U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–425 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–742 

REVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES AT THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA’S YOUTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

MARCH 30, 2004—WASHINGTON, DC 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

MARY DIETRICH

KATE ELTRICH (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Statement of Austin Anderson, Interim Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, District of Columbia ................................................................ 1 

Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Office of the 

Inspector General, District of Columbia ............................................................. 1 

Robert Isom, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Office of 

the Inspector General, District of Columbia ...................................................... 1 

Lawrence Perry, Director of Planning and Inspections, Office of the Inspector 

General, District of Columbia ............................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Senator Mike DeWine ....................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu ............................................... 4 

Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss ....................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement of Representative Benjamin L. Cardin ............................... 6 

Letter From ....................................................................................................... 7 

Statement of Austin Anderson ............................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 10 

Management and Internal Control Issues ............................................................. 11 

Security Problems .................................................................................................... 11 

Drugs and Substance Abuse ................................................................................... 11 

Safety and Health Issues ........................................................................................ 12 

Information Technology Issues ............................................................................... 12 

Principal Recommendations .................................................................................... 12 

Statement of Judge Eugene N. Hamilton, Chair, Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform ..................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 18 

Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., Director, Public Defender Service, District of Columbia .................................................................................................. 21 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 23 

Statement of Robert C. Bobb, City Administrator and Deputy Mayor, District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 31 

Marceline D. Alexander, Interim Administrator, Youth Services Administration ........................................................................................................................ 31

Mark D. Beck, Interim Special Counsel, Youth Services Administration .......... 31 

Prepared Statement of Robert C. Bobb .................................................................. 34 

Investigations by the Office of the Inspector General .......................................... 37 

Receivership ............................................................................................................. 39 

Statement of Marceline D. Alexander .................................................................... 44 

(1) 

REVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES AT THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA’S YOUTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu. 

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN ANDERSON, INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

ALVIN WRIGHT, JR., ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

ROBERT ISOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

LAWRENCE PERRY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS, 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Today, we will review the District of Columbia’s Youth Service Administration, the agency charged with overseeing committed juvenile offenders, as well as detained juveniles at its Oak Hill Juvenile 

Detention facility in Laurel, Maryland. 

This morning, the interim Inspector General for the District will 

release his comprehensive report on the Youth Services Administration’s Oak Hill facility. After reviewing an embargoed version of 

this report, I must say that I am shocked by what I have seen. I 

also must say that I am outraged, and I think the public will be 

outraged once they know about this. 

In a moment, we will hear details from our witnesses, but I 

would like to mention some of the more unbelievable details of this 

report, and some of the deficiencies which are outlined therein. 

First, the illegal drugs, such as marijuana and PCP are regularly—regularly smuggled into the Oak Hill Youth Detention Center. In fact, in some cases, youth correction officers are the source 

of these illegal substances. 
2 

Second, substance abuse treatment contractors have refused to 

renew contracts, because Oak Hill is simply unable to stop drugs 

coming into the facilities. This means that sadly there are no drug 

treatment services today at Oak Hill. No services in this facility at 

all. 

No. 3, youths entering Oak Hill, who come in drug free, then 

start taking drugs once they are inside the facilities. Let me repeat 

that. Youths that come into the facilities, into this facility, who are 

drug free coming in, then become drug dependent once they go in— 

once they are in. 

No. 4, the Youth Services Administration has wasted millions of 

dollars, according to this report, on contractors who have not provided any meaningful services or deliverables. 

Later, the Director of the Public Defenders Service in the District 

will testify that the Youth Services Administration has failed to 

protect youths from harm. For example, last year, a 12-year-old 

held at Oak Hill as an overnighter, and not accused of any crime, 

was placed in a room with two other children. This 12-year-old was 

sexually assaulted by one of the other youths. 

Several months later, a 13-year-old was arrested and held at Oak 

Hill waiting for a shelter house space, simply for a shelter house 

space. The 13-year-old was placed in a room with the same child 

who committed the prior sexual assault. Not surprisingly, yet another sexual incident occurred. 

Now, I understand that this practice of assigning more than one 

child to a room has lead to the commingling of status offenders, 

simply children who are runaways or who are truants, and placing 

them together with delinquent youths, as well as detained, and 

youths who have been committed youths. 

These practices, for example, lead to a child detained as a truant 

and a runaway being housed in the same room as a youth detained 

on charges of negligent homicide. Now, that is simply not right. It 

simply is not good for these children. 

Amazingly, these are only the latest in a long list of deficiencies 

with the Youth Services Administration that stretch back at least 

19 years. Indeed, it was 19 years ago this month that the Public 

Defender’s Service filed a complaint against the District for failure 

to protect youth under its custody. Year, after year, after year, the 

City has fallen short of the court’s Jerry M. decree, and is now facing the prospect of being taken over by a court receiver. 

Equally amazing is that it costs $245 per day to house a youth 

at Oak Hill. That amounts to a staggering $89,425 per year, 

$89,425 to place a child in a dangerous setting with 177 other juvenile offenders, who all have access to illicit drugs, and no drug 

treatment programs. There is something terribly wrong with that 

picture. 

We have worked to enact and fund the District of Columbia Family Court Reform Act through this subcommittee. Senator Landrieu 

and I have worked on that. We have worked to develop and fund 

a foster care initiative in the District, because we believe it is our 

moral duty to protect and care for children who have been abused 

and neglected. 

I understand that many children who are in foster care group 

homes run away because they are being victimized by other youths 
3 

in the same home. Once these children run away or are truant 

from school, they become delinquents, and are often sent to Oak 

Hill. So neglected youths who are failed by a broken foster care 

system now find themselves locked up and labeled juvenile 

delinquents. The societal sympathy for these youths immediately 

plummets, because now they are predators rather than victims. 

This hearing should shed a disinfecting light on the problems 

with the City’s Youth Services Administration. I expect to see an 

urgent and comprehensive plan to correct these many deficiencies. 

We have waited 19 years for improvements, and we must not wait 

another year, and wait for more kids to be victimized before something changes. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Because of the many findings, and the Inspector General’s report, 

we are going to allow Mr. Anderson a few more minutes to present 

his testimony. We look forward, Mr. Anderson, to that testimony. 

As usual, the remaining witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for 

their oral remarks, in order to leave time for questions and answers. Copies of all written statements will be placed in the record 

in their entirety. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today, we will review the District 

of Columbia’s Youth Services Administration—the agency charged with overseeing 

committed juvenile offenders, as well as detained juveniles at its Oak Hill juvenile 

detention facility in Laurel, Maryland. 

This morning, the Interim Inspector General for the District will release his comprehensive report on the Youth Services Administration’s Oak Hill facility. After reviewing an embargoed version of this report, I am shocked and outraged at the conditions at this facility. In a moment, we will hear details from our witnesses, but 

I would like to mention some of the more egregious deficiencies: 

—Illegal drugs, such as marijuana and PCP, are regularly smuggled into the Oak 

Hill Youth Detention Center. In some cases, Youth Correctional Officers are the 

source of some of the illegal substances; 

—Substance abuse treatment contractors have refused to renew contracts because 

Oak Hill is unable to stop the influx of drugs. That means there are no drug 

treatment services at Oak Hill; 

—Youths entering Oak Hill drug-free start taking drugs inside the facility because they have access to drugs; and 

—The Youth Services Administration has wasted millions of dollars on contractors 

who have not provided any meaningful deliverables. 

Later, the Director of the Public Defender Service in the District will testify that 

the Youth Services Administration has failed to protect youths from harm. For example, last year a 12-year-old—held at Oak Hill as an overnighter and not accused 

of any crime—was placed in a room with two other children. The 12-year-old was 

sexually assaulted by one of the other youths. Several months later, a 13-year-old 

was arrested and held at Oak Hill waiting for a shelter house space. The 13-yearold was placed in a room with the same child who committed the prior sexual assault. Not surprising, yet another sexual incident occurred. 

I understand that this practice of assigning more than one child to a room has 

led to the commingling of status offenders—kids who are runaways or truants—and 

delinquent youth, as well as detained and committed youths. 

For example, these practices led to a child detained as a truant and a runaway 

being housed in the same room as a youth detained on charges of negligent homicide! Now that just isn’t right, and it just isn’t good for these children. 

Amazingly, these are only the latest in a long list of deficiencies with the Youth 

Services Administration that stretch back at least 19 years! Indeed, it was 19 years 

ago this month that the Public Defender Service filed a complaint against the District for failure to protect youth under its custody. Year after year, the City has fall-
4 

en short of the Court’s ‘‘Jerry M. Decree,’’ and is now facing the prospect of being 

taken over by a Court receiver. 

Equally amazing is that it costs $245 per day to house a youth at Oak Hill—that 

amounts to a staggering $89,425 per year! $89,425 to place a child in a dangerous 

setting with 177 other juvenile offenders who all have access to illicit drugs and no 

drug treatment programs. There’s something terribly wrong with that picture. 

I have worked to enact and fund the District of Columbia Family Court Reform 

Act, and I have worked to develop and fund a Foster Care Initiative in the District, 

because I believe it is our moral duty to protect and care for children who have been 

abused and neglected. I understand that many children who are in foster care group 

homes run away because they are being victimized by other youths in the same 

home. Once these children run away or are truant from school, they become 

delinquents and are often sent to Oak Hill. So, neglected youths who are failed by 

a broken foster care system, now find themselves locked up and labeled juvenile 

delinquents. The societal sympathy for these youths immediately plummets because 

now they are perpetrators, rather than victims. 

This hearing should shed a disinfecting light on the problems with the City’s 

Youth Services Administration. I expect to see an urgent and comprehensive plan 

to correct these many deficiencies. We have waited 19 years for improvements—and 

we must not wait another year and wait for more kids to be victimized before something changes. 

Because of the many findings in the Inspector General’s Report, I will allow Mr. 

Andersen 8 minutes to present his testimony. As usual, the remaining witnesses 

will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks, in order to leave time for questions and answers. Copies of all written statements will be placed in the record in 

their entirety. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

I appreciate your attendance at this hearing today to explore the challenges facing 

the Youth Services Administration and the juvenile justice system in the District. 

I am happy to see that the Federal entities which receive direct oversight and funding from this committee are here to share their perspectives and commitment to reform. I would also like to welcome the new City Administrator, a fellow Louisianan, 

Robert Bobb, and the interim Inspector General Austin Anderson. 

What the committee knows about the system is gleaned primarily from the press, 

as well as oversight and funding for the D.C. Courts and offender supervision agencies which are connected to juvenile justice, but not the primary agency responsible 

for rehabilitation. The committee has focused on re-entry of adult offenders and the 

care of children in the abuse and neglect welfare system. Children in crisis and offenders struggling to come back to the District are not unrelated to the unique 

struggles of youths in the justice system. I believe the committee’s previous investigations in this area and Chairman DeWine’s and my passion for improving the 

community we live in can contribute to the reforms we will discuss today. The mission of YSA is a combination of care for child welfare as well as developing solutions 

to offender re-entry into the community. A youth in the criminal justice system is 

sure to spend most of their lives, we hope, outside of prison; therefore we must develop the most rigorous best practices to ensure youths receive the skills necessary 

to be positive members of the community. 

The committee learned of the broken system of juvenile detention from the Washington Post series published this summer which exposed many of the security 

failings at the Oak Hill youth detention center. In addition, the written testimony 

provided to the committee highlights other issues facing the agency, particularly the 

lack of accountability in management and operations. However, I am also concerned 

that the source of juvenile escapes from Oak Hill is not only poor security and poor 

conditions. There is little evidence of educational and counseling services, nor substance abuse treatment or mental health. The mission of Oak Hill is to rehabilitate 

youth to come back to their community in a positive and productive manner. The 

lack of services contributes to the security problem, indicating that youth have nothing to fill their time and little or no rehabilitative services are attempted. 

I am interested to hear the justification for YSA rebuilding a receiving home at 

Mt. Olivet Road that may be much larger than necessary for what is appropriate 

for intensive youth services. Larger facilities do not work for kids because they are 

so peer oriented and need individual attention. They have not worked for children 

in foster care and they are probably even more inappropriate for juvenile offenders 

where security is paramount. A similar facility was closed in 1995 due to deterio-
5 

rated services. I would like to know the best reasoning for opening a large receiving 

home. 

In addition, it appears that the District places youths in group homes or incarceration with no consideration for the type of crime, needs or social issues facing each 

individual youth. The city must develop alternatives for non-violent children, services in home (wrap-around services), and ways to address family and social problems 

rather than resort to detention. 

As a life-long advocate for children’s rights, education and welfare, with Chairman 

DeWine, I am committed to bringing the best practices and resources needed to address some of the challenges in the District. I have seen reform in my State of Louisiana develop through community commitment and implementation of best practices. I look forward to a follow-on hearing which will focus on the next steps necessary to implement lasting reform. 

I would like to explore the challenges that face the Youth Services Administration, but I would also like to hear from each of you how your agency fits into the 

overall picture and what needs to be done to improve the system. Considering the 

varied challenges to rehabilitating youth to re-enter society I would like to ask each 

of you to discuss your vision for the overall ‘‘juvenile justice system’’, of which the 

Youth Services Administration, the Public Defender Service, and the Courts are just 

three pieces. I appreciate your attendance today and I hope we are able to work together in collaboration to develop and implement meaningful reform. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this subcommittee, 

as the elected United States Senator for the District of Columbia, I thank you for 

your interest in the District of Columbia’s Youth Services Administration. I regret 

that I can not be here in person this morning, but I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit this statement on behalf of my constituents. 

Long before the citizens of the District of Columbia elected me to serve as their 

United States Senator, my very first job in the District of Columbia government was 

with the Youth Services Administration under the Department of Human Services. 

Shortly after the entry of the consent decree, I served as a court liaison officer 

charged with the responsibility of representing the YSA dispositional position in juvenile hearings. Later on, when I became an attorney, I had the opportunity to represented clients under the jurisdiction of YSA. I have continued to follow developments within the agency, and have found myself frequently dismayed but on occasions, pleasantly surprised with the progress. 

Senators, this subcommittee has worked hard to promote the best interests of 

children in the District of Columbia. Your efforts to fully fund initiatives relevant 

to the D.C. Family Court, and provide extra resources to those who serve our troubled youth have been commendable, and appreciated by those of us who follow these 

issues closely. If it is the intention of this subcommittee to use this hearing for the 

purposes of identifying areas where greater Federal resources should be appropriated, then I applaud your willingness to provide support to an agency which everyone agrees has more than it’s fair share of problems. If however, the committee 

intends to turn back the home-rule clock, or violate the important Constitutional 

doctrine of the separation of powers by attempting to influence the pending judicial 

proceedings, I urge you to reconsider your involvement. 

Based on my many prior statements presented before this committee, it should 

come as no surprise that I have been, and continue to be an advocate of the District 

of Columbia’s full Statehood, and as a consequence frequently oppose any Federal 

intervention into the local affairs of my community. To put it simply, the executive 

witness who you heard from today, were appointed by, and are accountable to a 

Mayor, elected by and for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Regardless of who 

was appearing before you today, my support for the efforts of the Home-Rule government would likely my anticipated position. In this case my support is of a more 

personal nature. 

I would like to go on record as strongly supporting the leadership of the present 

YSA administrators. For those of us who truly know the players, the selection of 

Marceline Alexander, and Mark Back are truly inspired and exceptional choices. I 

have personally had the privilege of working with both of them for over a decade 

in various capacities. As a lawyer, I have had the chance to litigate with and 

against, each of them. They are exceptional attorneys of the highest ethical character. Together they combine the vigor of new creative energy with significant and 

varied experience in District government. 
6 

In his fiscal year 2005 budget, the Mayor has proposed a significant increase in 

funding, in order to hire additional FTE’s in the Youth Services Administration, and 

to conform to Jerry M. organizational improvements standards. It is essential for 

the operations of YSA to not be disrupted, and for the U.S. Senate not to interfere 

with Ms. Alexander’s reform efforts. It is also imperative that this subcommittee 

provides additional Federal resources to the District agencies that need them. 

I am also encouraged by the frankness exhibited by our new City Administrator, 

Robert Bobb. No one in this government is denying that the Youth Services Administration has had significant problems over the years. In his testimony, here today, 

and in court, Mr. Bobb acknowledges frankly, the issues documented by the Office 

of Inspector General that hinder the operations of the Oak Hill Youth Center. I am 

impressed however that progress is rapidly being made regarding the critical concerns regarding fire safety, security and illegal drug use. Without in any way minimizing the problems associated with this agency, this new team gives me real hope 

that significant improvements are really underway this time. Ms. Alexander and 

Mr. Beck are taking concrete steps to see that each deficiency identified by the Office of the Inspector General is being appropriately addressed. 

The Youth Services Administration provides a critical and necessary function to 

the residents of the District of Columbia. Their fundamental role is to transform 

troubled, misguided, and delinquent youth into constructive and productive members of society through a process of rehabilitation, personal growth, and self-actualization. The staff at the YSA requires every available resource to undertake this 

challenging task. While every case may not be successful, what positive impacts that 

the agency has had on reforming youth offenders have been profound. Although deficiencies are often more recognizable than strengths, YSA has had many success stories. It is clear that there is a lot of work to be done and many improvements to 

be made. I am of course, deeply concerned about the current litigation that is in 

progress. While I respect the sincerity and intentions of the Plaintiff’s advocates, I 

hope that the legal outcome does not undermine the work of reforming YSA. However, I am confident that with the leadership of Ms. Alexander and the assistance 

of Mr. Back, this agency will be soon make substantial progress and begin to better 

serve the troubled children of our city. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding this important 

hearing. I ask that you approve the budget proposals submitted today. I commend 

Senators DeWine and Landrieu for their continued interest in the fate of our Nation’s Capital. Their valuable support has sustained the functioning of our vital institutions. Finally, I would like to thank two members of my legislative staff, Regina 

Szymanska and Brian Rauer, for their help in preparing this statement. I look forward to further hearings on this topic, and I’m happy to respond to any requests 

for additional information this subcommittee may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of the House an issue that has not 

received much focus in previous Congresses, but that has recently come into the national spotlight. 

