services necessary to put him on the
road to success.
So far, 89 percent and 96 percent of the youth who have
gone through our multi-systemic therapy program and our evening
reporting center, respectively, have not been rearrested.
This Sunday, the Washington Post featured an article on a
youth who was violently murdered, who, himself, was suspected
of committing several violent murders. The Post reported that
he had been in our care, and was in abscondence status when he
was murdered. This youth's murder, and the tragic crimes he is
alleged to have committed, only highlight that reform does not
happen overnight; there is no magic bullet or pill one can take
to fix what has been broken for two decades.
As you are aware, and as I discussed with your staff prior
to this hearing, confidentiality restrictions preclude me from
discussing the specifics of his case. However, the article
points to areas where our department needs reform.
In fact, prior to this tragic case, DYRS had initiated a
number of steps to directly address deficiencies in the areas
of properly and legally revoking youths' after care when they
were failing on community release; of pursuing absconders and
getting them back under our supervision; of adequately planning
for youths' return to the community; and as mentioned earlier,
creating the kind of support and supervision in the community
that will both closely monitor and rehabilitate youth in our
care.
The promise for reform in D.C., and the stakes for that
reform, are both incredibly high. The time is ripe for us to
bring together best practices from around the country, work
with local stakeholders to gain their acceptance, and carefully
but forcefully implement those practices for the betterment of
both public safety and the welfare of our young people.
That is the job I have been tasked with, and I intend to
fulfill it with both integrity and a sense of urgency that I
believe it will take to finally fulfill the promise of reform
that so many have wanted for so long. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiraldi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.065
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much. We only have
5 minutes. Mr. Cardin, do you have any questions you would like
to try to get in a couple of minutes, or will you come back?
Mr. Cardin. No, I would just take a couple of seconds.
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure.
Mr. Cardin. Just to say, in regards to the location, it
seems to me you are taking--I agree with everything that has
been said here. You are taking a pragmatic approach on a
location where, if you really want a residential facility, it
would be better if it were in a residential type of area,
rather than across from Fort Meade itself. So I think there is
room here that we could work together, and I hope we will be
able to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Let me just say, we have two
votes. And what I think I will do is, instead of recessing and
coming back, and holding you here, I have a couple of questions
I want to ask, and Ms. Norton is going to ask them for me for
the record.
And then I will allow her to sit in the chairman's seat and
preside. However, she has promised me she won't pass any bills,
here. [Laughter.]
But she will preside and ask questions. I am just going to
ask this. The median time between a juvenile trial and
sentencing is 43 days, as I understand it, Judge Satterfield.
What has to be done during that time? Is that amount of time
typical among jurisdictions? How often are delays beyond the
15-day sentencing required? And do they get credit for that
time?
Judge Satterfield. In our system, they don't get credit for
any time, because we don't control, as I say, once they are
sentenced or committed to the city, how long they stay in jail
if they are incarcerated. We do control how long they may stay
supervised by the city. We can restrictively commit them to 21
years.
In terms of the time period, there are a lot of factors
that have gone into delays in the time period. A lot of
information is being collected about the youth: evaluations,
psychological evaluations, psychiatric evaluations. Sometimes
they take a long time. Often, the youth's lawyer may request a
continuance to gather more information, as well.
We are starting to collect the reasons why there are
delays. I mean, I can tell you anecdotally why we think there
are delays; but we are starting to actually collect--
electronically, we are going to collect the reasons why, so
that we can report more accurately as to why there are some
delays in the going to sentencing in these cases.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. I am going to turn it over
to Ms. Norton. She has some questions from me. It is all on the
record, and we will read it. But I think, rather than keep you
here while we go back, this works for everybody, to keep the
record complete.
Again, I just want to thank everybody for coming here
today. Mr. Schiraldi, thanks for being here. It is your first
time, but we will probably see you again.
Mr. Schiraldi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Go ahead, Eleanor.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you want to sit in the big chair?
Ms. Norton. Why not?
[Pause.]
Ms. Norton [presiding]. In a Congress which is storied
about being divided, it says something about the trust between
these two Members that he says, ``Eleanor, sit in my chair.''
He doesn't think I will seize power.
The chairman had one question that he wanted to ask. Let me
ask his first. It is for Judge Hamilton. It may be for Judge
Satterfield, too. You make the point that Superior Court has
not been given the authority to enter orders for the
appropriate placement and treatment of committed youths. Why do
you believe that the District has not given this authority to
the court? What is the practice in other States? If the court
had this authority, what impact would it have on the court's
resources?
Judge Hamilton. Well, I think it is really sort of a
historical territorial situation, so far as the District is
concerned. It is rather jealous of its ability to dictate the
placement and treatment for children after they have been
committed by the court to the District of Columbia.
