A Teen Released, Nine People Shot. Why?

He was supposed to receive outpatient care at a local agency. Daily transportation to the facility had been arranged, but, according to the DYRS source, Johnson never showed up.

On Jan. 16, 2007, a DYRS official issued a custody order for Johnson's arrest for noncompliance with his rehabilitation plan.

Three days later a judge reportedly also issued a custody order for Johnson's arrest because of his failure to appear in court on the unlawful-entry charge.

There is some confusion over whether the DYRS unit that searches for youth "escapees" ever received the custody orders.

Which, of course, suited Johnson just fine.

A DYRS official familiar with the case said Johnson was on the loose or "in abscondence status" for almost a year. This much is clear: On Nov. 19, 2007, he was arrested and returned to Oak Hill.

No matter.

Eight days later -- Nov. 27 -- the DYRS released Johnson back into the community.

Within weeks he was charged with assault with intent to kill and possession with intent to distribute drugs.

Johnson's juvenile history is being kept from the public. Behind the scenes, however, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services has found goats upon whose heads the agency's sins will be placed.

Johnson's case manager was placed on administrative leave with pay this week pending action to remove him from his position; the case manager's supervisor was terminated on Jan. 28.

"Inexcusable neglect of duty" is the charge leveled against the case manager in a written notice issued on Jan. 28 by David Muhammad, DYRS's chief of committed services.

Case closed? Only if your mind is closed to the stewardship of DYRS.

The case manager and a supervisor have come under fire for not properly attending to Johnson after his release from Oak Hill. But why was he out in the community in the first place?

After being a fugitive for 10 months, he's arrested and returned to Oak Hill. Eight days later he's back on the streets.

A few weeks after that, nine people get shot. Why was he released?

I put that question to DYRS on Thursday. The agency's spokesman, Reggie Sanders, responded in an e-mail: "We are prohibited by confidentiality laws from commenting on individual cases." Sanders said my inquiry was based on inaccurate information, but he would not say how the information was inaccurate.

My follow-up question was ignored -- par for the course.

A city hall that places a premium on public safety could unearth the truth in this case. It could also -- and ought to -- explore a possible connection between DYRS-committed young people and street crime.

But that would require city leaders to take off their blinders. They haven't yet. Maybe it's because they are afraid of what they might see.

kingc@washpost.com