In my Congressional District—the Third District of Maryland—I represent 110 

District of Columbia residents. They live at the Oak Hill detention center, a maximum security campus in Laurel, Maryland, approximately 30 miles from Washington. 

Located on more than 600 acres of Federal land adjacent to the National Security 

Agency, the facility was originally constructed 50 years ago. Few renovations have 

been made since then, and the campus is now in a severe state of neglect and disrepair, littered with partially-boarded abandoned buildings that are frequently broken into and set afire. 

Roughly half the children at Oak Hill have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to a term there, the other half are detainees awaiting trial. Their average 

length of stay is slightly more than 8 months. 

For years, Oak Hill has been a source of controversy in Maryland. The facility 

has been the subject of more than 60 judicial orders, millions of dollars in fines, and 

several dozen monitoring reports. 

A 2001 mayoral commission recommended closing Oak Hill and placing youth offenders in a network of residential treatment facilities, community-based group 

homes and other less restrictive settings. I support the Commission’s recommendations, including the closing of Oak Hill. Some progress has been made toward that 

goal, including beginning construction of a pre-trial holding facility in Northeast 
7 

Washington that should reduce by 50 percent the number of children housed at Oak 

Hill. 

July’s four-part series in The Washington Post documented a near-complete 

breakdown of the community-based rehabilitative care system that now exists for 

the District’s youth offenders. The District needs to develop an appropriate community-based system for its juvenile offenders. 

In addition, because the District of Columbia has only one residential treatment 

center, which is plagued by alleged physical and sexual abuse, the city must send 

many children in need of lengthy treatment out of State. Currently, 400 District 

children are in residential treatment centers—some as far away as Arizona—at a 

conservative cost estimate of $25 million a year. District government officials say 

they don’t know whether this approach is effective, because the city has failed to 

keep track of these children after they return to Washington. 

Mayor Anthony Williams recently acknowledged that his juvenile justice system 

is in a state of ‘‘serious dysfunction,’’ and he has pledged to take corrective action. 

But he was also quoted as saying, ‘‘There hasn’t been an embrace, at the agency 

level, of the issue. There hasn’t been the sense of urgency.’’ 

I would tell the Mayor that a sense of urgency has existed for some time both 

in the District of Columbia and in my district in Maryland. 

I recently had the opportunity to meet with my colleague, Mrs. Norton, and Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham, and I subsequently visited Oak Hill. 

There I met with Youth Services Administrator Gayle Turner and her staff, and 

I toured the facility and surrounding grounds. I was impressed with both administrators, their openness and candor, and their willingness to discuss problems facing 

the District’s juvenile justice system, and possible remedies. 

As a result of our initial discussions, we were moving in the right direction: 

—toward razing the dilapidated structures that are beyond rehabilitation; 

—and toward developing proposals to make more cost-effective and more appropriate use of the land. 

That is why I am disappointed that both of these administrators have been terminated from their positions in Mayor Williams’ administration. Ms. Graham resigned 

in June, and Ms. Turner was ousted on July 22. It appears that they have become 

scapegoats for the failures of an underfunded system that has been in turmoil for 

decades. 

Today’s debate is about funding for the District of Columbia. But this issue involves more than the appropriate funding levels; this is about the best course of 

treatment for these children, the best way to ensure the safety of our communities, 

and the most appropriate use of Federal land. 

Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the community surrounding Oak Hill, I 

look forward to working to help improve the state of juvenile justice services for the 

District of Columbia. My colleague in the other body, the senior Senator from Ohio, 

has promised to examine the District’s Mental Health System, group homes, and related issues in September. 

I might also point out that the Federal land on which Oak Hill is located is a 

prime site for expansion of NSA and for the State of Maryland and Anne Arundel 

County to develop environmental, recreational, and economic opportunities. 

I hope to continue working with Mrs. Norton, with the members of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and with Mayor Williams and the City 

Council, to develop the right solutions for all involved. 

LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

MARCH 31, 2004. 

The Honorable PORTER GOSS, 

Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, H–405, The Capitol, Washington, DC 

20515. 

The Honorable JANE HARMAN, 

Ranking Member, Select Committee on Intelligence, H–405, The Capitol, Washington, 

DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN GOSS AND RANKING MEMBER HARMAN: As the Select Committee 

on Intelligence begins to formulate its Authorization Bill, I am requesting consideration of the following program for inclusion: 

*Authorization of a one-year study by the National Security Agency of the use of 

federal land currently employed by the District of Columbia for Oak Hill, its Juvenile Justice Facility. Oak Hill, the District of Columbia’s juvenile justice facility, is 
8 

located on approximately 600 acres of federal land within my district’s borders, directly adjacent to NSA headquarters at Fort George Meade. 

The area that is now used to house approximately 120 detainees takes up a very 

small portion of the acreage. The buildings currently in use are in a severe state 

of disrepair. There has been increasing concern among community residents that 

the lack of appropriate security measures for detainees at Oak Hill and the numerous abandoned buildings on the federal property, which have been targets of vandalism and arson, threaten the safety of citizens in the surrounding area. 

My goal is threefold: more efficient use of the federal property, a more modern 

and secure youth facility for the District of Columbia, and access to a large area 

of land for NSA. NSA supports conversion of a portion of the site north of the wetland area—for its use and wishes to begin the process by undertaking a study that 

would include plans for a state-of-the-art facility for DC juvenile detainees to replace the existing cluster of buildings adjacent to NSA and the smaller facility that 

is being used for female detainees. The District of Columbia government is completing construction of a pre-trial detainee facility in Northeast Washington, and 

plans to relocate approximately 60 juveniles who are awaiting trial to that location 

in the near future. This relocation would reduce the population at Oak Hill to approximately 60 residents. 

I appreciate your consideration of this request for your fiscal year 2005 bill. I 

would be pleased to provide more information or answer any questions you may 

have. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or Priscilla Ross, my Legislative Director. 

Sincerely, 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

Member of Congress. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Anderson, we look forward to your testimony. You may now begin. 

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN ANDERSON

Mr. ANDERSON. Good morning, Chairman DeWine. My name is 

Austin Anderson, and I am the Interim Inspector General for the 

District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General. Joining me 

today are Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant IG for Inspections, Robert 

Isom, to my left, Deputy Assistant IG for Inspections, and Lawrence Perry, to my right, Director of Planning and Inspections. 

The Youth Services Administration, or YSA, is one of the largest 

components of the District’s Department of Human Services. It is 

charged with developing and administering a city-wide service system that empowers youths entrusted to its care to become lawful, 

competent, and productive citizens. 

The Oak Hill Youth Center, operated by YSA, in Laurel, Maryland, houses juveniles sent by the courts for both short- and longterm detention. Our inspection team found significant deficiencies 

in all key areas of management and operations in YSA, and particularly at Oak Hill. I will briefly summarize some of the key findings in our report of inspection being released today. 

Management and internal control issues. The inspection team 

found many employees who are highly motivated and dedicated to 

carrying out YSA’s mission. However, management and leadership 

of YSA have been unstable, because YSA has had difficulty retaining its top managers. This has resulted in a chronic lack of effective supervision of employees, diminished accountability, and insufficient oversight of critical operations at all levels. 

There were four different administrators of YSA during the period of this inspection. For long periods, other senior management 

positions have either been vacant or filled by employees in an interim or acting status. For example, in November, 2003, the inspection team counted 16 key positions that were vacant. 
9 

Many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 

Jerry M. lawsuit still exist 17 years later. Between 1998 and 2003, YSA spent approximately $3.6 million on consultants in an effort 

to bring YSA into sustained compliance with the Jerry M. decree. 

However, a number of these projects were not properly monitored, 

and resulted in unauthorized overspending and unfulfilled objectives. 

For example, YSA paid a consultant approximately $1.25 million 

between 1999 and 2001 to improve the agency’s information management system; yet, the consultant never provided the 

deliverables specified in the contract. YSA had to hire another consultant to do the work desired. Even after hiring another consultant, however, YSA’s IT system still cannot generate basic statistical reports. 

The team also found that documentation and deliverables for 

some contracts could not be accounted for. YSA policies and procedures across the board for the provisions of services to youth were 

either out of date or non-existent. 

Security problems. The inspection team documented inadequate 

searches of employees and visitors at security checkpoints. This allowed contraband, including illegal drugs, to enter the facility. Security equipment, such as metal detectors, was present, but not 

being used. There was weak security at the main entrance and the 

compound perimeter. 

The team did observe subsequent improvement in the security 

guard unit after direct intervention by city administrator, Robert 

Bobb. Mr. Bobb replaced inadequately supervised contract security 

guards with better trained and more closely supervised Department of Corrections’ employees. 

Other security problems observed by the team included inoperative and insufficient electronic monitoring equipment, inadequate 

two-way radios and phones for correctional officers in the female 

unit, an unsecured door at the gatehouse control booth, youths not 

being photographed when remanded to Oak Hill, inadequate background checks on employees, who regularly interact with youth, 

and no detailed procedures or trained staff to handle escapes. 

Drugs and substance abuse. A number of employees told our 

team that illegal substances, such as marijuana and PCP are 

smuggled into the Oak Hill facility regularly. Youth correctional officers employed by YSA are alleged to be a primary source of illegal 

substances used by Oak Hill youths. According to some YSA officials, almost 100 percent of youths at Oak Hill have substance 

abuse problems; yet, the inspection team noted that Oak Hill has 

not had a structured substance abuse program, as required by the 

court, since April, 2003. 

Prior to that date, a vendor provided a substance abuse treatment program, but reportedly chose not to renew its contract, because YSA could not prevent the influx of drugs into the Oak Hill 

facility. 

The team also noted that the Department of Justice has funds 

available to assist YSA with a treatment program; however, YSA 

has not met the requirements necessary to obtain such funding. 

We also found significant deficiencies in the drug screening program, including a lack of procedures and training for collecting 
10 

urine samples, lack of a chain of custody for samples, and poor 

record keeping. 

Safety and health issues. The inspection team found serious fire 

and other safety deficiencies that put Oak Hill youths at unacceptable risks. Missing fire extinguishers. No fire drills. No emergency 

evacuation plan. Manual door locks on residents’ rooms that could 

impede escape during a fire or other emergency, and insufficient 

keys available to correctional officers to unlock doors during emergencies. 

We found that the culinary unit does not have written sanitation 

policies. Food service personnel are not required to undergo annual 

physical examinations, and some Oak Hill facilities do not meet 

Federal and local codes regarding environment, health, and safety 

standards. 

The team observed possible electrical and fire code violations, exposed rusting and leaking pipes, and evidence of vermin infestation. In addition, numerous abandoned buildings on the Oak Hill 

compound are unsecured and have been vandalized. 

Information technology issues. YSA’s key computer database is 

outdated and cannot be maintained by current staff. As previously 

stated, the system cannot generate statistical reports. In addition, 

some YSA departments do not have computer access. These problems impair YSA’s ability to effectively manage day-to-day operations. 

The conditions found at YSA thus far strongly indicate that the 

management and leadership of senior DHS and YSA officials have 

been weak and ineffective. Consequently, the inspection team rates 

YSA a poorly performing component of the District’s juvenile justice system. 

Our report contains the following principle recommendations to 

the Mayor and the Department of Human Services. Make YSA a 

separate cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the Deputy 

Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders. This will reduce 

the existing multiple layers of bureaucracy, and could make YSA 

executive positions more attractive to experienced and competent 

administrators willing to stay in place for the long term. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Second, fully participate in the U.S. Justice Department’s performance-based standards system for juvenile facilities. This system was developed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators to assist youth facilities, such as Oak Hill, and continuously improving the conditions of confinement and the services provided. 

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUSTIN ANDERSEN

Good morning Chairman DeWine and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia. My name is Austin Andersen, and I am the 

Interim Inspector General (IG) for the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector 

General, or OIG. Joining me today is Alvin Wright, Jr., Assistant IG for Inspections; 

Robert Isom, Deputy Assistant IG for Inspections; and Lawrence Perry, Director of 

Planning and Inspections. 
11 

YSA is one of the largest components of the District’s Department of Human Services. It is charged with developing and administering a citywide service system that 

empowers youths entrusted to its care to become lawful, competent, and productive 

citizens. The Oak Hill Youth Center operated by YSA in Laurel, Maryland, houses 

juveniles sent by the courts for both short- and long-term detention. 

Our inspection team found significant deficiencies in all key areas of management 

and operations in YSA, and particularly at Oak Hill. I will briefly summarize some 

of the key findings in our report of inspection being released today. 

MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL ISSUES

The inspection team found many employees who were highly motivated and dedicated to carrying out YSA’s mission. However, management and leadership of YSA 

has been unstable because YSA has had difficulty retaining its top managers. This 

has resulted in a chronic lack of effective supervision of employees, diminished accountability, and insufficient oversight of critical operations at all levels. There were 

four different administrators of YSA during the period of this inspection. For long 

periods, other senior management positions have been either vacant or filled by employees in an interim or acting status. For example, in November 2003, the inspection team counted 16 key positions that were vacant. 

Many of the same types of problems that resulted in the 1986 Jerry M. lawsuit 

still exist 17 years later. Between 1998 and 2003, YSA spent approximately $3.6 

million on consultants in an effort to bring YSA into sustained compliance with the 

Jerry M. decree. However, a number of these projects were not properly monitored 

and resulted in unauthorized overspending and unfulfilled objectives. For example, 

YSA paid a consultant approximately $1.25 million between 1999 and 2001 to improve the agency’s information management system, yet the consultant never provided the deliverables specified in the contract. YSA had to hire another consultant 

to do the work desired. Even after hiring another consultant, however, YSA’s IT system still cannot generate basic statistical reports. The team also found that documentation and deliverables for some contracts could not be accounted for. 

YSA policies and procedures across the board for the provision of services to youth 

were either out of date or nonexistent. 

SECURITY PROBLEMS

The inspection team documented inadequate searches of employees and visitors 

at security checkpoints, and this allowed contraband such as illegal drugs to enter 

the facility. Security equipment such as metal detectors was present but not being 

used. There was weak security at the main entrance and the compound perimeter. 

The team did observe subsequent improvement in the security guard unit after direct intervention by City Administrator Robert Bobb. Mr. Bobb replaced inadequately supervised contract security guards with better-trained and more closely 

supervised Department of Corrections employees. 

Other security problems observed by the team included: 

—inoperative and insufficient electronic monitoring equipment; 

—inadequate two-way radios and phones for correctional officers in the female 

unit; 

—an unsecured door in the gatehouse control booth; 

—youths not being photographed when remanded to Oak Hill; 

—inadequate background checks on employees who regularly interact with 

youths; and 

—no detailed procedures or trained staff to handle escapes. 

DRUGS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

A number of employees told our team that illegal substances such as marijuana 

and PCP are smuggled into the Oak Hill facility regularly. Youth correctional officers employed by YSA are alleged to be a primary source of illegal substances used 

by Oak Hill youths. According to some YSA officials, almost 100 percent of youths 

at Oak Hill have substance abuse problems, yet the inspection team noted that Oak 

Hill has not had a structured substance abuse program as required by the court 

since April 2003. Prior to that date, a vendor provided a substance abuse treatment 

program, but reportedly chose not to renew its contract because YSA could not prevent the influx of drugs into the Oak Hill facility. The team also noted that the Department of Justice has funds available to assist YSA with a treatment program. 

However, YSA has not met the requirements necessary to obtain such funding. 

We also found significant deficiencies in the drug screening program, including a 

lack of procedures and training for collecting urine samples, lack of a chain of custody for samples, and poor record keeping. 
12 

SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES

The inspection team found serious fire and other safety deficiencies that put Oak 

Hill youths at unacceptable risk: 

—missing fire extinguishers; 

—no fire drills; 

—no emergency evacuation plan; 

—manual door locks on residents’ rooms that could impede escape during a fire 

or other emergency; and 

—insufficient keys available to correctional officers to unlock doors during emergencies. 

We found that the culinary unit does not have written sanitation policies, food 

service personnel are not required to undergo annual physical examinations, and 

some Oak Hill facilities do not meet Federal and local codes regarding environment, 

health, and safety standards. The team observed possible electrical and fire code 

violations, exposed rusting and leaking pipes, and evidence of vermin infestation. In 

addition, numerous abandoned buildings on the Oak Hill compound are unsecured 

and have been vandalized. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

YSA’s key computer database is outdated and cannot be maintained by current 

staff. As previously stated, the system cannot generate statistical reports. In addition, some YSA departments do not have computer access. These problems impair 

YSA’s ability to effectively manage day-to-day operations. 

CONCLUSION

The conditions found at YSA thus far strongly indicate that the management and 

leadership of senior DHS and YSA officials have been weak and ineffective. Consequently, the inspection team rates YSA a poorly performing component of the District’s juvenile justice system. 

PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Our report contains the following principal recommendations to the Mayor and 

the Department of Human Services: (1) Make YSA a separate, Cabinet-level agency 

reporting directly to the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders. 

This will reduce the existing multiple layers of bureaucracy, and could make YSA 

executive positions more attractive to experienced and competent administrators 

willing to stay in place for the long term; and (2) Fully participate in the U.S. Justice Department’s performance-based standards system for juvenile facilities. This 

system was developed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators to assist youth facilities such as Oak Hill in continuously improving the conditions of 

confinement and the services provided. 

This concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to respond to your questions. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Anderson, thank you very much. I guess 

the first thing that strikes me about your testimony and the report 

is the commingling of status offenders, simple truants, kids who 

just run away from home, and people who have been convicted, and 

people who have been charged with very serious offenses. Sex offenses, for example. I find that to be shocking. 

That is not permitted, I am not aware that that is permitted in 

any State in the Union. That is not permitted, actually, in the District of Columbia, is it? My understanding is that there is a District 

law that prohibits that from taking place. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am aware of the fact that changes are under 

way to separate the two groups of children, but previously there 

had not been facilities to do that. 