But I think it is a real impediment in securing the
rehabilitation of children, because without the ability of the
court to order placement and treatment, there is no
accountability in the Department of Youth Rehabilitation
Services, or in the old YSA. And I think it is a real
impediment in obtaining real, actual rehabilitation.
Ms. Norton. So what is done in other States? I mean, is
this typical, or is this a unique District practice?
Judge Hamilton. Well, in most other States, the courts do
have varying degrees of authority to order treatment and
placement. And it varies from State to State, as to the amount
of authority that the courts have in that regard. There is no
uniform pattern in that regard.
But here in the District of Columbia, as a result of this
legislation which was passed in March of this year, it makes it
absolutely clear that the court can enter no order with respect
to treatment or placement. And I think that is regrettable.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Schiraldi might want to comment on
the reason for this.
Mr. Schiraldi. Sure.
Ms. Norton. I am sure there is some rational reason for it.
Mr. Schiraldi. Much of this happened before my arrival. I
actually thought that, prior to the legislation, there was an
appeals court case called ``In Re: P.S.''--but somebody who is
a lawyer can check me on that one--that essentially stripped
the courts of their ability to direct placements, and gave that
to the executive branch. It was a separation-of-powers issue, I
think, which predated me.
The States are all over the board on this. And I don't
think that the research would bear out anything. You have
departments that do this well and poorly; you have judges that
do this well and poorly. I think the thought behind the P.S.
decision was that the judges sentence; the executive branch
executes.
In Juvenile Court, the execution of a sentence can range
from maintaining the kid in locked custody, to putting him in
residential treatment. I can live with it either way. Whatever
laws you guys give me, I am going to try to do the best I can.
Ms. Norton. I don't know if Judge Satterfield has any view
on that.
Judge Satterfield. Yes, I do. The City Council in 1993
passed a law that stripped the court of that authority. And it
was not enforced until a Court of Appeals decision came out in,
I think it was, 2000 or 2001, in the In Re: P.S., that they are
talking about.
Our view as judges is that if I get the information about
the child, I may try the case; I may hear from the victims; I
may see the parent of this child going through the system under
our ``one judge, one family'' process. And I get a lot of
information.
If I place the child on probation, that child knows that,
if I revoke probation, there is very little I can do. I can
commit to the city, and then it is a decision made by the city,
whether they release the child right away or not. So there is
no accountability there for those kinds of reasons. I can try a
murder case, a child who killed someone in the community, and I
will have no control over, as a judge, where that child goes,
once the sentencing occurs.
This is not any knock on the current administration or what
they do, but the point is, what we are subject to is the city,
only, deciding, ``This child should go here; should go there.''
You may get an administration that wants to release every
child; you may get an administration that wants to hold every
child in jail. The city is subject, as you know, to lawsuits
and caps and those kinds of concerns. The judges don't have
those concerns, because we have to look at the facts and so
forth. And this is not impugning anybody in the city. It is
just a fact, a reality. That is the way it exists now.
Ms. Norton. What I take from this is, there is no
established ``best practice.'' And it is something that
intrigues me, if in fact people are all over the map on it. I
can think of reasons why you would want to give flexibility to
the executive, but I can also think of reasons why the
accountability question would be important. I can think of
reasons why you wouldn't want to subject children to the
differences among judges, based on their view of punishment.
So I just don't know. And I guess that is why we have a
Home Rule government. So I am going to have to ask that, as you
look, Mr. Schiraldi, at the District's juvenile justice system,
that you remember it is a system, and that this question has
been raised here, and it is an important one that I think needs
to be understood.
Let me ask just a few questions. I am interested in this
whole continuum of care; except, as far as I am concerned, the
continuum of care begins way before a child is brought to
court. And I hope that ``continuum of care'' does not become
one of these slogans like we have up here. That is what it is;
it is a slogan, because it is so hard to make it happen.
I know that Judge Hamilton, who has worked with me on my
Commission on Black Men and Boys--he is on the advisory
commission--knows that I believe that the problem is very deep.
And therefore, I am interested in continuum of care, and to see
what that means.
For example, I am looking at Mr. Schiraldi's testimony, at
page 7. And he talks about some of what they are doing under
this continuum notion, beginning to do: 16 multi-systemic
therapy slots, where a good percentage, 89 percent, of the
youth have gone through the program since its inception. Then
he talks about an evening reporting center which is operated in
the Latin American Youth Center, with 30 slots.
This is my question. I know what kids we are talking about.
It is one thing to talk about kids who go through a program. It
is another thing to posit the circumstances of many of these
kids: going back in the same community that produced the
problem in the first place; single parent, or no parent; and
certainly no father often, if it is an African-American child
born in this country today. That is to say, 70 percent are born
to never-married women.
These are things, straight-out, that any system that deals
with our children has to face. That is one of the reasons we
are working with the Black Men and Boys Commission.
