Meeting Addresses Protecting Youths After Dark

Longer Rec Center Hours, Punishing Parents Debated

Basketball, swimming and cheerleading are big entertainment on summer afternoons for District children and teens at recreation centers.

But the fun usually ends at 9 p.m.

So advocates are calling for longer recreation center hours and more outreach services, which they say would protect youths more effectively than the alternative of amending child welfare laws.

D.C. Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) led a public oversight roundtable Tuesday focusing on a proposal that would declare parents negligent if their children are not home after 10 p.m.

Wells said he is considering legislation that would declare a child to be neglected if found "outside his or her home after 10 p.m. without the presence of a responsible adult."

He said he was motivated by what he considers a need to improve public safety and protect children. Wells compared the environment now with that of his childhood, saying parents enforced a curfew dictated by when the streetlights came on.

"That was the tradition," he said. "That was good parenting, and that doesn't seem to be the case anymore."

Speakers at the roundtable agreed with the amendment's goal of keeping children safe at night. But many of the youth advocates decried the measure, saying it does not address larger needs: longer hours for recreation centers and more education for parents.

The city has 77 recreation centers. Some are open until 9 p.m., but the hours are extended if funding is available. Regina Williams, a D.C. parks and recreation spokeswoman, said the department tries to keep two centers in each ward open until midnight during the summer.

Deborah Shore, executive director of Sasha Bruce Youthwork, said all recreation centers should be open until at least midnight. "There is a large problem in our city of providing services when parents are working," she said.

Daniel Okonkwo, a member of D.C. Lawyers for Youth, testified that the District appears to rush to enact legislation and emergency measures about youth crime.

"It is troubling to us, however, that the District does not seem to have the same sense of urgency when it comes to the development of opportunities for D.C.'s youth," he said.

Wells said changing the law and enhancing youth services could happen simultaneously.

"The need for more services is not an argument against protecting children," Wells said.

Sharlynn E. Bobo, acting director of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, testified that the amendment is unnecessary, saying the law adequately addresses neglect issues. From Oct. 1 to April 30, CFSA received 1,576 neglect referrals, 416 of which included allegations of abandonment, lack of supervision or children left alone, Bobo testified.

The speakers also raised concerns about the social and economic effects of the amendment. Some advocates said the amendment places a burden on parents who work nights and have to leave their children unattended.

Susie Cambria, interim executive director of D.C. Action for Children, said there should be more focus on solving child victimization. "If we only ever take a piecemeal approach, we're never going to stop abuse or neglect," she said. Wells said getting unattended children off the streets at night could be an important first step.