Senator DEWINE. My understanding is that that is illegal in the 

District of Columbia. That has not been the practice in most States 

for 30 years. When I was county prosecutor in the 1970’s, that was 

not allowed in my home county in Ohio. I do not think that has 

been the practice for years. 
13 

The Federal Government, in fact, denies funds for States if they 

do that. We sit here in Congress, and we pass judgment on the 50 

States, and we say we are not going to give you justice money if 

you put a status offender, some kid who is a runaway, and you 

house him with somebody, some kid who has been an adjudicated 

a felon, and you house them together, we are not going to give you 

Federal dollars. Here, the District of Columbia is doing the same 

thing. I find that to be shocking. 

We see the results. Your report has indicated what the results 

are. They are to be expected. A sex offender, who is a predator, will 

prey on some poor kid who is just a runaway. That is just shocking, 

to put a runaway kid, who has got all kinds of other problems, but 

all he is or she is is a runaway, and you put him in a cell with 

a sex offender, what do you think is going to happen? It is just unbelievable. 

So to me, that is the first thing that just jumps out from this report. It is just absolutely unbelievable, and just cannot be permitted to continue. 

Let me move on. The drug testing program you alluded to in 

your oral testimony, they do have a formal drug testing program 

at Oak Hill, is that correct? Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, they do. 

Senator DEWINE. In fact, you all have supplied my office with 

some sample information that you came up with. In fact, we were 

given one example of a youth who came in, was drug free, and then 

later on at Oak Hill, he tested positive for opiates, cocaine, marijuana, and PCP. 

Mr. PERRY. Correct. 

Senator DEWINE. That is pretty unbelievable, is it not? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator DEWINE. It may not be unbelievable, but it is pretty 

shocking. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Senator DEWINE. You come in, you are drug-free. You are tested. 

You are okay. Then you go to Oak Hill, and then you are tested 

positive for cocaine, marijuana, PCP. 

Mr. PERRY. Correct. 

Senator DEWINE. In your recommendations, you talked about the 

chain of command. What is the chain of command for YSA? 

Mr. PERRY. Actually, we could not document the chain of command. The youth correctional officers that we spoke to that were 

responsible for collecting the drug samples could only take us 

through an oral chain of command once the drug sample was obtained from the youth. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I misled you there. I was talking about 

the drugs, but let us get away from that. I want to look at the big 

picture. Who is responsible for what happens at this facility at Oak 

Hill? Take it from Oak Hill, and then take me all the way up. 

Mr. PERRY. The Director of the Department of Human Services 

is ultimately responsible for the operations at the Oak Hill Youth 

Center. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Let us go down, though. Who is responsible—who runs Oak Hill? 
14 

Mr. PERRY. Let me see, they have an administrator that is over 

Youth Services Administration, and then they have a superintendent of Detention Services at the Oak Hill Youth Center. 

Senator DEWINE. Then where does it go? If you were drawing a 

chart, then where does it go up from there? 

Mr. PERRY. Oh. It goes up from there? 

Senator DEWINE. Yes. Take me up. Go up. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. Yes. The administrator of Youth Services Administration. Then you have the director of Department of Human 

Services. Then you have the Deputy Mayor for Families, Elders, 

and Youth, and ultimately, the Mayor. 

Senator DEWINE. Your recommendation, Mr. Anderson, and your 

conclusion was what? 

Mr. ANDERSON. One of our conclusions is that the Mayor consider 

making a separate agency of YSA in order to avoid the intervening 

layers of bureaucracy, so that the head of YSA would be able to report directly to a deputy mayor. 

Senator DEWINE. What would be the advantage of this? 

Mr. ANDERSON. One advantage of it would, hopefully, be that a 

higher profile position would attract more experienced professionals 

to take this position, and to stay in the position a longer period of 

time in order to provide the continuity that currently seems to be 

lacking. 

Senator DEWINE. So the turnover is a problem? 

Mr. ANDERSON. We think that the turnover is one of the major 

problems, because of the lack of supervision and the temporary status of some of the managers when they are in place. 

Mr. PERRY. We also found that just due to the sheer size of DHS 

and the number of administrations under DHS, the level of accountability for Youth Services Administration, the top leadership 

at DHS was not able to have a day-to-day interaction with the operations at Youth Services Administration. Placing YSA as a cabinet-level position would bring more accountability to the organization. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Anderson, have you performed an assessment of YSA’s group homes? Is there anything that leads you to 

believe that the group homes are in any better shape than Oak 

Hill? 

Mr. PERRY. We are currently starting the second portion of our 

report of the inspection of Youth Services Administration. The 

group homes, we are currently doing assessment of those facilities. 

That report should be issued within the next several months. We 

did not include this in this report, due to the size of the agency. 

Senator DEWINE. Do you want to give us a sneak preview? 

Mr. PERRY. I will let Mr. Wright handle that. 

Senator DEWINE. All right. Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much. What we are doing right 

now, Senator DeWine, is focusing on the group homes themselves, 

how they are set up, how they are being managed and run, particularly the physical structure. We have noted in a preliminary fashion that there are some fairly significant physical and security 

problems. We have not completely documented those, so I do not 

want to go into a lot of detail, but we have noted that there are 
15 

some health- and safety-type issues that we certainly will be addressing in detail in our report. 

These homes are run by independent contractors, for the most 

part. So we have a lot of digging to do to actually understand exactly how well they are being run, what the lines of accountability 

are, and that kind of thing. But we are hopeful that the problems 

are not as significant as might be expected, but we have seen some 

physical conditions that we are going to take issue with. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, is there anything that makes you believe 

these group homes are in any better shape than Oak Hill? 

Mr. WRIGHT. It truly is very early to opine on that. I really do 

not want to pre-judge the results of the work of my inspectors at 

this point. 

Senator DEWINE. All right. That is fair enough. We will look forward to you all coming back—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. Okay. 

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. And giving us that report. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. That would be good. 

Mr. WRIGHT. We will be happy to do it. 

Senator DEWINE. It has been my experience that any time you 

have a residential operation, it is very expensive. It is always a lot 

more expensive than any of us can imagine, or that the public can 

imagine. But I have looked at enough facilities, when I was a lieutenant governor in Ohio. I was involved in looking at penal facilities, and youth facilities, and other facilities. I have spent enough 

time, since I have been in Congress, looking at these. 

To say that it is $90,000 for a residential, per year, per child, for 

a residential facility, where there are no services, or at least no 

drug services, is a lot of money. It sounds much too high for me. 

Now, it is my understanding that there is no drug treatment 

there, is that correct? No drug services. Am I right or wrong about 

that? You are doing testing, but that is not services. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, they are doing testing. During the time of our 

inspection, there was no drug treatment program established at 

Oak Hill Youth Center. 

Senator DEWINE. Is there any kind of sex offender program? 

Mr. PERRY. Not to our knowledge. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Is there any other kind of intensive type 

programming that would account for that type of cost? In other 

words, where you usually run into your costs, it costs so many dollars just to run a facility, and to house, and feed, and take care of 

people. But where you get your costs are psychological services, intense psychological services, sex offender type services, drug treatment type services. That is where you get your costs. Now, do they 

have any type of services like that, that would be driving these 

costs up to close to $90,000 per person? 

Mr. PERRY. I cannot make an assessment on the $90,000. I know 

that the treatment counselors at Youth Services Administration do 

provide individual treatment counseling, group team treatment 

counseling, but as far as intensive treatment programs provided by 

specialists in these fields, we do not find that Youth Services Administration had these. 
16 

Senator DEWINE. What do they do? What do they provide? Do 

you know? 

Mr. PERRY. As far as we could tell there are no intensive treatment programs. 

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Programming? In other words, if 

I want to evaluate a residential facility, I will look at it and say, 

‘‘Here is the programming.’’ I will evaluate the programming. I will 

say, ‘‘This is what they do.’’ 

I mean it is one thing to do an evaluation where you do a nutsand-bolts evaluation, where you say, the fire escapes are here, or 

they are up to fire code. That is all very important. But you also 

look at, another way of looking at it is to say, what is the programming? 

Did you all get into the programming at all, or is that not the 

type of evaluation you were doing? 

Mr. PERRY. We did not get into the clinical programming at 

Youth Services Administration. We did speak with the treatment 

team leaders, the psychiatrists or psychologists there, and documented that the youth were receiving individual treatment sessions, but as far as getting into the clinical, deep analysis, we did 

not go into that area. 

Senator DEWINE. Now, Mr. Anderson, I believe you did say in 

your written statement and your oral statement that there was 

some Department of Justice money that was available that was not 

being utilized. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. What was that about? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That is the U.S. Department of Justice’s performance-based standards system for juvenile facilities, which is available, but not being fully taken advantage of. 

Senator DEWINE. Do you know why it is not being used? 

Mr. ANDERSON. My understanding is, because they have not 

achieved some of the performance-based standards. Mr. Perry may 

have more specific information than that. 

Mr. PERRY. Specifically regarding the funding from the Justice 

Department for the grants for the substance abuse treatment program, the Department of Justice does provide funding for a grant, 

but the substance abuse treatment program has to be put in place, 

and there have to be certain qualifications or requirements that are 

met. Oak Hill Youth Center, at the time of our inspection had not 

met those requirements in order to qualify for the grant funding. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, we appreciate your testimony, all of you, 

very much. We appreciate your report. 

What is your—are you going to do any additional follow-up to 

this, Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Generally, after we received the responses to recommendations, we check back to ensure that implementation has taken place, and generally, within about a year, do 

a reinspection. 

Senator DEWINE. All right. Well, we will look forward to that reinspection, and get your report then. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Okay. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. 
17 

Senator DEWINE. Let me invite our second panel to come up. I 

will introduce the second panel as you are coming up. Judge Eugene Hamilton was designated chief judge of Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia on October 29, 1993. From August, 2000, until 

November, 2001, Judge Hamilton served as Chairman of the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth 

Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform. The Commission published its 

report on November 6, 2001. 

Sir Ronald Sullivan is the Director of the Public Defender Service 

for the District of Columbia. He was appointed Director of PDS in 

June, 2002, after serving as PDS’ general council. Previously, Mr. 

Sullivan was in private practice here in the District as a visiting 

attorney for the Law Society of Kenya. He sat on a committee 

charged with drafting a new constitution for Kenya. 

We welcome both of you. Judge Hamilton, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JUDGE EUGENE N. HAMILTON, CHAIR, MAYOR’S BLUE 

RIBBON COMMISSION ON YOUTH SAFETY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM 

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you. Good morning, Senator DeWine. 

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to speak 

with you today regarding the District of Columbia’s juvenile justice 

system. In terms of my personal outlook, and with regard to my 

professional role as a judge and former chief judge of the Superior 

Court, it is, of course, not customary for me to testify on matters 

of public policy. 

I do not speak here for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or as a judge of that court. I am here today in my status 

as Chair of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety 

and Juvenile Justice Reform, and because I share your concern 

about the children and families of the District of Columbia. 

I would also like to note for the record that I appear before you 

today at your committee’s request. I have also recently provided 

testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the D.C. Council, both 

at their request and on my own volition, as that legislative body 

considers proposals related to the District’s juvenile justice system. 

I say this, as I would like to make clear that I am very sensitive 

to issues of Home Rule, and believe that the D.C. Council and District agencies are equipped to deal with these local issues of concern, for the most part, while I also acknowledge Congress’s oversight and funding responsibilities for the District of Columbia. 

As I indicated, I recently had the privilege of leading an effort 

to study juvenile justice reform for the District of Columbia. The 

Mayor asked me to chair the Blue Ribbon Commission, which consisted of 20 talented people and an outstanding staff. The Commission members represented in various ways and from divergent perspectives, the broad concerns and mixed interests of this community. 

We worked together for about a year and a half. I might add, 

Senator DeWine, you had a similar experience, I believe, in leading 

the task force to study juvenile justice in the State of Ohio. 

The Mayor asked us to offer policy recommendations. More specifically, we were to assess juvenile delinquency prevention strategies, and explore model programs, identify strengths and weaknesses, and rehabilitative and supportive services and programs, 
18 

explore the research on youth violence and substance abuse, examine how our current institutions were working, and develop strategies for serving children and youth in their neighborhoods and 

communities. 

The Mayor issued an explicit call for the Commission to formulate a vision and seamless network for youth services, ideals that 

treat children as children. This approach, with which I fully 

agreed, and was happy to devote time to these critical issues. Incidentally, this approach was consistent with the State of Ohio’s recent reform of juvenile justice, the Reclaim Ohio program. That is 

reasoned and equitable community and local alternatives to the incarceration of minors. 

The problem in the District is that there has been virtually no 

follow-through on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. That report, for the most part, has just simply gathered 

dust on the shelves of the city administration. As a result, the juvenile justice system is in worse shape today than it was when we 

started our study, as evidenced by the report, which has been made 

available here today. 

In my judgment, I think the most important things that the 

United States can do at this time are the following. No. 1, mandate 

and fund a Reclaim D.C. program. No. 2, mandate and fund the 

sunset of Oak Hill with a small, secure facility. Mandate and fund 

a juvenile justice review board to approve and specify treatment 

programs to be made available for committed youth here in the 

District of Columbia. 

I feel that the District of Columbia has had more than ample opportunity to demonstrate that they can succeed at juvenile justice 

without some type of oversight by the Federal Government. I believe they have failed at being able to prove that at this time. I 

think it is urgently needed, that the Federal Government step in 

and take some meaningful action to bring about change to remedy 

this deplorable situation that exists here in the District of Columbia. 

Fourth, I would recommend that the Congress mandate and fund 

juvenile-blended sentencing, and fund a juvenile/adult detention facility, so that we can do some reform in the sentencing of juveniles 

here in the District of Columbia. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Last, I would recommend that the Congress mandate and fund 

an assessment system, and mandate a continuing assessment of 

treatment programs with judicial review for all committed juveniles. Thank you, Senator DeWine. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDGE EUGENE N. HAMILTON

Mr. Chair and Members of the committee, I am pleased to speak with you today 

regarding the District of Columbia’s juvenile justice system. In terms of my personal 

outlook and with regard to my professional role (as a judge and as the former Chief 

Judge of the Superior Court), it is not customary for me to testify on matters of public policy. I do not speak here for the Superior Court of the District or as a Judge 

of that court. I am here today in my status as the Chair of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon 

Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, and because I share your 

concern about the children and families of the District of Columbia. 
19 

I would also like to note for the record that I appear before you today at your 

committee’s request. I have also recently provided testimony before the Judiciary 

Committee of the D.C. Council, both at their request and on my own volition, as 

that legislative body considers proposals related to the District’s juvenile justice system. I say this as I would like to make clear that I am sensitive to issues of ‘‘home 

rule’’ and believe that the D.C. Council and District agencies are equipped to deal 

with these local issues of concern, while I also acknowledge Congress’ oversight and 

funding responsibilities for the District of Columbia. 

As I indicated, I recently had the privilege of leading an effort to study juvenile 

justice reform for the District of Columbia. The Mayor asked me to chair the Blue 

Ribbon Commission, which consisted of 20 talented people and outstanding staff, 

and the Commission members represented—in various ways and from divergent 

perspectives—the broad concerns and mixed interests of this community. We worked 

together for about a year and a half. 

The Mayor asked us to offer policy recommendations. More specifically, we were 

to: assess delinquency prevention strategies and explore model programs, identify 

strengths and weaknesses in rehabilitative and supportive services and programs, 

explore the research on youth violence and substance abuse, examine how our current institutions were working, and develop strategies for serving children and 

youth in their neighborhoods and communities. The Mayor issued an explicit call 

for the Commission to formulate a vision and seamless network of youth service 

ideals that ‘‘treat children as children.’’ This is an approach with which I fully 

agreed, and I was happy to devote time to these critical issues. 

The Commission did a comprehensive study of the delinquency system in the District of Columbia, examined the research, and looked at promising and effective approaches from around the country. Let me say, parenthetically, that the Commission, with its broad expertise and diversity of viewpoints, worked hard and worked 

successfully to find common ground, to find compromises and nuanced approaches 

that balanced the concerns expressed from every conceivable side of these issues. 

The Commission issued a lengthy report, which I incorporate in my testimony—and 

I ask that it be made a part of the record. In the Report, we provided many recommendations, which I believe, constitute a solid ‘‘blueprint’’ for effective reform of 

the juvenile justice system in the District. This ‘‘blueprint’’ is based on research and 

study, as well as a broad, balanced, and representative inquiry. 

I should note that I am pleased that many of the Commission’s recommendations 

have now found their way into a legislative proposal—the ‘‘Blue Ribbon Juvenile 

Justice and Youth Rehabilitation Act of 2004’’—which is currently pending before 

the D.C. Council. This legislation, which seeks to codify many of the Commission’s 

recommendations, is based on research and study, and a broad, balanced, and representative inquiry. I have testified before the Council in support of this legislation 

and will continue to encourage its passage. I should also note that there is other 

legislation pending before the D.C. Council—which among other things would send 

more youth into the adult criminal justice system and create policies to punish parents of delinquent children in the name of ‘‘accountability’’—that I believe would be 

counterproductive, and I have testified against this approach before the Council. I 

should remind you, in this regard, that as part of the 1997 District of Columbia Revitalization Act, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for housing 

through the Federal Bureau of Prison all District of Columbia persons who are sentenced to prison through the District of Columbia’s (adult) criminal system. 

The legislation recently proposed by the City Administration is completely inconsistent with the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. I have to point 

out that the proposals in the City Administrator’s bill are also inconsistent with 

agreements and promises that his predecessors in the District of Columbia’s executive branch made 17 or 18 years ago in the context of the Jerry M. class action, 

a lawsuit regarding both the deplorable conditions at Oak Hill Youth Center as well 

as the lack of community-based alternatives to incarceration for children in the District of Columbia. After failing for almost two decades to comply with the requirements of the Jerry M. consent decree, which was designed to treat children as children and reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency, the District now seeks to treat 

more juveniles as adults (assuming, incorrectly, that redefining children as adults 

and sending them to Federal prisons is an effective and humane approach for reducing and preventing criminal activity by children). 