So my assumption is, if I were operating one of these
centers, I would not assume parents. And if I assumed a parent,
I would understand that I am dealing often with a single
parent, herself often poor and disadvantaged, who lives in a
community where it is very hard to protect your children from
the criminal element that swims around them. So my assumption
would essentially be no parent; even though there might well be
some parents there.
And therefore, my question is, with respect to these kinds
of continuum notions, is there anything approaching--I hate to
use this word, but I am so naive as to how the system works--
approaching the kind of system we use for people who have been
in jail and get out, a probationary system where, essentially,
the person is pretty much supervised for a certain amount of
time?
Or do we have any data that shows that children who report
to an evening reporting center in fact do better than those who
do not? And if so, do we know what it is that happens there
that causes this?
The 89 percent of the youth who have gone through this
Department of Mental Health program, does something happen
there that you can point to that shows that, if you go through
that, given the circumstances I posit, you will reduce criminal
activity and juvenile delinquency?
I am trying to figure out what ``continuum of care'' means,
as you are beginning to implement it, and its effects, or its
early effects.
Mr. Schiraldi. Do you want me to take the first shot at
that? So far, what I have seen is that the families seem to be
falling into sort of three bundles. There are some families in
which they are very actively involved in their kids. They are
coming up to the facility. They want to help; they want to know
what they can do.
There are some families that are just not in the picture at
all, and there is no possible way we could consider, at least
now, sending the kid back there. There are a lot of drugs in
the home; there is criminal behavior.
And then there is a whole bunch of people in the middle for
whom I think the Department has consistently done a very poor
job of, A, reaching out to them to get their opinion about what
should happen and, B, supporting them when they are out there.
So some of those folks we believe can be brought in; sat
down at a table with their kid and all the professionals with
all the letters and numbers after their names; and create a
program for that kid that meets the family's needs, the young
person's needs, and the need for society to be protected.
When Child and Family Services did that, they were able to
bring a large percentage of mothers; families; and even 70
percent now of the family team meetings they hold has either
the kid's father, or a member of the father's family, showing
up at these family team meetings to do case planning.
When you do that, then you have more buy-in into what this
plan is going to be. Because after all, the kid is going to
live with their family for the rest of their lives.
Now, multi-systemic therapy is a good example of a program
that then tracks the kids closely. I mean, not once a week we
are going to see this kid; not even once a day; multiple
contacts a day with the kid and their family, to make sure
things are going OK at home, to make sure----
Ms. Norton. So there is somebody who is in touch----
Mr. Schiraldi. Multiple times, with a pager, 24----
Ms. Norton. Are these children who have already committed a
crime?
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes, we only get kids--well, there are two
parts of what we do. But the parts that the Judges were just
talking about are when we get kids committed to us. That means
that not only have they committed a crime, but they have been
essentially tried and convicted and sentenced to us.
Ms. Norton. I would just like to suggest that some kind of
control study be done. If this works, it will be very important
to know. And nobody will believe anything we say, unless we
show in the only way you can show something; which is, ``These
are kids who didn't come, or who weren't involved, and these
are kids--'' I am just very interested in the contact
approach--the contact approach. If we put people on probation
who have committed crimes, adults, and we say we have to keep
contact with them, I don't know why we wouldn't say the same
for the children.
I also want to say that, with respect to the parents--and I
don't have any doubt that there will be parents, two-family
parents, extended families, that will say, ``Oh, my God, thank
you, somebody is going to help me with this kid.'' But you know
what? If you are talking about certain communities in D.C.,
that family is almost powerless to ward off the influences in
that community.
I have constituents who say, ``This is a terrible thing to
do to my child, but you know what? The child can't go out.''
This child has to come home from school; essentially, is locked
in. Of course, this child is an outcast when he goes out. But
this mother would rather have that than have the kid out on the
street, just in the front.
So this is very difficult, what you are trying to do,
because you cannot change the environment in which this child
is going to live. But I am very interested in it, because if it
works, that is the kind of thing that we ought to be able to
show works, get money for.
Increasing, for example, the drug court: when it was shown
that people came into drug court with one offense, and then
that tended to mitigate further offenses, now it is very
popular.
Judge Satterfield, I have to assume that must be how
juveniles are handled in the D.C. courts. Is that the case? And
does it work? Does it work when you give a child over to a
priest or to his grandmother, does it have an effect of
reducing moving the child on to other parts of the criminal
justice system?
Judge Satterfield. Let me assure you that when we place
children on probation, that they are supervised by a probation
officer, who routinely meets with the family, goes out and
checks on the curfews and so forth. And that is why we know
very quickly if they are violating certain conditions. And if
we know that they are out violating curfew conditions and other
conditions, they may be out in the street doing other things
that they are not supposed to be doing. And so we assure that.