One of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s primary goals was to set out a plan to get 

the services and supports in our delinquency system to work. The Commission 

strongly believed that to accomplish this goal requires putting a sunset on the Oak 

Hill Youth Center. The Commission has recommended that we all work together to 

close Oak Hill and to move away from placing delinquent (or allegedly delinquent) 

children into large facilities. It does not work to put troubled children into a place 
20 

with 180 other delinquent children. Furthermore, we know that guards are smuggling illegal drugs into Oak Hill and that children who tested negative for illegal 

drugs before entering the institution are now testing positive. We know also that 

children are confronted with violence and the risk of serious bodily injury at Oak 

Hill. 

There are better ways to secure children whom we need to constrain. What the 

Commission found is that the ‘‘best practice’’ is to limit juvenile incarceration facilities to 30 beds. We investigated approaches around the country and settled particularly on what has happened in Missouri. At a time when Attorney General John 

Ashcroft was the governor, Missouri successfully moved to a system in which children who are incarcerated are in facilities that do not exceed 30 beds. Predictably, 

following this transformation, the recidivism rate in Missouri has declined significantly. 

Before I describe further the Commission’s recommendations, let me underscore 

another critical finding from the Commission: 100 percent of the committed youth 

in the District’s delinquency system are African-American and Latino youth. White 

children and youth are arrested for a range of delinquent offenses, but they do not 

end up at Oak Hill. The Commission recommended that we study and understand 

why this disparity exists and how to get rid of it. With this in mind, any proposed 

changes to the system should be viewed through a lens which considers whether the 

proposed change (such as sending more children to Federal prisons) would increase 

and exacerbate the racial and ethnic disparity and injustice that currently exists, 

and if so that proposed change should be discarded. Rather than increasing the disparate treatment, we should be reforming the system in ways that promote prevention, and, specifically, to promote racial parity and justice, we should be expanding 

community-based treatment and alternatives to incarceration for minority children. 

The Blue Ribbon Commission also identified and promoted for possible implementation in the District of Columbia several model State systems. The Commission 

identified in Figure 11, the Offenses for Committed Youth, June 16, 2000 to June 

15, 2001. The single largest number offenses were unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (U.U.V.). This finding cries out for intensive re-habilitation and treatment programs shown to be effective in rehabilitating juvenile U.U.V. offenders. Over the period of the Jerry M. Decree, no such programs existed at Oak Hill. Community Programs, such as the Auto Technician Training Program under the direction of Mr. 

George Stark, are designed to place juvenile U.U.V. offenders in and around motor 

vehicles in a positive, productive manner, and Programs of this type should be 

greatly expanded. 

Moreover, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (of the Department of Justice) has developed the Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive 

Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation—that funded the Blue Ribbon Commission—has produced an extensive 

series of reports for understanding and implementing juvenile detention reform. I 

understand, as well, that the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report on Youth Violence in January of 2001, and that report contains a listing of tried and true programs, including, for example, multi-systemic therapy and therapeutic foster care. 

In the Jerry M. case, which is the litigation over conditions at the Oak Hill facility 

that I mentioned previously, there also exists ‘‘Order B’’ of the consent decree that 

provides a blueprint for a continuum of community-based services. 

The District of Columbia can and now must accomplish the objective of moving 

away from institutionalizing children. There is, remarkably enough, a consensus 

among all of the stakeholders in the District of Columbia that Oak Hill should close. 

Yet, it has not happened, and one can predict that it won’t happen if we continue 

along the present course. We face the inertia of government and a particularly insidious Catch 22: People believe that we can’t close Oak Hill (and move to the Missouri 

model) until we have adequate community-based services and alternatives to incarceration. At the same time, we plow the very human and financial resources into 

running Oak Hill that are necessary for developing the community-based services 

and alternatives to incarceration. Thus, the Jerry M. parties agree to Order B, and 

18 years later the children still don’t have a continuum of community-based services. I am reminded of what happened with Cedar Knoll. It was a minimum- to medium-security incarceration facility for D.C. children. Virtually everyone agreed that 

we didn’t need a large institution for locking up relatively young children who were 

not dangerous. Yet Cedar Knoll did not close until Congress wrote in the District 

of Columbia’s 1993 budget that there would be no money spent on Cedar Knoll. 

Then, finally, it closed. 

In addition to setting a date for the closure of Oak Hill, there should be deadlines 

for establishing a continuum of services in the community. There should be a study 

to establish the number of secure beds that are needed. And on that point, I can 
21 

tell you that the number of children at Oak Hill has dropped to as low as 120 in 

the last year or year and a half. That number—120 children—includes detained and 

committed children, and we got to that number—at least temporarily—without having sufficient services in the community to treat U.U.V. offenders and other nonviolent children. 

With regard to the Jerry M. Consent Orders (and I remind you that a consent 

order is an order that both parties proposed and agreed to before the judge ordered 

it), the Blue Ribbon Commission implored the District to comply with those Orders. 

Unfortunately that has not happened, and the substance of those Orders—particularly Order B calling for the creation of community-based services—has yet to be 

accomplished. 

In sum, I believe the Commission’s recommendations are a solid ‘‘blueprint’’ for 

reform, and I would encourage any legislators or policy makers considering these 

issues to support and fund these recommendations to the fullest extent possible. 

Beginning at page 27 of the Report, the Commission outlines the specific steps 

that are needed to reform the juvenile justice system of the District of Columbia. 

Key to any reform, however, is the closing of Oak Hill, because unfortunately, it has 

become simply a cruel training place for more sophisticated juvenile offenders. Secondly, there must be a sea change in the philosophy of the District’s juvenile justice 

system, from primarily large institution custody to only small facility custody and 

to community-based alternatives to incarceration, together with frequent assessment and continuous treatment. 

Thank you again for inviting me to speak with you today, and I would be more 

than happy to answer any questions. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, thank you very much. 

Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator DeWine. The Public Defender 

Service for the District of Columbia appreciates this opportunity to 

address you and this subcommittee on these important issues. In 

the interest of time, I shall deviate from my written remarks, and 

undertake to provide the subcommittee with an outline of the District’s compliance or non-compliance with the Jerry M. Consent Decree, and the devastating effects the District’s negligent and dilatory behavior has had on the children of the District. 

As you know, the Superior Court recently held the District in 

contempt and imposed monetary sanctions. Because the District’s 

already poor compliance did not improve, the Public Defender Service, along with its co-counsel, filed a motion requesting the Superior Court to appoint a transitional receiver. The court-appointed 

monitor’s most recent findings summarized the history of the District’s failure to meet its responsibilities to the youth entrusted to 

its care. The monitor found, among other things, that the District 

was out of compliance with 81 of the consent decree’s provisions, 

and in compliance with only 95. Significantly, the District decreased its level of compliance in 19 consent decree provisions. 

The monitor further pointed out that the District’s few efforts to 

move towards compliance were last-minute actions that seemed, 

‘‘driven by the fact that a hearing was imminent.’’ This sort of shotgun policy by the District should not be allowed to persist without 

consequence. 

Our contention, and that of the receivership motion pending before the court, is that the District has been given 18 years to comply with the consent decree. Despite extensive litigation, 65 court 

orders, and multiple findings of contempt, it has failed to do so. 

How long is too long? Twenty years? Twenty-five years? The Public 
22 

Defender Service respectfully submits that it has already been far 

too long, and we have asked the Superior Court to step in. 

The problems with YSA and at the Oak Hill facility are manifest 

and have been well documented by the local press. A few examples 

to provide texture to the dozens of court rulings adverse to the District are appropriate. Indeed, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old were sexually assaulted by 

the same resident—the 13-year-old after being placed in a room 

with the assailant subsequent to the assault on the 12-year-old. 

Violent incidents at Oak Hill, including knife fights and assaults 

serious enough to result in broken jaws, occur with alarming frequency at Oak Hill, thus producing an environment not at all conducive to treatment or rehabilitation. The District’s practice, as you 

have mentioned, of assigning more than one child to a room has 

led to the commingling of status offenders and delinquent youth, as 

well as the commingling of delinquent and committed youth. 

This unlawful commingling invariably leads to trouble. Not only 

do these housing practices violate the plain letter of the consent decree and local statutory law, but they also compromise the very 

safety of the children, and have resulted in nothing less than the 

realization of everyone’s greatest fear: harm to the children in the 

District’s custody. 

In the recent court hearing in connection with PDS’s motion to 

place YSA in receivership, the District presented government officials who testified that the current leadership was adequate to 

begin the process of planning to comply with the 18-year-old consent decree. We respectfully submit that it is far too late. 

The government officials quibbled with our evidence on issues 

such as whether the rats observed by our experts were, in fact, 

mice. They quibbled with our experts as to whether Oak Hill residents suffered five instead of six broken jaws in only a 6-month period late last year. 

They also quibbled with respect to whether the conceded severe 

drug use by Oak Hill residents actually constituted drug abuse. Let 

me repeat that to be clear. In sworn testimony, the District of Columbia argued that manifest drug use by children—children—may 

not constitute drug abuse, thus implying that in the District’s 

strange universe, some quantum of drug use by children in its 

care—its allegedly secure care—is acceptable. It is no wonder that 

the District cannot or will not come into compliance with the consent decree. 

We are currently awaiting Judge Dixon’s ruling on our receivership motion. While we believe that the evidence we presented at 

the hearing supports our request for the appointment of a transitional receiver, and we are optimistic that the court will grant our 

motion, we will take little pleasure in this litigation win. We wish 

the District had the will and the capacity to meet its obligation 

without the need to conduct protracted litigation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me say in closing that in addition to our litigation efforts, we 

support litigation currently before the District of Columbia Council 

that is consistent with the findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

This legislation calls for the closure of Oak Hill, and the develop-
23 

1 Juveniles are ‘‘detained’’ when they are held pre-adjudication, i.e. before a fact-finding hearing on whether they committed the delinquent act(s) with which they are charged. Juveniles 

are ‘‘committed’’ when a judge has determined that the juveniles did commit a delinquent act 

and has also determined that the juveniles are in need in services to be provided by YSA. Juveniles are said to be ‘‘committed to YSA.’’ District Code § 16–2313(b) requires that detained youth 

and committed youth be confined separately. 2Project Hands is a division of YSA that investigates allegations of staff misconduct at Oak 

Hill, including allegations of assaults on youth by staff. 

ment of smaller, community-based, secure facilities in its place, and 

it requires the provision of various services to youth, which the 

District has failed to afford to date. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, Senator. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR. 

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name 

is Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., and I am the Director of the Public Defender Service for 

the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you today to provide testimony on the 

experience of the Public Defender Service as one of the lead counsels representing 

the plaintiffs in Jerry M., et al v. District of Columbia. The complaint was filed 19 

years ago this month. Too many years have elapsed, too many hearings have been 

held, and too many court orders and findings of contempt have been entered for me 

to give a full recitation of the history of this case in my allotted time. Suffice it to 

say, from the perspective of the youths we represent, a full recitation would have 

very few highlights and too many lowlights in the story of how the District has 

served them. For context, I will give a cursory chronology, focusing mainly on the 

events of the past year. 

The Jerry M. class action litigation began in March of 1985 with the filing of a 

complaint challenging the District’s failure to provide the children housed at its Oak 

Hill facility with adequate care and rehabilitation services and seeking relief on behalf of a class of children then being detained at Oak Hill. In July of 1986, the parties entered into a lengthy Consent Decree. As part of the Consent Decree, a Monitor was appointed to assess the District’s compliance with its commitments. In the 

almost 18 years since the parties entered into the Consent Decree, the case has been 

assigned to three different judges. These judges, using the Monitor’s reports as a 

basis, have separately found the District out of compliance with the Consent Decree 

on a number of occasions. Each judge has also been forced to enter a series of enforcement and other orders. 

One particularly notable order entered by Judge Urbina stemmed from the Consent Decree provision that called for a panel of experts to determine (1) the number 

of secure beds the District was to plan for and (2) the types of community-based 

services the District would be required to create. The goal of this continuum of services plan was to reduce the population in secure confinement and provide viable 

community-based alternatives for delinquent children. The findings of the original 

panel were incorporated into the Consent Decree by Memorandum Order B. Based 

on the recommendations of the expert panel, the judge ordered that the District 

draft a plan for a juvenile system in which no more than 42 youth are securely detained and no more than 60 committed youth are securely confined.1 Memorandum 

Order B also requires the District to create specific community-based programs such 

as staffed, secure shelter houses; therapeutic groups homes; foster care for delinquent youth; and a vocational program with residential beds. 

The case is currently before the Honorable Judge Dixon. In September 2002, 

Judge Dixon held a hearing requiring the District to show cause why it should not 

be held in contempt for failing to comply with six specific provisions of the Consent 

Decree. These provisions involved the adequate training of staff, the quality of the 

assessment and diagnosis of the children, the existence and quality of the pre-release unit, and the sufficiency of exercise provided to the children at Oak Hill. Two 

months later, in November 2002, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion alleging that 

the District was failing to comply with two additional provisions involving overcrowding in the girls’ unit and the staffing of a program called Project Hands.2 In 

June 2003, Judge Dixon ruled on the September 2002 hearing, finding that the District was in violation of the Consent Decree. He found that there was a lack of proper training of the Oak Hill staff and inadequate supervision of the staff. In addition, 

he found inadequate coordination between the teams that are responsible for assessing the treatment needs of the youths when they enter the facility and the teams 
24 

3 In fact, over the past 8 months, there have been four different YSA administrators, including 

Ms. Alexander; three Deputy Administrators for Secure Programs; four Deputy Administrators 

that are responsible for delivering the treatment. Finally, Judge Dixon found the 

District was failing to comply in the area of providing adequate facilities prior to 

a youth’s release from confinement. Judge Dixon held the District in contempt and 

imposed monetary sanctions. However, the judge also allowed a grace period during 

which the District was to cure the violations. The grace period was different for each 

violation, but the last grace period expired in mid-September 2003. At the end of 

each grace period, the District filed notices claiming to be in compliance with the 

disputed Consent Decree provisions. 

In September 2003, Judge Dixon held an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs’ November 2002 emergency motion asking that the District be found in contempt for 

failing to comply with the Consent Decree by having an overcrowded girls’ unit and 

improperly staffing Project Hands. In addition, the hearing was to address the question of whether the District had cured violations with respect to the pre-release unit 

at Oak Hill. Judge Dixon has not yet ruled. In October 2003, Judge Dixon had a 

hearing to determine whether or not the District had come into compliance with the 

Consent Decree provisions concerning staff training, staff supervision, and coordination between assessment staff and treatment staff. On October 6, 2003, in anticipation of the coming hearing, the Monitor issued a report finding that the District remained out of compliance with respect to each of these issues. In December 2003, 

plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court appoint a transitional receiver. Judge 

Dixon held a hearing on the receivership motion in February 2004. 

I should draw attention to one other aspect of the litigation. The District has liked 

to point to the school at Oak Hill as one area in which it has managed to come into 

compliance. While the school is currently a bright spot at Oak Hill, the District is 

neither in full compliance with the Consent Decree, nor does it deserve full credit 

for what has been achieved. In June 1997, the Court, at the time Judge Levie, found 

the District in contempt of the education provisions of the Consent Decree and appointed Dr. Peter E. Leone as special master for education. Dr. Leone was the receiver for education at Oak Hill from 1998 to 1999 and was able to help the District 

significantly in complying with the Consent Decree regarding Oak Hill’s education 

system. At the receivership hearing, Dr. Leone pointed to five main areas of achievement during his tenure as educational receiver at Oak Hill: (1) academic achievement; (2) school climate; (3) human resources; (4) fiscal resources; and (5) leadership. 

Despite the great strides made by Dr. Leone, the educational system at Oak Hill 

is still not in complete compliance. For example, there remain significant problems 

with nonattendance by some units and a lack of sufficient YSA programs to reintegrate youth at Oak Hill into the community education system upon their release. Dr. Leone testified at the receivership hearing that residents in the disciplinary unit and in the girls’ unit are not getting standard educational services because of poor coordination among various departments at Oak Hill. Moreover, the 

Monitor in his latest report found that, while YSA contracts with the University of 

the District of Columbia for vocational classes for the boys, there are no equivalent 

programs for girls. 

The Public Defender Service believes that the accomplishments of Dr. Leone as 

the receiver for education at Oak Hill demonstrate what a receiver could accomplish 

for the whole system. And the whole system is in need of repair. Just prior to the 

hearing on the receivership motion, the Jerry M. Monitors issued their 51st report 

on the District’s compliance with the Consent Decree, evaluating the prior 6 months. 

The Monitor’s most recent findings exemplify the history of the District’s failure to 

meet its responsibilities to the youth entrusted to its care. The Monitor found the 

following: 

—The District was out of compliance with 81 of the Consent Decree’s provisions 

and in compliance with only 95. See Exhibit 1. 

—The District decreased its level of compliance in 19 Consent Decree provisions. 

—The prior 6 months were a ‘‘microcosm’’ of the past almost 18 years of the District’s failed efforts to comply with the Consent Decree, as demonstrated by the 

latest leadership void which exists at YSA and the lack of both a permanent 

Superintendent and an Assistant Superintendent in charge of treatment at Oak 

Hill. While the District appointed two lawyers—Marceline Alexander and Mark 

Back—from the Office of the Corporation Counsel, to assume the mantle at YSA 

on an interim basis, neither Ms. Alexander, who is currently the Interim Administrator for YSA, nor Mr. Back, who is her special counsel, have any juvenile 

justice experience.3
25 

for Court and Community Services; two Superintendents of Oak Hill; and three Assistant Superintendents in Charge of Treatment. 

—Accordingly, there were few efforts to move towards compliance except for lastminute actions that seemed ‘‘driven by the fact that a hearing was imminent’’ 

rather than a real effort to make positive change in the manner in which District children are being treated and rehabilitated. 