Ms. Norton. And then you report that to the District,
because you can't do anything?
Judge Satterfield. No, the probation officers who work for
the court report it to the judge, or the Attorney General's
office, who will file papers in order for the judge to get
involved again to determine whether or not probation should be
revoked or other conditions need to be placed. So we have that
ongoing.
And as I said before, we always try to involve a parent.
Every one of these kids needs a grownup. It doesn't have to be
the father or the mother. It has to be some type of grownup,
some type of guardian. We have to involve that. Many of our
children are children of men who have gone to jail, so they
need to be mentored while these men are in jail.
Ms. Norton. So who does that?
Judge Satterfield. Well, I know that CSSC is starting to
work on a program, that they are going to be mentoring some of
the children, kids who go to jail. And our Court Social
Services, we are going to have them involved in that, because
we ought to see some of these kids.
Ms. Norton. So there is not a systematic program yet; for
example, seeing that a male child has a male somebody there?
Judge Satterfield. We can provide mentors now, but we are
looking for a stronger mentoring type program that can hit
every kid.
Ms. Norton. So who is doing that? Mr. Schiraldi, is that
your job? I mean, whose job is it?
Judge Satterfield. I think it is all of our jobs. I think
it is our Court Social Services for Children that are on
probation----
Ms. Norton. Yes, but who is doing it? If it is everybody's
job, it is not going to get done. Many of these are young male
children, and the only male role models they have are thugs.
Now, somebody has to be responsible for saying, hard as it is--
they don't have to live in the District; I don't care where
they live; I don't care what their color is--but there is going
to be a male role model for every child like this. Whose job is
it to see to that?
Mr. Schiraldi. Both of us. And both of us are doing it, I
think, right now. We just used a Federal grant from OJJDP to
issue an RFP for $1 million worth of mentoring programs. The
Peaceoholics who criticized us in the Post on Sunday have
applied for that. And even though they said some tough stuff
about us, I think they are probably one of the groups to get
it, because they were right.
Ms. Norton. This is something we are very interested in, in
having your point of view. If you got a million-dollar grant to
go and get mentors, and you want to put them with these
troubled kids, then we would like to know what has been--or
what is your success in finding them. Because that, it seems to
me, is very critical.
Let me ask about absconding, because an important part of
your testimony, Mr. Schiraldi, is that there is a 58 percent
reduction in absconding. And I think that would be the main
problem that the people in the community out in Laurel would be
concerned about.
Why is there a reduction? What is the cause and effect? Why
is there a reduction of that kind over a 2-year period?
Mr. Schiraldi. Well, there are a couple of things I want to
clear up. One is that escapes, there haven't been any escapes.
I mean, 2002 was the last time we had an escape----
Ms. Norton. Well, excuse me. I thought absconding was
escapes were----
Mr. Schiraldi. No, that is why I just wanted to clear that
up. So the people in Laurel should feel good about the fact
that there hasn't been an escape in several years.
Ms. Norton. So there have been no escapes since when?
Mr. Schiraldi. 2002.
Ms. Norton. This is very important.
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So there has not been a single escape from Oak
Hill sine 2002?
Mr. Schiraldi. Correct.
Ms. Norton. OK. What is ``absconding?''
Mr. Schiraldi. ``Absconding'' means running away from a
group home, or running away from home when you are supposed to
be there; you know, not being where you are supposed to be.
Ms. Norton. So that would be in the District of Columbia,
or maybe in a foster home?
Mr. Schiraldi. Well, you know, kids sometimes get placed
into residential treatment centers that are in other States
but, by and large that is, you know, the people running away
from our programs.
Us, the Police Department, and Court Social Services, which
is the probation department for the courts, have all set up
absconders units several years ago. And I think a large part of
why it went down is because those absconders units are doing
their job.
Ms. Norton. So you have the escapes? This is in your
testimony?
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes. My original testimony? Oh, the escapes?
No.
Ms. Norton. Why? For goodness sakes, that is important to
put in the record. Because I think if there had never been any
escapes from Oak Hill, I don't think you would have heard the
kinds of concerns you hear today. And of course, what you are
saying about the kinds of facility you are going to build is
important to hear.
Could I ask about court-ordered limit? You have a court-
ordered limit?
Mr. Schiraldi. Correct. It is 188.
Ms. Norton. And what do you do if you reach the court-
ordered limit?
Mr. Schiraldi. Pay fines. I mean, if we exceed the court-
ordered limit, we pay fines. And we were paying them up until
March. Or I shouldn't say we were paying them; we were accruing
them up until March.
Ms. Norton. Because there is just no place to put a child
who commits a serious crime, except Oak Hill facility?
Mr. Schiraldi. I think there are a lot of issues. I mean, I
think Judge Satterfield talked a little earlier about case
processing times. Case processing times aren't only an issue
for the court; they are an issue for us.
A lot of kids' cases were just sort of sitting around.
There wasn't either enough staff to get them placed, as we said
earlier, or the staff weren't moving quickly enough. I don't
know which, and I don't really even care at this point. Because
what we have done is we have fixed it. And we have said,
``Look, if it takes 180 days to get a kid into a residential
treatment center, none of that time counts. When that kid shows
up at that residential treatment center, he or she is still
spending the same amount of time, whether they got there the
next day or 180 days later. Hurry up! Get them in there in 90
days. It doesn't change anything. It is all just dead time that
the kid is waiting.''
So just by getting people to do their jobs more quickly and
more efficiently, we have been able to reduce the population.
That is what they found in the JDAI sites in lots of different
places, as well.
Ms. Norton. So there were places for these children to go--
--
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. But there was bureaucracy?
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes, it was just paperwork, it was sitting
around----
Ms. Norton. So now how long does it take?
Mr. Schiraldi. Well, I don't know. We have substantially
reduced the length of stay awaiting placement. I don't know the
exact numbers, but I can get them to you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you about something we have hardly
heard any testimony about. You know, I think if the facilities,
however inadequate, provided something in there that the child
could take away, there would be less concern about the
facilities and their deterioration.
So I have to ask you about what kind of education--there is
nothing that keeps us from educating a child in this facility
at least to the level we educate them in the D.C. public
schools. So I have to ask you, what education services or job
readiness services are provided? And what has been the success
or failure of these services?
Mr. Schiraldi. D.C. Public Schools run the schools at both
Oak Hill and the Youth Services Center. And the University of
the District of Columbia is contracted to do a variety of
vocational services, from computers, to car repair,
woodworking, a bunch of things like that.
We intend to bid out the educational services as an RFP
that would allow the schools to compete, but also allow a
variety of, I think, very innovative charter schools like--
well, I don't want to name them, because then I don't want to
prejudge the bid. But you know, there are some pretty
interesting folks out there who I think would do some exciting
work with the kids.
One of our biggest problems isn't just the education that
goes on inside, but it is the sort of transfer in and out.
These kids, by the time they get to us, the schools are so fed
up with them--because, look, they are not just little darlings
that need a hug, right? They have problems, and they have been
a pain in the neck in school for a very long time.
Ms. Norton. So what is the average time they spend at Oak
Hill?
Mr. Schiraldi. The kids are spending somewhere between 9
and 18 months, the ones that are staying there as committed. So
the schools are pretty fed up with them. They don't really want
them back real quick.
Ms. Norton. So you would almost have to tutor kids who are
only there for that amount of time, because they must have very
different levels.
Mr. Schiraldi. Yes, I tell you, interestingly enough, the
kids pick up often a grade or two, just because we have them
physically in class, and they hadn't been physically in class
before. So sometimes, just by virtue of being there, they are
picking up some grade levels.
But coming back out is often a difficult transition. And I
think that if we had a charter school that could do a good job
educating them in, and then help reacclimate them on the way
out, so they don't get sort of stuck back in a school where
they had already failed, I think we would see a lot fewer of
them run away, and a lot fewer of them fail.
Ms. Norton. Judge Hamilton.
Judge Hamilton. Well, I would like to add to that, though,
that one of the good things--if not the only good thing--at Oak
Hill is the school. The school does a good job. And I would
hate to see that change as a result of some outsourcing to some
other facility. Everybody agrees that the educational system
provided by DCPS at Oak Hill is doing an excellent job.
Ms. Norton. Boy! Thank you for putting that in the record.
Judge Satterfield. Can I add something to that, though,
Congresswoman Norton? It is just not about case processing that
slows a child moving through the process. I mean, there has to
be some service capacity in the place where the child is to go.
And there are some children that have to receive services
while in a secure facility, for safety reasons. And so you
don't just need a school that works well, which it does, but
you need other programs, like drug treatment, and whether it is
sex offenders and so forth. Because the children will be
released--as they should--and some have to have this done not
in the community, but in a secure facility.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Schiraldi, can you assure this committee
that the children who are being detained are being held
separately from children who have been committed at Oak Hill?
Mr. Schiraldi. They are not being held separately at
present. At present, we have a mixed facility, in which there
are detained and committed kids in the same place. I wish I
could assure----
Ms. Norton. I know they are in the same building, but that
is not my question.
Mr. Schiraldi. OK.
Ms. Norton. My question is if they are in the same
building, but very different statuses. Are they just all lumped
together so that one group can, if you forgive me, contaminate
the other?
Mr. Schiraldi. I wish I could assure you that the kids who
are on detained and committed status never have contact with
each other out there. I wish I could tell you that. But they go
to the same school, they play on the same football field----
Ms. Norton. And that has to be? I mean, the number of
detained children and the number of committed children--I
forget the numbers. What are they?