Our contention in the receivership motion and at the hearing was this—the District has been given 18 years to comply with the Consent Decree, and, despite extensive litigation, 65 court orders, and multiple findings of contempt, has failed to do 

so. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested that the Court appoint a transitional receiver to assume control of YSA until the Consent Decree’s mandates could be met 

and maintained. Plaintiffs’ motion noted numerous examples of non-compliance, including YSA’s failure to follow a suicide prevention plan for youth at Oak Hill, its 

failure to address the recurring violence against securely confined children by both 

Oak Hill residents and staff, the commingling of detained and committed children, 

overcrowding, and the ongoing environmental problems at Oak Hill, including lack 

of proper heating and cooling and lack of pest control. 

The defendants responded that the Court did not need to take the extraordinary 

step of appointing a receiver because, in essence, the District was making ‘‘incremental progress’’ in complying with the strictures of the Consent Decree and because appropriate leaders were now again in place to ensure that YSA could continue to plan to make reform efforts. 

Judge Dixon held the hearing on the motion for a transitional receiver February 

23–25. At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented comprehensive evidence of the failure 

of YSA to create a safe environment for children at Oak Hill and the specific failings 

of the District’s efforts to comply with the 1986 Consent Decree, arguing that the 

District’s claims of incremental progress were dubious since the defendants had 

been given ample time to comply and that it was now time for the Court to intervene and secure final compliance. The primary witness for the plaintiffs was Paul 

DeMuro, an expert in juvenile justice and child welfare services. He testified that 

the District had failed to comply with the Decree and that the Court should appoint 

a receiver because the District had: (1) failed to protect youth committed to YSA 

from harm; (2) failed to implement an effective classification and treatment program 

at Oak Hill, such that residents suffered long periods of lockdown, detained and 

committed and low and high-risk youth are intermingled, treatment is not tailored 

to a youth’s particular needs, and substance abuse treatment is inadequate; (3) 

failed to develop an effective system of management and quality control so that staff 

and programs throughout YSA can be held accountable; and (4) failed to develop 

and implement a viable community continuum of care, such that community-based 

alternatives to secure detention at Oak Hill failed due to weak supervision, substandard housing, and a lack of accountability. In fact, just as in Oak Hill, the shelter houses merely warehouse children rather than provide therapeutic services: (1) 

there is no clinical supervision of staff; (2) many youth arrive without school placements; (3) few children in shelter houses receive drug treatment; and (4) there is 

no individual or family counseling for children. Notably, in July 2002, after studying 

the group home and shelter house problem and in consultation with the Jerry M. 

parties, an expert gave the District specific recommendations regarding the issuing 

of requests for proposals (‘‘RFP’s’’) from new shelter and group home providers 

equipped to offer the services required by the Consent Decree. While the District, 

faced with a receivership hearing, finally completed RFP’s for 3 new programs, it 

still has not fully implemented the expert’s recommendations some 2 years later. 

The observations of our expert, the court-appointed monitor, and the Inspector 

General only hint at the breadth of the District’s failure to protect children at Oak 

Hill from harm. Violent incidents—including knife fights and assaults serious 

enough to result in broken jaws—occur with alarming frequency at Oak Hill. Life 

on the residential units at Oak Hill is quite harsh and, accordingly, not at all conducive to treatment. In one particularly disturbing incident that took place just last 

fall, nine residents sexually assaulted another resident in the victim’s room. 

In addition, the practice of assigning more than one child to a room has led to 

the commingling of status offenders and delinquent youth, as well as delinquent and 

committed youth. For example, these practices led just last summer to a child detained as a truant and runaway being housed in the same room as a youth detained 

on charges of negligent homicide. The District also housed in another room both a 

runaway and a child detained for a number of serious delinquency reasons, including armed robbery and carrying a dangerous weapon. 

Not only do these housing practices violate the plain letter of the Consent Decree, 

but they also compromise the very safety of the children and have resulted in noth-
26 

ing less than the realization of everyone’s greatest fear: harm to children in the District’s custody. For example, just last year, a 12-year-old child, held at Oak Hill as 

an overnighter and not accused of any crime, was placed in a room with two other 

children. An overnighter is a child eligible for release after some police contact, but 

whose parents cannot be reached. The overnighter was sexually assaulted by one 

of the other youth. There was no indication that any staff members were supervising the youth, as staff only learned of the incident 2 days later. Several months 

later a 13-year-old was arrested and held at Oak Hill waiting for shelter house 

space. The 13-year-old was placed in a room with the same child who committed 

the prior sexual assault, and another sexual incident occurred. Perhaps equally 

troubling is the fact that there is evidence that these types of incidents may be even 

more widespread than we know, as incidents at Oak Hill are underreported. 

The defendants, in response, presented District government officials at the hearing, who testified that the current leadership was adequate to begin the process of 

planning to comply with the 18-year-old Consent Decree, quibbling with plaintiffs’ 

evidence on issues such as whether the rats observed by Mr. DeMuro were in fact 

mice, whether Oak Hill residents suffered five or six broken jaws from July through 

December 2003, and whether the conceded severe drug use by Oak Hill residents 

actually constitute drug abuse. 

The parties filed post-hearing briefs 2 weeks ago and reply briefs just last week. 

We are currently awaiting Judge Dixon’s ruling. While we believe that the evidence 

we presented at the hearing supports our request for the appointment of a transitional receiver and we are optimistic that the court will grant our motion, we would 

take little pleasure in this litigation win. We wish the District had the will and capacity to meet its obligations without the need to conduct protracted litigation. Indeed, our overriding vision and our goal for the past 19 years has been the provision 

of adequate care and rehabilitation services for the children committed to YSA. The 

Public Defender Service consists of a group of lawyers; we do our work in the courts. 

Thus, our primary way of working towards our goal is through this litigation. However, litigation is but one of many means to an end. That is why we support legislation currently before the District of Columbia Council that calls for the closure of 

Oak Hill and the development of smaller, community-based secure facilities in its 

place and requires the provision of various services to youth which the District has 

failed to afford to date. There are many roads to the destination of providing adequate care and rehabilitation to youth in the juvenile justice system. The Public Defender Service will be satisfied to reach that destination by any of those routes. We 

are not satisfied to continue to take the incremental steps forward, with many steps 

back, that has been the history of YSA’s actions in this case. 
27 

Senator DEWINE. Judge Hamilton, Mr. Sullivan, who advocates 

that Oak Hill stay open? 

Judge HAMILTON. I guess the—— 

Senator DEWINE. Does anybody advocate that this place stay 

open? 

Judge HAMILTON. The only implicit advocate is the District of Columbia, the administration, which refuses to really take meaningful steps in planning to sunset that institution. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, is it not really a dinosaur from the, I do 

not know what decade you want to pick. I do not know if it is a 

dinosaur from any decade, the way you describe it, and the way my 

staff describes it. I have not been out there, but my staff has described it as just, in unbelievable terms to me, absolutely shocking. 

Judge HAMILTON. Absolutely. That is the reaction of any reasonable person. 
28 

Senator DEWINE. Yes. 

Judge HAMILTON. I just cannot imagine how any person in authority would suffer that institution to continue. It is beyond my 

comprehension. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, it looks like, to me, it is beyond—you cannot fix it. 

Judge HAMILTON. You cannot. No, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. Your description, Mr. Sullivan, of the proposal 

of just doing away with it, and breaking it down into what we do 

today, which is smaller facilities, and manageable facilities, more 

humane homes, places to operate, is probably what needs to be 

done. 

Judge HAMILTON. I agree, but I emphasize that—I think that 

there has to be some meaningful substantial Federal oversight in 

order to accomplish that. I mean given 20 years of litigation, which 

has just dragged on, and on, and on, I just doubt that the city has 

the will and the inclination to sunset that institution. I have seen 

no evidence, whatsoever, that the city is willing to do that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Nor have I, Senator DeWine. What is most distressful about the situation is that the Blue Ribbon Commission 

provides a very good blueprint as to how juvenile justice should be 

carried out in the District. We participated on the Commission. The 

U.S. Attorney participated. The Corporation Counsel participated. 

All of the experts participated. As the judge said, it has been virtually ignored. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, when your Blue Ribbon Commission 

came up with the report, was there much opposition to the report? 

Judge HAMILTON. Absolutely not. Every member of the Commission signed the report except the United States’ attorney’s representative. It had whatever reasons it had for not doing so, but 

otherwise, every community representative, it was a broad-based 

community representation, every other member signed it. 

Senator DEWINE. That was November 6, 2001. 

Judge HAMILTON. Correct. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, it is hard to know where to begin when 

you look at the magnitude of this problem. I will go back to what 

I started in this discussion, to me, the most shocking thing is this 

commingling of these kids. I mean it is all shocking. It is all shocking, but then you start with kids who do not really—who clearly 

have problems. 

The kid runs away. The kid has some problems. Then you dump 

that poor child in with another child who has huge problems, who 

is a sex offender, and are many times a predator, who preys on this 

one child. So now you have created more problems. It is just unbelievably unfair to that child. 

Then you look at the cost. I mean it is not like this was being 

done cheaply. Judge and Mr. Sullivan, I asked the first panel this 

question. I am going to ask you, just so we can understand. For 

close to $90,000 a year, what are the services that are being provided these kids out there? 

Judge HAMILTON. Mr. Sullivan may know better than I, but I am 

hard put to put my finger on any treatment programs that are 

being provided for these children. No. 1, there is no reliable assessment system, so we do not really know what the kids problems are, 
29 

and we do not really know what treatment programs need to be 

provided. Then if we know what the problems are, what treatment 

programs are needed, there are none. 

For example, the major class of offender, who is committed, are 

car theft offenders, UUV offenders. There are no programs that are 

targeted for UUV offenders. There are no sex offender programs. 

There are no treatment programs that are identifiable that can address the variety of problems that these committed children have. 

That is serious. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I agree 100 percent. The District simply warehouses children, both at Oak Hill and in the shelter house system. 

There are precious little, if any, therapeutic mechanisms to address 

any of the issues that the children have. 

The District, I will say, has shown some improvement with respect to the education system, but only after that system was put 

in receivership, and a receiver made some substantial changes. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, you called Oak Hill, and I quote, ‘‘A 

cruel training place for more sophisticated juvenile offenders.’’ I 

would assume that the recidivism rate coming out of there must be 

pretty high. 

Judge HAMILTON. It is. It is the worst thing that you can do to 

a child, to send him to Oak Hill. But unfortunately, in all too many 

cases, there are no alternatives. We need reasonable and equitable 

community and local alternatives to the incarceration of minors, as 

was established in the State of Ohio, because there are so many 

kids that do not need incarceration at all. They can be treated in 

the community. We just do not have it. 

Senator DEWINE. I want to explore that with you a little bit, 

Judge. The unique challenge that the District has is that the District is not a State. The District does not have the local resources 

that a State like Ohio does. As you know, I am very familiar with 

the Reclaim Ohio program. I was very much involved in the development of that. 

Part of the principle of that program is that you try to tailor the 

program for each child. Your incarceration fits the child, and you 

try to do whatever is appropriate for the child. You try to do it locally, if you can. You only send, in Ohio, we only send, quote, to 

the State those kids who just cannot be dealt with locally. 

How does that, though, apply to the District, that does not have 

the local government resources? I mean that is the challenge, is it 

not, that the District has? To play the devil’s advocate, the people 

who would look at this maybe from the other side would say, ‘‘Well, 

look, we do not have the resources.’’ How do we answer that? 

Judge HAMILTON. Well, they may not have the resources, but 

they have had 20 years to come to the Congress and say that they 

did not have the resources to make treatment of juveniles local. 

There is a lot of treatment that can be done right in the communities that these children come from. If these resources are developed, and if there is a change from putting this money out in 

places like Oak Hill into these community treatment facilities, that 

is what we have been trying to get for 20 years here in the District 

of Columbia. 
30 

Senator DEWINE. So our total—what is the total operating cost 

then of Oak Hill? Does anybody in the room know that? Does anybody have that? I have not done the math here, so I do not know 

what the—— 

Judge HAMILTON. I have no—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not—— 

Senator DEWINE. Mary has it here. Is that Oak Hill? That is not 

just Oak Hill, though. That is YSA. Well, we will get that before 

the hearing is over, if somebody can do that for us. 

I mean the bottom line is, you have a pot of money. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Senator DEWINE. You would have to figure out, I guess, if you 

closed it, what do you do with that pot of money? Maybe it is going 

to take more money to provide the resources. But at close to 

$90,000 per child, I would think that you could buy some services 

for those kids somewhere else. 

Judge HAMILTON. That is a lot of money. 

Senator DEWINE. It is a lot of money. There has to be secure facilities. I mean some of these kids are, I assume, pretty tough kids, 

and you are going to have buy secure facilities for some of these 

kids. But a truant, it is going to be a different story—— 

Judge HAMILTON. Right. 

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Too. I mean some of these kids 

were truants, according to what I hear. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. As the Inspector General’s report 

pointed out, there are even unused monies available to the District—with respect to drug treatment programs. 

Regrettably, it is not a difficult proposition to follow the Blue 

Ribbon Commission report. At least try. Then if the District says 

we do not have enough resources, then come to the appropriate authority, and request them. But the Mayor actually recently submitted legislation that is antagonistic to the goals of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s—— 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I guess my question to this group, and 

I was not chairman at the time, when the Blue Ribbon Commission 

came out, but I guess my question is back to what I asked the 

Judge before, is whether or not there was a consensus in regard 

to the Blue Ribbon report. Because if there is a consensus, then it 

is only a question of getting the resources. 

Judge HAMILTON. Absolutely. 

Senator DEWINE. Then it is just the question of, can you put the 

resources together, and then can you move incrementally, and put 

piece by piece of the report together. You might not get it all in 

the first few years, but at least you try to build from that report. 

Judge HAMILTON. Absolutely, Senator DeWine. Every member of 

that Commission signed the report, and endorsed the report, after 

long and serious discussions, except one. That is the fact of the 

matter. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I appreciate your testimony. Senator 

Landrieu is here. Mary, I do not know if you have any opening 

statement, or if you have any questions. We are about to move to 

the third panel. 

Senator LANDRIEU. No. I only heard the last few minutes of the 

last—— 
31 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Good. Well, Judge, we appreciate your 

testimony—— 

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Very much. We look forward to 

working with you on this problem. We look for you to maybe help 

us as a consultant. 

The Federal Government, in the past, has made some contribution here. What else we can do in the future is something we are 

going to have to work with you on. 

Judge HAMILTON. Well, I emphasize—— 

Senator DEWINE. I understand what you are saying, and we 

want to help. 

Judge HAMILTON. All right. 

Senator DEWINE. We would not have this hearing if we did not 

want to help. That is why we have the hearing. We want to see 

what we can do. 

Judge HAMILTON. I would be delighted to, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. We want to work with you. 

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Sullivan, it is good to see you again. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, sir. Let me invite our third panelists, the City Administrator and Deputy Mayor of the District of 

Columbia, Robert Bobb. He served in a similar capacity in four 

other cities, spanning nearly 30 years. Beginning in 1974, he was 

appointed to serve in Kalamazoo, Michigan, as assistant city manager. After Kalamazoo, he served as city manager in Santa Anna, 

California, for 21⁄2 years, in Richmond for 111⁄2 years, and Oakland, 

California for 51⁄2 years. 

He is accompanied by Ms. Alexander, interim Director of the 

Youth Services Administration. Mr. Bobb, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BOBB, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY 

MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MARCELINE D. ALEXANDER, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR, YOUTH 

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

MARK D. BECK, INTERIM SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOUTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BOBB. Thank you. Good morning. 

Senator DEWINE. You have had the opportunity to listen to all 

of the other testimony. You can make your own statement, respond 

to any questions or comments that have been made so far. If you 

can confine it to 5 minutes, that will give us a chance to have a 

good dialogue with you. 

Mr. BOBB. Thank you very much. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you for joining us. 

Mr. BOBB. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia. My 

name is Robert C. Bobb, City Administrator and Deputy Mayor for 

the District of Columbia government. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning 

to testify on behalf of Mayor Williams. Our Mayor is deeply committed to improving the status of children throughout the District 
32 

of Columbia, and in particular, those who are under the guidance 

of the Youth Services Administration. 

I also would like to report on substantial progress that we are 

making and have made in addressing a number of deficiencies at 

the Youth Services Administration, as identified by the Inspector 

General, and the code monitor in the Jerry M. litigation. 

Joining me this morning at the witness table are two members 

of my management team, Marceline D. Alexander, Interim Administrator of the Youth Services Administration, and Mark D. Beck, 

Interim Special Council for the Youth Services Administration. 

Based on my recommendations, Mayor Williams appointed these 

capable managers on December 3, 2003, to help my office conduct 

a top-to-bottom review of the Youth Services Administration, and 

to stabilize the agency. 

On October 15, 2003, 9 days after my first day on the job, I attended a meeting with the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, 

Family, and Elders, and attorneys from the Office of the Corporation Counsel, to discuss the status of the Jerry M. litigation and 

coordination issues between the various District departments providing services to our youth. 

For those of you who may not know, the Jerry M. litigation is a 

class action filed in 1985 by the D.C. Public Defender Service and 

ACLU National Prison Project against the District to address certain issues involving the care and custody of detained committed 

youth in the District’s juvenile justice system. 

Following that meeting, I convened a number of subsequent 

meetings in October and November, 2003, to confront the issues 

facing the Youth Services Administration. I assembled a team of 

in-house government experts to sit around the table together, in 

order to drive resolution of the issues, so that I could take action 

to stabilize this agency. That team included my chief of staff, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Operation, and directors 

of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Corrections. 

The first order of business was to professionalize the perimeter 

and the entrance security for Oak Hill Youth Center, because there 

were concerns of whether security was tight enough for persons entering that secure facility. Working with the team, I issued orders 

to terminate for convenience the contractor who had been providing 

those services, and to put the Department of Corrections in charge 

of external security, because I wanted to have the director and the 

District security experts accountable and responsible to me for providing an increased level of security for our employees and visitors. 

The Department of Corrections began providing security at Oak 

Hill Youth Center beginning November 16, 2003. A memorandum 

of understanding between the Human Services and Corrections are 

in place throughout the balance of this fiscal year. 

On November 21, 2003, I spent time at Oak Hill. I also visited 

a number of group homes to get a better picture of how those 

homes were operating. I reconvened that team that I had assembled in October and shared my views and thoughts, and that we 

immediately needed to stabilize the Youth Services Administration. 

While I was city manager of Richmond, Virginia, I hired an expert in juvenile justice to assist in designing a continuum of care 
33 

services program for juveniles. That was the right approach for 

what was needed in those circumstances where we were developing 

an entire new continuum of care program. Based on my 30 years 

of city management experience, I concluded that a different approach was needed for the Youth Services Administration, because 

of the instability caused by the departure of the administrator, her 

two deputy administrators, the chief administrative officer, and the 

Oak Hill Youth Center’s superintendent. 

I personally selected and recommended to the Mayor, new leadership for the Youth Services Administration. I chose Ms. Alexander 

as interim administrator, because she is someone who knows the 

District government, and who knows how to get things done in this 

city. 

Beginning in early 2003, Ms. Alexander had been assigned by the 

City to various troubled agencies within the District of Columbia, 

and did an outstanding job. As an 18-year employee of the District 

of Columbia, a fine lawyer, and a certified public manager, Ms. Alexander is the right person for the job. I am fortunate to have her 

on my team. 

Since her arrival on December 3, Ms. Alexander has moved to fill 

critical vacancies in the Youth Services Administration, hiring 33 

new employees, including the assistant superintendent for treatment, for both Oak Hill Youth Center and the Youth Services Center. We have also employed additional correctional officers, five 

treatment team leaders. These are critical hires for the agency, because these are the employees who provide direct services to our 

youth. 

We also employed Dr. Sybil Smith-Gray as an assistant superintendent, who is a licensed clinical psychologist, and who had 

worked collaboratively with the Department of Mental Health, to 

provide additional mental health services and to improve our therapeutic atmosphere in working with youth at the Oak Hill Youth 

Center. 

The Mayor has also proposed in his 2005 budget, a significant increase in funding of $18 million, or a 40 percent increase over the 

base year of 2004, wherein, we are hiring 71 additional full-time 

employees in the Youth Services Administration to staff a new 

Youth Services Center in the District, to implement Jerry M. compliance and organizational improvements, and to fund other service 

delivery. The new Youth Services Center is an 80-bed diagnostic facility, which will be located on Mount Olivet Road, here in the District of Columbia. 

As part of our management team, management reform initiative, 

Ms. Alexander is reorganizing the agency, and filling several key 

management positions in that agency. 

The Office of the Inspector General’s Inspections Evaluation Division issued its report, which we received a copy of today. The Department of Human Services provided its comments to the 45 findings and 96 recommendations, pursuant to the Inspector General’s 

report. 

During the course of the Part I inspection, the Inspector General 

also issued seven management alert reports on matters that the inspection team found required the immediate attention of the District of Columbia government officials. The Youth Services Admin-
34 

istration responded to each of these management alert reports, and 

is taking specific action to address each of the deficiencies identified in the report, as detailed in my written statement, which provides much more detail. 

The subcommittee has asked me to testify about whether a receiver should be put in place for the Youth Services Administration. Let me begin by expressing my understanding that the presiding Chair requested that the parties not try the motion in the 

media. Of course, I am mindful of the court’s ammunition. 

However, the subcommittee has specifically requested that the 

District present testimony on this important issue, and I will do so. 

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a 3-day hearing on the motion in February, and I testified on the government’s 

behalf on the third day of the hearing. 

Of course, I leave representation of the District of Columbia and 

the Jerry M. litigation in the capable hands of our corporation 

council and his assistants. I understand that the plaintiffs bear the 

burden of demonstrating that a transitional receiver should be appointed to oversee the Youth Services Administration, and the trial 

court must consider the six factors identified in my written statement. 

We have urged the court in our findings not to impose a receiver, 

and we urge the same result this morning. The Jerry M. consent 

decree entered by the court in 1986 comprised 185 provisions and 

43 pages of requirements governing the delivery of services by the 

Youth Services Administration. These provisions cover a broad 

range of complex issues, including diagnostic and treatment services, education, mental health, medical services, discipline and 

training, recreation transition, and after-care services environment, 

and sanitation and community programs. 

The District has made incremental progress over the course of 

the last 2 years. The monitor’s fifty-first report, the latest, measured the 6 months between July 1 and December 31, 2003, the 

time period following the departure of the former administrator, 

who provided stable leadership prior to her departure. This was a 

period of great transition. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I cannot say that I am satisfied with the District remaining 

under the litigation nearly 18 years after it was first initiated. I 

can say, however, that I am very confident in our current direction, 

and with the progress that we are making, and feel that our current approach, not a transitional receiver, is without question the 

best way for the District to meet the requirements of the consent 

decree. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BOBB

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. My name 

is Robert C. Bobb and I serve as the City Administrator and Deputy Mayor for the 

District of Columbia Government. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

this morning to testify on behalf of Mayor Anthony A. Williams and to share with 

this subcommittee the substantial progress that we are making in addressing a 
35 

number of deficiencies at the Youth Services Administration as identified by the Inspector General and the Court Monitor in the Jerry M. litigation. 

Joining me this morning at the witness table are two members of my management team: Marceline D. Alexander, Interim Administrator of the Youth Services 

Administration, and Mark D. Back, Interim Special Counsel for the Youth Services 

Administration. Based on my recommendation, Mayor Williams appointed these capable managers on December 3, 2003, to help my office conduct a top-to-bottom review of the Youth Services Administration and to stabilize the agency until we can 

put a permanent, juvenile justice professional in place. 

A short autobiographical history is appropriate before I address the deficiencies 

at the Youth Services Administration and the pending issue of receivership. Before 

assuming my duties as the District of Columbia’s City Administrator and Deputy 

Mayor on October 6, 2003, I already had served in a similar capacity in four other 

cities spanning nearly 30 years. Beginning in 1974, I was appointed to serve in 

Kalamazoo, Michigan as Assistant City Manager. I served as Assistant City Manger 

in Kalamazoo for 2 years before becoming Acting City Manager and then City Manager and serving an additional 8 years. After Kalamazoo, I served as City Manager 

in Santa Ana, California for 21⁄2 years; in Richmond, Virginia for 111⁄2 years, and 

in Oakland, California for 51⁄2 years. In Oakland, I also served as the Executive Director of the City of Oakland Redevelopment Agency. 

Prior to agreeing to my current position, I reviewed a series of newspaper articles 

on the issues facing the District of Columbia and the Williams Administration, one 

of which was the Youth Services Administration. I had prior experience with juvenile justice issues in Richmond, Virginia where I was responsible for both city and 

county functions. One of those functions included responsibility for the juvenile 

courts as well as the juvenile detention facilities. In Richmond, I appointed a juvenile justice expert to put in place a continuum of care services where the courts 

could decide, based on the severity of the youth’s offenses and other issues, whether 

to place the youth in a community-based program, in the city’s detention facility, 

or in Hanover County’s more stringent juvenile facility. In the District of Columbia, 

the decision of where to place a detained youth, a youth who is awaiting court disposition of charges, rests with the court. For committed youth, a youth who has 

been adjudicated by the Court as involved in criminal activity, placement decisions 

reside in the Youth Services Administration. The point is that I am familiar with 

juvenile justice issues and I was aware of many of the issues concerning the Youth 

Services Administration prior to my arrival. 

On October 15, 2003, 9 days after my first day on the job, I attended a meeting 

with the then Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Family, and Elders and attorneys 

from the Office of the Corporation Counsel to discuss the status of the Jerry M. litigation involving the Youth Services Administration and coordination issues between 

various District departments providing services to our youth. For those of you who 

may not know, the Jerry M. litigation is a class action filed in 1985 by the D.C. 

Public Defender Service and the ACLU National Prison Project against the District 

to address certain issues involving the care and custody of detained and committed 

youth in the District’s juvenile justice system. 

Following that first meeting, I convened a number of subsequent meetings in October and November 2003 to confront the issues facing the Youth Services Administration. As is my management style, I assembled a team of in-house government experts to sit around the table together in order to drive resolution of the issues so 

that I could take action to stabilize that agency. That team included my Chief of 

Staff, the Deputy Mayor’s for Public Safety & Justice and Operations, and the Directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Corrections. It 

is important to recognize that the Youth Services Administration is one of five administrations within the Department of Human Services. 

The first order of business was to professionalize the perimeter and entrance security for the Oak Hill Youth Center because there were concerns of whether security 

was tight enough for persons entering that secure facility. Working with the Deputy 

Mayors for Public Safety & Justice and Operations, the Chief Procurement Officer 

and the Director of the Department of Corrections, I issued orders to terminate for 

convenience the contractor who had been providing those services and to put the 

Department of Corrections in charge of external security. I wanted to have the Director of our Department of Corrections, as the District’s security expert, accountable and responsible to me for providing an increased level of security for our employees and visitors. The Department of Corrections began providing security at the 

main entrance to the grounds and at the sally port entrances to the facilities at the 

Oak Hill Youth Center beginning November 16, 2003, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human Services and Corrections provides 

for continued security services by Corrections through the end of the fiscal year. 
36 

I have been quoted as calling ‘‘the entire system just broken’’ shortly after my 

visit to the Oak Hill in November 2003. This quote is accurate but is best understood in context. The Administrator who had run the Youth Services Administration 

for 5 years had resigned in July 2003, and there were a series of Acting Administrators; the Deputy Administrator for Secure Programs (which includes the Oak Hill 

Youth Center) resigned in October 2003; and the Oak Hill Youth Center Superintendent, the Deputy Administrator for Court and Community Programs (which includes oversight of aftercare services and court liaison activities), and the Chief Administrative Officer were each terminated on the day of my visit. On November 21, 

2003, I spent a little over an hour touring the facility and talking with senior level 

staff. I also visited a number of group homes to get a better picture of how those 

homes were operating. Following these unannounced visits to Oak Hill and the 

group homes, I reconvened the team I had assembled in October and shared my 

views and thoughts that we immediately needed to stabilize the Youth Services Administration by putting a management team in place to stabilize the infrastructure 

and to address all of the issues surrounding the agency. I candidly admitted in my 

testimony to the court that ‘‘there was no management to any large degree in place.’’ 

I have already testified that while I was City Manager in Richmond, Virginia, I 

hired an expert in juvenile justice to design a continuum of care program. That was 

the right approach for what was needed in those circumstances where we were developing an entirely new continuum of care program. 

Based on my 30 years of city management experience, I concluded that a different 

approach was needed for the Youth Services Administration because of the instability caused by the departure of the Administrator, her two Deputy Administrators, 

the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Oak Hill Youth Center Superintendent. 

I personally selected and recommended to the Mayor new leadership for the Youth 

Services Administration. I chose Ms. Alexander as Interim Administrator because 

she is someone who knows the District of Columbia and who knows how to get 

things done in this city. Beginning in early 2003, Ms. Alexander had been assigned 

by the Deputy Mayor for Operations to the then troubled Office of Property Management as Chief of Staff, Deputy Director and then Interim Director. She stabilized 

that agency and began the process of turning it around until we could put a more 

permanent professional in place. While Ms. Alexander has some juvenile justice experience from her time in the Abuse and Neglect Section in the Office of the Corporation Counsel, her selection as Interim Administrator of the Youth Services Administration was premised on her ability to stabilize the agency and to reform its 

management infrastructure while we conduct a nationwide search for a permanent, 

juvenile justice expert to lead the agency. As an 18-year employee of the District 

of Columbia, a fine lawyer, and a certified public manager, Ms. Alexander is the 

right person for the job and I am fortunate to have found her. 

Since her arrival on December 3, 2003, Ms. Alexander has moved to fill critical 

vacancies in the Youth Services Administration, hiring 33 new employees, including 

the Assistant Superintendents for Treatment for both the Oak Hill Youth Center 

and the new Youth Services Center (which is set for beneficial occupancy in late August 2004), 18 Youth Correctional Officers, and 5 Juvenile Justice Institutional 

Counselors (otherwise known as Treatment Team Leaders). These are critical hires 

for the agency because these are the employees who provide direct services to our 

youth. 

Dr. Sybil Smith-Gray, the newly-hired Assistant Superintendent for Treatment, is 

a licensed clinical psychologist and has worked collaboratively with the Department 

of Mental Health (which previously retained her as a contractor) to reform our diagnostic and assessment unit. With Dr. Gray’s leadership, and in concert with the Department of Mental Health, the Youth Services Administration has developed a 

therapeutic atmosphere for securing detained and committed youth. The Youth 

Services Administration is a human services organization and its service delivery 

is predicated upon the concepts of Corrective Treatment and Balanced and Restorative Justice or BARJ. The fundamental goal of corrective treatment for the juvenile 

offender is the development of a healthy and adaptive respect/obedience for authority as evidenced by discipline, order, respect and compliance. As clinicians in social 

services, our aim is to accomplish this goal through repeated clinical interactions 

that replicate the phases that characterize the healthy caregiver-child relationship: 

positive engagement, interpersonal stress, reparation of the damaged interaction. 

Ultimately, this effort will support the juvenile offender’s ability to develop healthy 

interpersonal relationships and that are characterized by mutual trust, empathy for 

others, and the ability to exchange ideas and share feelings effectively. With regard 

to BARJ principles, victims/survivors of crime, offenders, and the community are 

viewed as equal consumers of the juvenile justice system. Therefore, each of these 

entities is given equal consideration when developing and implementing pro-
37 

grammatic responses. The three over-arching goals of BARJ for juveniles are: accountability, competency, development and community protection. 

As of this writing, 392 of the Youth Services Administration’s 480 authorized 

FTE’s are filled. Of these remaining positions, 65 are in recruit status and 23 are 

vacant. The Mayor has proposed in his fiscal year 2005 budget, a significant increase in funding, in order to hire an additional 71 FTE’s in the Youth Services Administration to staff the new Youth Services Center and to implement Jerry M. com- pliance and organizational improvements. The new Youth Services Center is an 80- 

bed diagnostic facility located on Mt. Olivet Road that will serve our detained youth 

prior to adjudication. Understandably, the ongoing nationwide recruitment effort by 

the D.C. Office of Personnel for a permanent Administrator is made especially difficult while plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of a transitional receiver is pending 

before the Superior Court in the Jerry M. litigation. Nevertheless, we are actively 

moving forward to recruit a top juvenile justice professional to lead the organization 

as we work diligently to stabilize it. 

As part of her management reform initiative, Ms. Alexander is reorganizing the 

agency under four Deputy Administrators as follows: (1) Deputy Administrator for 

Secure Programs (responsible for operations at both Oak Hill Youth Center and the 

new Youth Services Center); (2) Deputy Administrator for Court and Community 

Programs (responsible for aftercare services for committed youth and for court activities); (3) Deputy Administrator for Support Services (functionally, the Chief Administrative Officer responsible for all administrative activities); and (4) Deputy Administrator for Performance Management (responsible for risk management, program evaluation, data collection, contract monitoring, policy and accreditation). The 

Deputy Administrator for Court and Community Programs has already been hired 

and the other three deputies have been recruited and are awaiting selection. The 

incumbents for these management positions will be involved in hiring direct report 

managers within their respective operational responsibilities. This new structure 

will rationalize the organization and provide for enhanced management and accountability to ensure that the youth are being comprehensively and efficiently 

served. 

INVESTIGATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Office of the Inspector General’s Inspections and Evaluations Division began 

an inspection of the Youth Services Administration in April 2003. The inspection is 

being conducted in two parts. Part One, which is covered in a draft report submitted 

to the Department of Human Services for comments on March 4, 2004, includes 

management, administrative services, and all operations at the Oak Hill Youth Center. On March 22, 2004, in accordance with the Office of Inspector General’s standard auditing procedures, the Department of Human Services provided its comments 

to the 45 findings and 96 recommendations contained in Part One’s draft report of 

investigation. We await the Office of the Inspector General’s final report. Part Two, 

which was commenced in February 2004, includes the remaining operations of the 

Youth Services Administration. 

During the course of the Part One inspection, the Inspector General also issued 

seven Management Alert Reports on matters that the inspection team found required the immediate attention of District of Columbia government officials. The 

Youth Services Administration responded to each of these Management Alert Reports and is taking specific action to address each of the deficiencies identified in 

the reports. 

Fire Safety 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to a number of 

fire safety deficiencies, including inaccessible fire extinguishers, a lack of fire drills, 

and a lack of posted evacuation plans. In responding to the report, the Youth Services Administration abated each and every fire safety deficiency. However, the 

Youth Services Administration disagrees with the Inspector General on the issue of 

accessibility of fire extinguishers. The Youth Services Administration follows American Correctional Association (ACA) standards pertaining to ensuring the safety and 

well-being of its residents and staff at the Oak Hill Youth Center. To that end, all 

fire extinguishers are concealed in locked wall areas on each unit. The unit manager 

and supervisory Youth Correctional Officer or YCO on each unit have keys to open 

the locked wall boxes. In order to provide additional safety measures to each housing unit, the Youth Services Administration is installing a lock box in each of the 

security office’s to ensure that the keys are available on the unit should a fire emergency occur. The Youth Services Administration has mounted its fire evacuation 

plans, is recruiting to fill the position of Health and Safety Officer, and is documenting its ongoing fire drills in weekly fire inspection reports. 
38 

Security 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to breaches of 

security at entrances at the Oak Hill Youth Center due to a lack of adequate search 

procedures, and the employment of security guards without completed criminal 

background checks. These findings and recommendations were made during the 

time prior to November 2003 when a contractor was providing these security services. That contractor was terminated for convenience and, effective November 16, 

2003, the Department of Corrections began providing these security services with 

an approximately 23-member squad and each of its correctional officers have undergone criminal background checks. 

Female Youth 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to certain deficiencies in the female housing unit that impair the ability of YCO’s to effectively 

maintain the safety and security of residents and to ensure their own safety as well. 

These deficiencies included a lack of proper security monitoring equipment, insufficient perimeter lighting, a lack of proper communication equipment, and failure to 

provide all YCO’s with keys to resident rooms in the event of an emergency. In the 

responding to the reported deficiencies, the Youth Services Administration issued 

four additional two-way radios to the unit supervisor in Unit 6 for female youth. 