Mr. Schiraldi. We have about 80 of each at Oak Hill right
now, and an additional 60----
Ms. Norton. So you couldn't educate them, for example,
separately?
Mr. Schiraldi. It is a little difficult because, remember,
you have one school building. So to do it, we would have to
essentially cut the school day in half. And we don't want to do
that. We want them both in, all day. So very often, they are
both in the same school.
We have one football team. Kids play on it who are on
detained status; kids play on it who are on committed status.
You know, there is just one lunchroom. So we do shifts.
There are two units that house kids who are only detained,
and two units house kids who are only committed. And one unit
houses both, because some of those kids are in protective
custody, or they have illnesses, and we don't have two
protective custody units.
So all I am saying is, I don't want to lie to you. We keep
them apart as much as we can. But sometimes, because there are
so few of them up there, they are mingled.
Ms. Norton. Judge Hamilton, you and Judge Satterfield know
more about this than I do. But, see, my concern is with some
kid who is there being detained, and may not be on his way to a
life of crime; and some older kid, who is the only person to
imitate, takes you right there. So I am not suggesting I have
the answer to it. I am very concerned about it.
Judge Satterfield. Well, they should be separated. And that
is what the purpose of the Youth Services Center is for. It is
an 80-bed facility.
Ms. Norton. Yes, and we have 80 out there. And still, we
have 80 at Oak Hill.
Mr. Schiraldi. But we have another 65 at the Youth Services
Center. So we have about 140 or so detained kids.
Ms. Norton. Yes, well, I mentioned that in my opening
statement, that D.C. has really moved--it seems to me,
appropriately--with those. But that looks like about half of
the kids. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be someplace else
in the District.
What kinds of crimes are the detained children accused of?
Judge Satterfield. Well, it can be anywhere from drug
possession, if they have repeat offenders, or there is no one
in the home to supervise them, to murder. I mean, so it could
be the continuum of charges.
Ms. Norton. So are at least the most serious ones out at
Oak Hill? I mean, do you divide up the ones who are detained in
the District? How do you do that? How do you decide which ones
ought to be sent to Oak Hill who are detainees, and which ones
ought to be sent to our state-of-the-art facility right here on
Mount Olivet?
Mr. Schiraldi. Generally, it is more about how long they
are staying. The facility on Mount Olivet Road is a good
facility. It is a nice place, in terms that it is new, it is
not deteriorated. But there is no outside recreation area. And
if the kids are there longer than a certain period of time,
they just start to go nuts, because there is no place for them
to be. So after a certain period of time, we like to get them
out to Oak Hill, so at least they have someplace to run around
every once in a while.
Ms. Norton. I see your dilemma. And, you know, I am not
trying to micro-manage this. But you know, we go from one
dilemma to another. It is terrible. And the only way, of
course, is what you all are trying to do; which is to keep kids
from getting in there in the first place.
I do want to ask Chief Ramsey a question. This is another
point of clarification. Because Chief Ramsey says in his
testimony, at page 2, that because of the way the juvenile
justice system is structured--for very good reasons, for the
most part--his officers do not have access to some information
that might be considered critical.
Now, he says he is not interested in all their social
files. And he names some things that you might not want to have
an officer have access to; I mean, what their juvenile history
is. But then, he names others, other things such as curfews,
stay-away orders and the like, which apparently his officers
also don't have access to.
So I guess my question is, what is the effect of not having
this information? Would any harm be done if at least some of
this information were available to officers? If a child was
violating curfew, might that not be the place to stop them,
when there is an officer who knows that; rather than wait until
the court, Judge Satterfield, has to get him, or somebody else
may in fact detain him for something more serious? So would you
describe whether anybody has looked at that matter?
Judge Satterfield. Could I just clarify the record in terms
of information sharing? Because the City Council took another
look at confidentiality just this past year when they enacted
the Juvenile Justice Act. And so they looked at those things.
Some of the things that Chief Ramsey is looking for--like
detention status and, if we are holding them, where they are
being held--that is not part of the social files. In the social
file we put in the psychological information, and so forth. Any
restrictions on him getting this is, obviously, by law. They
looked at it.
In terms of release conditions, in terms of stay-away
orders, in the new bill that was passed recently, they
permitted the Attorney General's Office to share that
information with the victims, or the alleged complainants in
the case. There are provisions in the law that allow for law
enforcement personnel to receive information when necessary to
the discharging of their duties.
Some information is provided only through an application. I
review every application that comes in, and I don't get
applications from law enforcement.
In May 2004, Chief Judge King issued an administrative
order indicating that the OAG, the Attorney General's Office,
the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, and the police department, can share
information when there is a custody order outstanding about a
youth.
Now, I know he wants other information: where they are
going, how they are moving. That information, some of that is
held confidential by the statute, unless there is a custody
order outstanding.