In the event additional radios are necessary, instructions have been given to the Officer of Day to ensure that any staff member who needs access to a two-way radio 

receives this equipment immediately. In order to provide additional security measures that will allow faster evacuation of the housing units, including Unit 6, the 

Youth Services Administration is installing a lock box in the security office, and the 

unit manager, supervisory correctional officer and the officer of the day will have 

access in the event of a fire or other emergency. The Youth Services Administration 

has repaired the electronic security monitoring system in Unit 6 and the metal detector and hand wand equipment at Unit 6 have been replaced. The equipment is 

operational and the staff has been instructed to have this security equipment operational at all times. Finally, the Youth Services Administration is aware of the need 

to upgrade the facility’s exterior lighting, and arrangements are under way to upgrade the electrical power so that institutional lighting can be enhanced for Unit 

6. 

Communication Equipment 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to a lack of sufficient and reliable communication equipment that threatens overall safety and security and impairs the ability of YCO’s, transportation officers, treatment team 

leaders, and social services representatives to perform their jobs effectively. The 

Youth Services Administration, in conjunction with the Department of Human Services, the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and Verizon Communications, completed a thorough assessment regarding the telecommunications needs of the agency 

are in the process of establishing a corrective action plan. In the interim, while the 

longer term solution is planned and implemented, the Youth Services Administration has repaired the broken equipment, issued additional two-way radios and cell 

phones, and repaired broken electronic monitoring systems. 

Illegal Substances 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to illegal substances, such as marijuana and phencyclidine (PCP), smuggled into the Oak Hill 

Youth Center. These allegations arise at a time when a contractor was providing 

security but, candidly, the presence of illegal substances persists. In a recent testing, 14 of 159 youth or 8.8 percent testified positive for the presence of marijuana. 

The Youth Services Administration already is investigating the report’s allegation 

that YCO’s are engaged in illegal conduct (i.e. providing illegal substances to youth), 

in addition to the investigation being conducted by the Department of Human Services Office of Investigations and Compliance. We agree with the Inspector General 

that the use of Department of Corrections officers to provide perimeter and sally 

port security at the Oak Hill Youth Center will assist in the interdiction of contraband entering the facility. The agency is utilizing shakedowns and other measures 

within the facility to detect such contraband in the housing units. The Youth Services Administration also is working with the Metropolitan Police Department’s canine unit to buttress its drug interdiction measures inside of the facility. The canine 

unit already has visited the Oak Hill facility on four unannounced visits, and the 

longer range objective is to enter into a memorandum of understanding to provide 

the Oak Hill Youth Center and subsequently, the new Youth Services Center, with 

a permanent canine detection program. 
39 

Abandoned Buildings 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to documentation of 28 vacant and abandoned buildings on the same grounds as the Oak Hill 

Youth Center, many of which are unsecured and have been entered and vandalized. 

While the report improperly attributes the maintenance of these properties to the 

Youth Services Administration, the agency currently occupies only limited buildings 

located on the old Forest Haven site. Nevertheless, the District is responsible for 

these buildings and will, as part of its overall strategy for the future of this 888- 

acre site, take affirmative action to secure these properties. As to the allegations 

that the utilities should be terminated, the Youth Services Administration has 

learned that the Forest Haven facility was constructed prior to current water, sewer 

and electrical standards and therefore these services cannot be disconnected because 

these electrical systems provide the street lighting necessary to maintain security 

visibility at Unit 6 for the female youth), along each street in the parcel of the land, 

for the Training Academy, and the Union’s facility. In addition, YSA must maintain 

water flow because it provides water to all fire hydrants on the property and serves 

the Woodland Job Corps, which was originally a part of this site. 

In light of the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation to demolish and rebuild 

the Oak Hill Youth Center at or near its current location, the Williams Administration has received proposals from both government and private groups for use of the 

land and must determine the most appropriate approach. I have tasked the members of my team to work with other government officials and the various stakeholders to develop a recommendation in May. 

Transportation 

The Inspector General alerted the Youth Services Administration to employees operating government vehicles without valid State driver’s licenses and government 

motor vehicle identification cards, and vehicles being operated with expired inspection stickers. The Youth Services Administration has taken affirmative steps to ensure that employees who do not possess a valid District of Columbia driver’s license 

or government motor vehicle identification card are not be permitted to operate one 

of its vehicles. The Youth Services Administration has requested additional vehicles 

to keep from operating vehicles with expired inspections stickers, but those vehicles 

must continue to be operated, on the grounds of Oak Hill for maintenance use only, 

until such time as the new vehicles arrive. 

The Youth Services Administration is cooperating with these ongoing investigations and is looking forward to working with the Office of the Inspector General to 

correct these and the other deficiencies identified in the Part One draft report of 

investigation. 

RECEIVERSHIP

The subcommittee has asked me to testify about whether a receiver should be put 

in place for the Youth Services Administration in connection with the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of a Transitional Receiver filed in the Jerry M. litigation in 

December of 2003. Let me begin by expressing my understanding from the attorneys 

in the Office of the Corporation Counsel who represent the District in the litigation 

that the presiding judge requested that the parties not try the motion in the media 

and, of course, I am mindful of the court’s admonition. However, the subcommittee 

has specifically requested that the District present testimony on this important 

issue and I will do so. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a 3-day 

hearing on the motion on February 23–25, 2004, and I testified in the government’s 

behalf on the third day of the hearing along with Ms. Marceline D. Alexander, the 

Interim Administrator, Mr. John M. Manuel, the Acting Deputy Administrator for 

Secure Programs, and Ms. Martha B. Knisley, the Director of the Department of 

Mental Health. 

Of course, I leave representation of the District of Columbia in the Jerry M. litigation in the capable hands of the Corporation Counsel and his assistants. I understand that the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that a transitional receiver should be appointed to oversee the Youth Services Administration. District of 

Columbia v. Jerry M., 738 A.2d 1206, 1214 (D.C. 1999). The trial court must consider six factors in determining whether appointment of a receiver, transitional or 

otherwise, is justified: (1) whether there have been repeated failures to comply with 

the court’s orders; (2) whether additional efforts to bring defendants into compliance 

would lead only to confrontation and delay; (3) whether leadership is available that 

can turn the tide within a reasonable period of time; (4) whether defendants acted 

in bad faith; (5) whether defendants are wasting resources; and (6) whether appointment of a receiver would provide a quick and efficient remedy. Dixon v. Barry, 967 
40 

F. Supp. 535, 550 (D.D.C. 1997). We have urged the court in our filings not to impose a receiver, transitional or otherwise. 

The Jerry M. Consent Decree, entered by the Court on July 24, 1986, comprises 

185 provisions and 43 pages of requirements governing the delivery of services by 

the Youth Services Administration. These provisions cover a broad range of complex 

issues including diagnostic and treatment services, education, mental health and 

medical services, discipline and training, recreation, transition and aftercare services, environmental and sanitation, and community programs. The District has 

made incremental progress over the course of the last 2 years, achieving compliance 

with 35 additional provisions of the 185 provisions of the Consent Decree and reducing by two-thirds the number of non-compliant findings reported by the Court Monitor between September 30, 2000, and June 30, 2003. The Monitor’s 51st Report 

measured the 6 months between July 1 and December 31, 2003, the time period following the departure of the former Administrator who provided stable leadership 

prior to her departure in August 2003. This was a period of great transition, during 

which there were two different interim administrators for brief periods of time before leadership was stabilized by the Mayor’s appointment of Ms. Alexander. Some 

slippage during this less stable time period is not unexpected. Nonetheless, the District still maintained compliance with 23 additional provisions since September 30, 

2000, and, essentially, maintained the two-thirds’ reduction in non-compliant findings. This record contradicts the Jerry M. plaintiffs’ assessment that nothing short 

of appointing a transitional receiver can be done at this stage of the litigation. Because the District has made incremental progress over the last 3 years, albeit, not 

as quickly or as comprehensively as anticipated or required, it is unreasonable to 

conclude that additional efforts to secure compliance will be futile and lead only to 

confrontation and further delay. 

I cannot say that I am satisfied with the District remaining under this litigation 

nearly 18 years after it was first initiated. I can say, however, that I am very confident in our current direction and with the progress we are making and feel that 

our current approach, not a transitional receiver, is without question the best way 

for the District to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. I can say that appointment of transitional receiver does not provide a quick and efficient remedy. Ms. 

Alexander and Mr. Back have been on task for nearly 4 months and their labors 

are beginning to bear fruit. I would like to highlight their accomplishments for the 

record: 

Security Improvements at Oak Hill Youth Center 

Security Enhancements—MOU with DOC for Security at Perimeter Locations and 

at the Facility Checkpoint. 

Security staff added to the entrance of Central Administration Building. 

YSA is in working collaboratively with (MPD, CFSA, Court Social Services and 

OCC) to establish an absconders unit who will return all youth in ascendance status 

to YSA custody. 

YSA has introduced drug sniffing dogs at Oak Hill. 

Increased staffing on housing units additional supervisors (2). 

YSA has changed location for visiting in order to provide better observation and 

security. 

Substance Abuse Enhancements/Treatments at Oak Hill Youth Center 

YSA has established a therapeutic atmosphere at Oak Hill that is based on the 

concept of Corrective Treatment and Balanced and Restorative Justice. This therapeutic atmosphere serves as the foundation for additional services including substance abuse. 

YSA is entering into a short-term MOU with APRA to provide substance abuse 

counseling until the Substance Abuse Free Environment or SAFE Program is implemented. This MOU would entail APRA supplying YSA with two Certified Substance 

Abuse Counselors for approximately 6 months. YSA would use Unit 9B, which is 

designated for substance abuse treatment, and YSA would pay for this service by 

using Re-entry Funds. Contained in the MOU is the number of hours that the substance abuse counselor reports to OHYC. At present, it is anticipated that YSA will 

utilize the services of the counselors for approximately 21 hours per week at a cost 

of $28.00 per hour. 

RFP for the Residential Substance Abuse Program at Oak Hill was issued on February 15, 2004 and will close on April 2, 2004. YSA held a Pre-Bidder Conference 

at the Office of Contracting and Procurement on March 1, 2004 and 15 people attended, representing 12 different organizations. It will take approximately 4 to 6 

months before services associated with this residential treatment program will 

begin. 
41 

YSA has also established a SAFE Program for Unit 6. 

YSA has identified YCO’s who are certified addiction counselors who will be 

placed in unit 9B on a permanent basis. 

YSA is reassigning youth with substance abuse needs to unit 9B. 

Voice and Motion Players (VAMP) will increase numbers of times they visit the 

housing units to 2 times a week. 

YSA has hired an additional rehabilitation specialist with a background in addiction treatment. 

Training 

YSA continues to provide Specialized Training to all Diagnostic Treatment Team 

Leaders: These specialized training session will consist of: 

—Writing and Implementing the Effective ISP, 

—Interviewing Youth, 

—Planning Successful Team Management. 

Continues to train case managers in conjunction with Dr. Marty Beyer—Jerry M. 

Consent Decree expert—which consist of: 

—Strength Based Assessments, 

—Treatment Plans. 

Staffing Enhancements 

YSA has hired two Assistant Superintendents for Treatment. 

YSA has hired 18 additional YCO’s, 2 Licensing Monitors and 1 Chief of Licensing 

from CFSA, 6 program analysts, and 5 Juvenile Justice Institutional Counselors. 

YSA has filled one and is currently recruiting to fill for 3 Deputy Administrators 

for: 

—Secure Programs, 

—Court and Community Programs (filled), 

—Performance Management, 

—Deputy Administrator for Support Services (Chief Administrative Officer). 

YSA is also currently recruiting to fill: 

—Oak Hill Youth Center Superintendent, 

—Training Manager, 

—Intensive after care workers, 

—Cooks, 

—IT professionals. 

Community Enhancements 

YSA has entered into an MOU with D.C. Parks and Recreation’s Roving Leaders 

to provide services to youth in community based programs. 

YSA has assigned a staff member to ensure that all youth are reviewed for Medicaid Eligibility once they enter the system. 

YSA launched its licensing of group homes in March and has implemented additional monitoring/inspection procedures for all group/shelter homes. 

YSA has signed a statement of work for three group home solicitations: generic, 

therapeutic, and therapeutic substance abuse. The generic group home is scheduled 

to go through the District’s Procurement Review Committee for approval on April 

2, 2004. The therapeutic group home is ready for placement on the web and should 

be on the web by March 31, 2004. The therapeutic substance abuse group home will 

be ready by April 15, 2004, provided that revisions are finalized and the Procurement Review Committee approves it. In the interim, YSA is working on additional 

statements of work for shelter and vocational group homes. 

Educational Programming/Enhancements—Oak Hill Academy 

Consistent with the Jerry M. Consent Decree, all youth entering Oak Hill receive 

education assessments within 72 hours. DCPS has on staff 2 Assessors who provide 

this service. 

DCPS staff involved in the diagnostic process come together every Tuesday to assess the youth’s educational and vocational test scores as well as educational history 

in an effort to develop an educational track/plan. 

Changes In Educational Services 

Oak Hill Academy has instituted two changes in Educational Services to meet the 

individual needs of its students: how to schedule students in their classes, and increase in programs to support the school’s focus on reading and mathematics across 

all content areas. 

DCPS has requested and YSA will provide additional YCO’s who will be specifically designated as DCPS YCO’s who will reside in the school to support the needs 

of the new and revised day and after school programs. 
42 

During the 3rd Advisory, students’ class schedules will better reflect their Individual Service Plan (ISP), school credit, and interest needs. 

Students will be scheduled in classes based on educational programming dictated 

by their ISP. 

DCPS received an AOL Grant in the amount of ($10,000). This grant will enable 

15 students needing remediation services for graduation, or college/college preparation classes to take computer courses online. 

DCPS will be expanding its evening program to include a school band, book club, 

public speaking class, typing class, chess class, debating team, math and reading 

tutorials. 

DCPS will also offer athletic intramurals such as football and basketball. 

DCPS has also hired a Reading Specialist, who will support teachers’ efforts to 

modify instruction to meet the reading deficits that impact students’ learning. 

DCPS Volunteer Groups 

Georgetown University and American University enable DCPS to provide tutorial 

services in such areas as job preparation, GED training, improvement in communication skills and self-esteem building. 

American University’s Washington College of Law has 13 tutors who each assist 

one male student, academically and socially. They meet every Friday from 3:30 p.m. 

to 5:00 p.m. in the main school building. 

Georgetown University provides tutorial services for female residents on Unit 6. 

This group is comprised of 8 tutors, working on a one-on-one basis to help the female students attain higher academic success in need areas. These tutors are on 

Unit 6 every Sunday from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

DCPS has arranged for the Public Defender Service to provide evening classes on 

Street Law. 

DCPS in conjunction with YSA conducts Interdisciplinary Community Transition 

Planning Meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to develop the aftercare plans 

that will address the needs of committed youth within the context of the Balanced 

and Restorative Justice principles of community safety, accountability, and competency. These meeting are held 90 days prior to a youth’s projected release date. 

DCPS has also established Oak Hill Transition Specialists Program Guidelines 

and established in DCPS are 5 individuals responsible for transition/coordination 

services related to Oak Hill youth. The youth transition into four schools Anacostia, 

Ballou, Cardoza and Roosevelt Senior High Schools. Students are also transitioned 

into other charter schools as applicable. 

Moreover, plaintiffs seek to provide 6 months for the transitional receiver to prepare a work plan and an additional year to put the plan in place. On the other 

hand, I directed Ms. Alexander to prepare and submit her comprehensive work plan 

for achieving Jerry M. compliance to me in May, and I fully expect that the plan 

will include further organizational adjustments gleaned from the past 4 months and 

a recommendation of whether the Youth Services Administration should become a 

cabinet-level agency. The selection of a new transitional receiver itself would take 

weeks, in addition to the delay identified above in preparing a plan and implementing it. The quicker and more efficient remedy is to permit the current Interim 

Administrator to continue her stabilization efforts and concentrate on recruiting for 

a permanent Administrator to assume the reins of a reinvigorated Youth Services 

Administration. 

I believe that I have demonstrated in my testimony to the court on February 25, 

2004, and before this subcommittee this morning, that leadership is available that 

can turn the tide within a reasonable period of time at the Youth Services Administration. In addition to developing a comprehensive work plan for the Youth Services 

Administration by May 2004, Ms. Alexander’s priorities include hiring staff, identifying and obtaining needed resources, developing more collaborative relationships 

with other agencies and stakeholders, and finalizing an organizational structure for 

the agency. Ms. Alexander already has hired 35 new staff and created a new organizational structure. She prepared fiscal year 2005 budget enhancements for the new 

Youth Services Center and is working to bring that facility on line. She and her senior staff have met with sister agencies and other stakeholders, including 

Councilmember Sandra Allen (Chair of the Council of the District of Columbia’s 

Committee on Human Services) to develop collaborative strategies in delivering improved services to our youth. Ms. Alexander has met with Dr. Margaret Beyer, the 

parties’ stipulated aftercare expert, about moving forward with the agency’s group 

and shelter home solicitations and other Order B issues. Ms. Alexander is putting 

in place a management team that address each of the deficiencies identified in the 

Inspector General reports, the Court Monitor’s 51st Report, and the Blue Ribbon 
43 

Commission Report. We fully expect the Court Monitor’s 52nd Report to substantiate the progress we are making in the first half of the current calendar year. 

Ms. Alexander and her special counsel, Mr. Back, have direct access to me for consultation, review or assistance with any issue on a 24/7 basis. In addition, the team 

that I began to assemble in October 2003 continues to provide its support to this 

multi-agency reform initiative. In short, the Youth Services Administration is a top 

priority of the District of Columbia. The Williams Administration is resolved to 

making all necessary reforms to continue to make improvements in the delivery of 

services to our detained and committed youth. 

I want to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

Mayor Williams concerning the progress made at the Youth Services Administration. Ms. Alexander, Mr. Back, and I are available to answer any questions. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, we thank you very much for your testimony. Let me start by asking: you had the opportunity to hear the 

previous witnesses testify? 