In the case that they are referring to, the Merritt case,
there were custody orders outstanding. And that administrative
order allows for the free flowing of information in order to
execute that custody order.
Ms. Norton. What is a custody order?
Judge Satterfield. I am sorry. It is a bench warrant. It is
a warrant to arrest a juvenile.
Ms. Norton. Oh, yes, well, now that the kid has committed--
or is accused of committing--a crime, we can share some
information?
Judge Satterfield. No, when he runs away, absconds from
home or whatever, the people come to the court, the agencies
come to the court and ask for a custody order, so that law
enforcement can know that he is out on the run. They stop on a
traffic stop or something like that; this order is in the
system. They can look it up, and realize that, and take him
back.
Ms. Norton. OK. That is not automatic, though?
Judge Satterfield. No, they have to petition the court for
custody orders. And they often do it, and we issue them within
a day that they make the petition.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Schiraldi, obviously, somebody has to go to
another bureaucratic step. Here is a kid absconding; we want to
get hold of him. But somebody has to do the next bureaucratic
step in order for the cops, who might help you get him, to even
know he is absconding?
Mr. Schiraldi. I mean, I think the request for a warrant,
if you will, is more than just a bureaucratic step. I mean, the
judges do usually give them out, pretty quick.
I think, first of all, the administration needs to have an
in-house conversation about this. The Mayor is going to be, I
think, looking at this issue. And we have all got to get
together in a room and talk about it. The legislation that
changed that the Judge was just talking about really only went
into effect in the spring. I don't think we know what we can do
even under it so far.
And you know, I don't think this issue came into play very
deeply in the case that ran in the Post on Sunday, as the Judge
just pointed out.
But you know, there are a lot of people out there--Senator
Simpson; you know, Judge Walden; Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell; Bob Beaman, Olympic gold medalist--plenty of people,
if we knew about their violent felony convictions--which all of
them had when they were kids--they might not have become
senators and Olympic gold medalists.
Ms. Norton. Well, you know, just a moment. Nobody is--and
you know it--nobody here is saying that one ought to publicize;
nor was the Chief saying that. He was talking about something
that I would ask you to look into. And I can understand that
when a child absconds there is a warrant.
But since you are doing a whole new juvenile justice
system, and since some more automatic way of knowing about a
child being on the loose could be helpful in keeping this child
from going further in the system, it might be worth looking
into, to see if there is a more flexible way to make that very
limited--some very limited information; we would all have to
get together to decide what that information is.
I would ask that be done, and that you report to this
committee--let's give you 6 months, because you are talking
about a new law--how you have facilitated that.
The chief wanted to say something.
Chief Ramsey. Well, I just wanted to talk about the
information-sharing issue. Custody orders, we get the
information on that. The issue that I have is that, when you
get youngsters that are released from Oak Hill for violent
offenses or for repeat offenses--you know, been locked up for
auto theft or UUV for seven or eight times, that sort of
thing--they go into a group home. And we are not given
information as to who they are, what group home they were put
in, and so forth. We don't know who is in these homes.
And when you wind up with situations where all of a sudden
you get an outbreak of robberies or auto thefts or whatever,
and you are trying to figure out what it is that is going on,
it is very difficult when people are being reintroduced into
the community and you don't know.
We are not looking for a lot, but I don't think that it is
asking too much to at least have the name of the individual who
was in custody for robbery that has been released and put in a
group home in somebody's neighborhood; so if there are crimes
committed and so forth, that we have access to that
information.
Now, the law maybe would say one thing, but the AG's office
has clearly told us we can't have access to that, and we have
had conversations around it. There is obviously some confusion
around what we can and cannot have.
And again, we are talking about the youth that have been
committed, if there are any particular conditions at the time
of their release, if they should be back into the group home by
a certain time or, you know, stay away from certain areas or
people or whatever. It is good to know, so that we can make
sure that they are staying consistent with whatever those terms
are.
Ms. Norton. Very touchy issue. I don't dare make a
recommendation on it; except I know the presumption has to be
that this is a child, and whatever we do, we have to make sure
this child is treated as a child, instead of branding them so
early that he says, ``What use is it? They already are calling
me a criminal.'' So we begin there.
But unless a system like this begins--and here, I am not
talking about the District, alone. The reason that you see
legislators going to penalties that are outrageous for children
is because those of us who believe in a system for children,
for children, haven't found ways to meet some of the concerns
that, on balance, really don't interfere with confidentiality.
So I would really ask very much for that to be done, or
else we are going to find--you are trying to move people back
into our neighborhoods. You know, if in fact you could say that
there are special ways in force to make sure that such children
do not get into trouble again, you will not have every ANC
commissioner in the city telling you ``NIMBY.''