Mr. BOBB. Yes. 

Senator DEWINE. What is your opinion about the Blue Ribbon report? 

Mr. BOBB. Well, I have read the executive summary of the Blue 

Ribbon report. It does make a lot of very good recommendations as 

to how the District of Columbia can move forward in providing 

services to youth, and in particular, to juveniles within the District. 

The Mayor had appointed a committee in December of 2003 that 

is now taking the basics of the Blue Ribbon Committee, coming up 

with a series of recommendations and strategies as to how we can 

move the Blue Ribbon Committee’s report forward in the District. 

So that is currently under review. 

Senator DEWINE. How do you think that Oak Hill fits into this 

or does not fit into it, and get to the comments of the two previous 

panel members. I mean their recommendation is that you close 

Oak Hill. What is your opinion about that? 

Mr. BOBB. Well, the recommendation, I will give you my candid 

opinion. The recommendation that we sunset—— 

Senator DEWINE. That is what we like. We like candid. 

Mr. BOBB. The recommendation that we sunset the Oak Hill facility and close it at a future date is one what will require very 

careful study and analysis, because at the end of the day, Oak Hill 

closes its doors, and then we have to place all of those facilities 

within the District of Columbia. That, too, will have to be—you 

would have to bring the entire community along with you, because 

you are going to run into the NIMBY concept, or not in my back 

yard. 

In addition, we are also going to have the issue of whether or not 

we want to impact—typically what happens is, many of these facilities, from my experience, are placed in moderate, low income areas, 

and so then you have the impaction of whether or not those communities themselves should be the recipient of many of these types 

of facilities. 

So I just think that it is going to require very careful community 

discussions and conversations in a much broader sense than perhaps what was done when the committee conducted its study and 

its review, and made its recommendations. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, the description that has been given, the 

picture of Oak Hill today, has that been an unfair description? It 

has been a pretty bleak description. Now, if someone went out 
44 

here, somebody who is in the audience today, who had not been at 

Oak Hill, would they see something better? 

Mr. BOBB. No. You are not going to see any physical—the physical conditions of Oak Hill are the physical conditions at Oak Hill. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, it is not just the physical condition. I 

mean commingling of status offenders, a kid who is a truant, put 

in a room with a sex offender. That is pretty shocking. 

Mr. BOBB. Absolutely. I can tell you that those issues occurred, 

they were not on—they have not occurred at Oak Hill since October 

of last year. If you go—what we would challenge all of the finders 

and all of the reports, is to take a look at Oak Hill since Mayor 

Williams directed this team to fix a problem that has been plaguing this District of Columbia for the last 17 years. In my more detailed testimony, it speaks to the changes, fairly dramatic changes 

in a short period of time, that we have taken at Oak Hill, including 

putting in treatment programs, or expanding the treatment programs for youth at that facility. 

Senator DEWINE. Tell us a little bit, you touched on this in your 

statement, but tell us in a little more detail about what treatment 

is available, what programming is available to the young people 

who are at Oak Hill. 

Mr. BOBB. I will let Ms. Alexander, if you do not mind, go 

through—— 

Senator DEWINE. Sure. 

Mr. BOBB [continuing]. Some of the details in that regard. 

STATEMENT OF MARCELINE D. ALEXANDER

Ms. ALEXANDER. Good morning. 

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. As relates to substance abuse treatment, currently YSA has established a therapeutic atmosphere at Oak Hill 

that is based on the concept of corrective treatment and a balanced 

and restorative justice approach. 

Senator DEWINE. A what? I am sorry. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Balanced and restorative justice, which basically—— 

Senator DEWINE. What does that mean? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. It takes—it balances competing considerations, 

that of the offender, the community, and the victim. 

We are also entering into a short-term memorandum of understanding with our substance abuse administration, APRA, to provide substance abuse counseling until the SAFE program, which 

has been the subject of a lot of discussion is implemented. As relates to the SAFE program, we expect to have a substance abuse 

treatment facility fully operational in September, late August. 

We have also established a substance abuse education program 

for our females on unit six. I would be happy to provide the curriculum to you. We have identified youth correctional officers who 

are certified substance abuse counselors, who we placed on specific 

units within the facility on a permanent basis to assist us in providing treatment and counseling for the youth. 

The Department of Mental Health is also conducting individual 

and group counseling for youth who have been identified through 

their treatment plan as requiring counseling. In addition, we have 
45 

the Voice and Motion Players, which is a private vendor that goes 

out and uses innovative approaches to working with youth in dealing with substance abuse and other related issues. 

We have also hired a rehabilitation specialist, who formerly 

worked in the SAFE program to assist us in providing counseling 

and treatment. 

I would also say that we have a cannabis youth treatment service module in preparation for a more intensive substance abuse 

treatment program. Those children who have, through their treatment plan, as being identified as having severe substance abuse 

addiction issues are, of course, placed in residential treatment facilities, so they get more specialized treatment. 

Senator DEWINE. You say there are children who are placed in 

residential treatment facilities. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. That is correct. Who, through their individualized service plan, have been identified as having overriding substance abuse issues that require more intensive treatment. They 

are placed in residential treatment. 

Senator DEWINE. How many would be placed there? Do you have 

any idea? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I do not have those specific numbers, but I 

would be happy to supplement the record with that information. 

Senator DEWINE. Would you do that for me? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes, I would. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu has some questions. Go 

ahead. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator. I have several other 

meetings this morning. I appreciate the chairman’s courtesies. 

I just wanted to state for the record that I will submit a quite 

lengthy statement that I have for the record, and to thank you all 

for your testimony, but just to be sure that we are clear on some 

of the overall facts, we are dealing with approximately, Mr. Bobb, 

500 children, for a total of $69 million. 

The paper reported, I think, that it was about $90,000 per child, 

but our figures indicate that we are spending about $145,000 per 

child. I am going to clarify and verify those numbers. But whether 

it is $90,000 or $145,000 per child, I think we are all agreed that 

we can do a much better job than is being done. 

I also think the findings of this this morning are that since you 

have come on board, you have tried to put some things in place, 

and actually have accomplished some new directions, and have put 

in place some refocus and urgency about this matter, which I want 

to commend you for, and thank you. 

But clearly, the budget does not seem to be the problem. It is either the management, or the structure, or the focus, or the arrangements that seem to be, because we could send—these children 

are young people. I know that they are offenders. I know that some 

of them are violent offenders, and have been criminal in their actions. But for $145,000 a year, we could send them to maybe the 

finest facilities in the world. 

So I just want to go on record before I have to leave to say that 

I am personally committed to visit Oak Hill. I want to work with 

you all in every way that I can to see that we can find some immediate solutions to these situations, and to really urge you all to con-
46 

tinue to put in place the kind of leadership team that is going to 

be necessary, which I think you are on the right track. 

But putting a strong leadership team in place, that has as its 

focus finding the proper placement, and retraining, or rehabilitation for each and every one of these young people, and not be focused on the contractors, not be focused necessarily on the facilities, although, Mr. Chairman, I think it is always nice to have, obviously, a clean and safe environment. I think sometimes we spend 

too much energy on brick and mortar, and not enough on the teaching or the ministering to of the individuals that we are trying to 

rehabilitate. 

So with that in mind, I am going to leave my further questions 

for the record, but I just want to ask one question. What is the date 

that we have to actually find a director for Oak Hill, or are we 

looking for a director? 

Mr. BOBB. Yes, Senator, we are—we have our executive recruitment has taken place. We have identified a number of candidates. 

We are in the process of now trying to entice those candidates that 

come to the District for interviews, and we—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do we have a time line and a salary range? 

Mr. BOBB. I do not have—some of the salaries will have to be negotiated, but—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Approximately. A range of person that you 

are looking for. 

Mr. BOBB. Probably $125,000. 

Senator LANDRIEU. A hundred to hundred-twenty-five thousand 

for a director. What is our time frame for identifying this person? 

Mr. BOBB. May. We have already identified—we have a key candidate that we are working with at the moment. We will have that 

candidate, hopefully have that candidate on board by the first of 

May—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. 

Mr. BOBB [continuing]. When, I might add, a comprehensive report from our interim team is due on my desk. 

Senator LANDRIEU. One other—I know you have probably submitted this, but for the record, if you would state, how many youth 

are in group homes, and how many group homes are there in the 

District? 

Mr. BECK. There are—we have 82 as of—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Eighty-two—— 

Mr. BECK. There are 82 youth or shelter homes. We have 82 

youth and 10 shelters, and 21 youth, and 3 group homes. Six in 

specialized services. That is a total of 103 that are in either group 

or shelter homes. 

As of March 25, we had 177 children, youth, out in Oak Hill. On 

that same date, we had 159 in residential placement, either inside 

or outside of the District of Columbia. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Do we have an evaluation procedure in 

place for evaluations of group homes? Have we ever had a contract 

terminated in the last 12 months? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We have actually started to kick off our licensing process. We have established a licensing unit, brought on 

board, two licensing monitors from the Department of Health—I 

am sorry—from the Child and Family Services Administration, to 
47 

get their expertise, because they have just gone through the licensing process of their foster and group homes. So that process is 

under way. 

Mr. BOBB. Senator, if I may just elaborate on that just for a second. The District of Columbia does not license group homes, although, the licensor procedures has been on the books for about 2 

years. When this team came on board, I visited a number of the 

group homes unannounced. I convened a meeting of—I brought in 

all of the group home operators. This team, we have met with all 

of the group home operators. We have issued a packet of information to them. They are now aware that those group homes will go 

through a licensing procedure over the next several months. 

But it is more than just licensing. We are also putting in place 

programs, in terms of how are those children, you know, what are 

the programs for children who are in group homes? I was not satisfied with at least one of the group homes that I paid an unannounced visit to. 

So we are tightening the reigns on the group homes, not on the 

physical conditions of the group homes, but the programmatic way 

in which the group home operators work with children who are 

under their care, in addition. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, thank you. Finally, Mr. Bobb, I will just 

say, I really commend you for those unannounced visits. I think 

that is very, very important. You will not hear a peep out of this 

chairman or myself if you would decide to close one or two of those 

group homes, because I am not for giving people more time when 

they are not doing a good job. I realize there is due process, and 

I understand that, but I also understand these children’s lives 

are—a year in a child’s life, or a month, or a short period of time 

can seem like eternity for a child that is in the wrong place. 

Just for the record, how much are we paying these group home 

operators per day, per child? What is the per diem, currently? 

Mr. BOBB. It ranges, I think last—fiscal year 2003, we spent about $6 million on the group homes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But what is their per diem rate, approximately? 

Mr. BOBB. It is anywhere between $115 to over $300. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So we are paying $115 to $300 a day for operators that are unlicensed, and basically, from what we can tell, not 

doing very much, in terms of either rehabilitating, or caring for, or 

nurturing, or protecting these children. Now, something has to 

change immediately. I thank you for your efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, I have to go to my other meeting, but I thank you 

for the time you are giving to this important subject. 

Senator DEWINE. How many young people does YSA have under 

your jurisdiction, total? Just recap those figures. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. It fluctuates on a daily basis. 

Senator DEWINE. Sure. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Anywhere from 480 to 500. 

Senator DEWINE. Can you give me the rough breakdown of that 

again, where they are? 

Mr. BECK. We took—Senator DeWine, we took March 25 as the 

date, and we had submitted—— 

Senator DEWINE. That is a good date. 
48 

Mr. BECK. For the committed, we had 81 committed, 96 detained 

at Oak Hill on that day. So that is 177. On that same day, we 

had—— 

Senator DEWINE. Wait a minute now. So you have 177 at Oak 

Hill. 

Mr. BECK. On March 25. These are numbers that we provided 

the committee. 

Senator DEWINE. Right. And they break down how at Oak Hill? 

Mr. BECK. On that date, there were 81 committed, 77 of them 

male, 4 of them female; 96 detained, 82 of them male, 14 of them 

female. 

Senator DEWINE. All right. 

Mr. BECK. There were 82 youth in 10 shelter facilities, 21 in 3 

group homes, and 6 in specialized services facilities. So that is a 

total of 103 that were in either group or shelter homes. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. 

Mr. BECK. Then we had a total of 159 children in residential 

treatment centers. One-hundred-and-one of those were out of State, 

out of the District placements, and 58 of those were in District of 

Columbia facilities. Again, these were numbers that we provided 

the committee. 

Senator DEWINE. The ones who are, let us take the ones who are 

committed, the 81 who are committed at Oak Hill. That would 

range from what to what, as far as the reasons? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. From the most serious offense to minor offenses. 

Senator DEWINE. How minor? 

Mr. BECK. It would be up to the court to determine whether they 

would be committed. These are adjudicated youth, and it is up to 

the Superior Court in sentencing as to whether or not they are 

committed. So whatever a Superior Court judge indicated or 

thought would be an appropriate offense that would warrant commitment to Oak Hill. 

Senator DEWINE. I know, but you know—you can give us some 

examples. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Simple assault. Theft. 

Senator DEWINE. The period of time committed to Oak Hill will 

range from what to what? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. It varies. I am not sure of the average length 

of stay. Indulge me for one second. 

Senator DEWINE. I do not care about the average—I want to 

know what the range is. 

Mr. BECK. Of time between—— 

Senator DEWINE. Yes. 

Mr. BECK. The average stay is between 45 days and 6 months. 

In the District of Columbia, one of seven States where the age of 

majority is 21, we can, in fact, we do have children that stay committed to the care and custody of YSA up to their twenty-first 

birthday. 

So you are going to have ranging from 14 years old, up to 21. 

We had submitted to the committee responses about non-violent offenses. The statistics are that for drug offenses, we have 24 percent 

of our kids that are there for drug offenses, 36 percent for property 

crimes, 2 for driving offenses. That is the UUV’s. Other non-PINS. 
49 

That is persons in need of supervision, 2 percent. And then PINS, 

persons in need of supervision, 2 percent. So 66 percent are there 

for non-violent-type offenses. 

Senator DEWINE. The figures you gave us indicated that 18 percent of the youth committed to the YSA are basically runaways, is 

that right? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Mr. BECK. Yes. Runaways from group homes. We have not had 

an escape since 2001. 

Basically, a group home is a situation where the child is returned 

to the community, so they are going to be going to school. One of 

the criticisms has been, well, why can you not make it more secure? Well, you are stepping them down from a more secure facility 

and putting them in the community, so that they can rehabilitate. 

They are going to be going to school, so it is not terribly difficult 

for them to just keep walking after school, or not going to school 

at all. 

Senator DEWINE. So they are in the community anyway. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Mr. BECK. Right. 

Senator DEWINE. That is the next step. 

Mr. BECK. A lot of them just go home. 

Senator DEWINE. Now, what about this category of, we have another category of truants here. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Well, the new—— 

Senator DEWINE. What is this? The PINS’ offenses? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Those are children in need—— 

Senator DEWINE. P-I-N-S. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Children in need of supervision. 

Senator DEWINE. All right. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. When the new youth diagnostic center opens in 

October, that population of youth will be serviced at that facility, 

along with our detained youth, and that is children who have not 

had a judicial determination that they have committed an offense. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. What percentage were foster care kids 

that ran away? 

Mr. BOBB. That was a figure that we were not able to determine. 

Those are dual-jacket kids. 

Senator DEWINE. They were what? 

Mr. BOBB. They are called dual-jacket kids. 

Senator DEWINE. What in the world does that mean? 

Mr. BOBB. A child who has an abuse and neglect case proceeding, 

and one that also has a charge, an offense—— 

Senator DEWINE. Dual jacket. 

Mr. BOBB. Yes. Dual jacket. 

Ms. ALEXANDER. They are in both systems. The Child Welfare 

System, where they have either been adjudicated or a determination has been made that they have been abused and neglected, and 

through the process, they have also picked up a juvenile charge. 

Senator DEWINE. They picked up a juvenile charge, because of 

why? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Because they have allegedly, if they were detained, committed a criminal act. 
50 

Senator DEWINE. Not just because they ran away. Because they 

have run away from a foster home? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. No. I do not think that that would be a basis. 

Though, I cannot say that with absolute certainty that a child 

would be placed in a juvenile justice system because they have run 

away from a group home. 

Traditionally, these are children who have purportedly committed a criminal act. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, that gets them into your PINS, P-I-N-S. 

Does that not get them into that? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. That would get them into the system, but I am 

not suggesting, nor do I believe that most of the kids who have 

dual jackets are there because they are PINS. 

Senator DEWINE. But you have some of these kids detained at 

Oak Hill who come under that category, do you not? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. We may, in fact, do. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Well, this has been very enlightening. I 

think it shows how much work has to be done. I intend to go look 

at Oak Hill myself as well. So Senator Landrieu and I will both be 

out there. 

Again, as Senator Landrieu said, the physical facilities are one 

thing, but I think the other question is, what services are being 

provided? Whether it is $490,000 or $140,000 is interesting, but the 

real question is, what are the services that are being provided? 

Mr. Bobb, your comment about phasing out Oak Hill and going 

out into the community is interesting, but I do not think that anyone is suggesting that you are not going to need a secure facility, 

and that you are not going to always have a certain percentage of 

these juveniles who are hard core offenders, who are going to need 

to be locked up. No one should read this hearing, or what I have 

said, at least, as indicating other than that. 

I have been involved in the criminal justice system for my entire 

career one way or the other. There are some hardcore juvenile offenders. They have to be locked up. But there are also some truants, and there are also some runaways. Part of what we have 

learned over the years in the juvenile justice system is to distinguish the two, and understand the difference between the two, and 

to sort them out, and to treat them differently, and to give the 

treatment that is appropriate for the offense and for the offender. 

I think that is, to me, what has been the biggest problem with Oak 

Hill, and the biggest problem with what is happening in the District of Columbia. 

Now, I understand, Mr. Bobb, that your testimony has been that 

things are getting better under what you and the Mayor have been 

doing. We appreciate that. I guess the question is whether or not 

that can get better at Oak Hill, and whether or not that is the facility where that can be done. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

So anyway, we look forward to working with you all. We appreciate everyone’s testimony. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOBB. Thank you. 
51 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 30, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