So I mean, it has to be faced, because you have an order
that has to move many of these children back to neighborhoods,
and nobody ever wants such a child. And the more you can say
about what you have done, while safeguarding the privacy of the
child, the family, and his identity as a child, while saying to
the community that the cops know certain minimal things, or
that the juvenile justice system knows it, the greater, it
seems to me, ease you will have in moving people back.
I only have a couple more questions. Just let me ask this
notion about the NSA and the buffer zone. I love notions of
``win-win.'' That is why I like what Mr. Cardin is doing. You
know, he is a good neighbor. He is trying to think of a way to
satisfy his constituents, while keeping in mind our concerns.
And your testimony, Mr. Schiraldi, talked about our needing
only 25 acres out of 800.
Mr. Schiraldi. I think it is 888, is the exact number of
acres.
Ms. Norton. Again, you know, everybody understand how this
got done: it is the Federal Government that said, ``This is
where you go on this 800 acres.''
I just said to Ben before he went to vote--taking my vote
along with him, such as it was--[laughter]--I just asked him,
you know, the way we do things in the Congress is almost always
incrementally. Would there be any reason not to do the 25-acre
buffer zone, and then move on as we find the wherewithal to the
other issue? Is there any reason why those 25 acres--they must
be talking about acres close to their own perimeter--couldn't
be simply turned back to them?
Mr. Schiraldi. No, in fact, if you look at the map, the
buffer zone they want is where Oak Hill--where the current
locked facility is now.
Ms. Norton. Oh.
Mr. Schiraldi. So I think that in some respects, even
though that is not an immediate solution, in some respects for
us it is the best place to give up, because we are almost
definitely not building there.
Ms. Norton. So we are tearing that down.
Mr. Schiraldi. No, I mean, we have to build something
first.
Ms. Norton. Right.
Mr. Schiraldi. But once we build that, we don't----
Ms. Norton. But we are not necessarily building that close
to the NSA facility.
Mr. Schiraldi. No, if we are smart when we do our
negotiations, if we are able to come to some consensus around
this, we will specifically pick the site that is least
convenient for NSA--you know, I mean, least convenient for them
to want, most convenient for them not to want.
Ms. Norton. I think you have moved us forward on that.
Finally, Judge Hamilton, I didn't quite understand. On page
5 of your testimony, you brought to our attention a concern you
have about the transfer of more children out of the juvenile
justice system into the adult criminal system; and that even
after your commission report.
Judge Hamilton. Right.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would elaborate on it, and why you
think that happened, and why you are against it.
Judge Hamilton. Well, the law was relaxed so as to give to
the city the benefit that certain persons who were charged as
juveniles for purpose of a transfer hearing were not capable of
being rehabilitated. So these children would go into that
hearing with the presumption against them, that they could not
be rehabilitated. And it would be up to the children, of course
with the assistance of their lawyer, to overcome that
presumption.
And really, the presumption, if there is a presumption--
there need not be any presumption, but if there is a
presumption, the presumption should be that they are capable of
being rehabilitated.
So the purpose of the amendment was to make it easier to
get transfer determinations from the court, to permit these
children to be transferred into the adult criminal justice
system.
Ms. Norton. Is there any age limit on that?
Judge Hamilton. Yes. Yes, there is an age limit on it, but
given the age limit, if the child falls within the parameter of
the age limit, then the child has to overcome, if he is
referred for transfer.
Ms. Norton. Now, how do they know whether the child
deserves a presumption of incapable of rehabilitation? How is
that done?
Judge Hamilton. It is just automatic, by operation of law.
Ms. Norton. Is that Constitutional? Doesn't somebody have
to show it, or something? Or is it by operation of the crime
the child has committed?
Judge Hamilton. It is by operation of law. If the child is
referred for transfer, then that child is presumed, for the
purpose of that transfer hearing, not to be capable of being
rehabilitated. And that was one of the major concerns in our
recommending that no such presumption be applied to a child.
And so, but notwithstanding our recommendation, that is a
part of the present law. And that will have the effect of
moving more children out of the juvenile justice system, and
into the adult criminal justice system.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I just want to say how
helpful all of your testimony has been. And to the extent that
we have seemed befuddled by some of what we have heard, or on
my part appeared to have been critical of parts of our system,
it is not because the answers are apparent to me. I think you
have a very, very hard job. And I just want to assure you that
I know I speak for the chairman when I say that we stand ready
to be helpful.
One of the reasons I want the controlled study is if there
is a controlled study that shows that, for example, the kinds
of things you are doing in continuum of care work, then that is
the kind of thing I would be willing to try to get extra money
for.
Mr. Schiraldi. Great.
Ms. Norton. Again, I want to thank all of you for coming,
and for this very helpful testimony. And this hearing is
adjourned.
Judge Satterfield. Thank you.
Mr. Schiraldi. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4770.067