D.C.'s Progress in Curbing Youth Crime

District residents -- and particularly the people I represent in Ward 6 -- are facing a frightening surge in juvenile crime, and Post columnist Colbert I. King has raised serious questions about the city's response and the quality of oversight exercised by the D.C. Council's Committee on Human Services, which I chair.

King's most recent column dealt with the victims of crimes committed by youths, and his Nov. 22 op-ed warned D.C. residents to "hunker down" when the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) steps up release of the lowest-risk youths who have been charged with or convicted of a crime. I want to clarify some issues King raised and share the gains the District is making in protecting the community -- and youths themselves -- from youth crime and violence.

The release program is one of the reforms launched by DYRS Director Vincent Schiraldi to distinguish dangerous youths who pose the greatest risk to our neighborhoods from nonviolent youth offenders -- who are themselves at risk when they are incarcerated. While this program helps relieve overcrowding at the District's two secure youth-detention facilities, reducing overcrowding cannot be its primary goal. King and I agree: Public safety is nonnegotiable.

So in response to concerns King and others have raised about Schiraldi's reforms, I held a hearing last December to investigate the effect of the reforms on public safety. The hearing was packed with reform experts and advocates, including Peter Edelman of Georgetown Law Center and Alan Pemberton, the plaintiffs' attorney in the class-action lawsuit that successfully pushed the District to address unlawful conditions in the juvenile detention system.

The overwhelming evidence presented supported the reforms -- in fact, Schiraldi's program was commended by the Innovations in American Government program at the Harvard Kennedy School. Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, submitted testimony in strong support of Schiraldi's reforms. No judge, union employee or anyone else directly involved in the program raised concerns. The sole testimony objecting to the reforms came from Peaceaholics -- not because of concerns for public safety but rather because of concerns about the safety of the youths who are released.

Still, I remained worried about whether the program was increasing the risk of crime, so I called on DYRS to conduct a recidivism study for committed youth. That study, made public in October, showed that 25 percent of the District's committed youth who were released in 2007 were convicted of another crime within one year. This rate is far too high, but it is lower than the corresponding rates in both Maryland and Virginia.

While these findings point to progress by DYRS in managing youth offenders, I cannot attest to the same results for the Court Social Services Division, which is not under the council's jurisdiction. An entity of the D.C. Superior Court, Court Social Services is responsible for the vast majority of the District's youth offenders: nearly 2,500 cases. (In contrast, DYRS is responsible for 650.) According to the court's 2007 report, 994 youth offenders committed another crime while under its purview. In fact, one of the youths King talked about in his Aug. 9 column in connection with an armed robbery was under the supervision of the Court's Social Services Division -- not DYRS, as King claimed -- at the time of his arrest.

I share Colbert King's concerns as well for the safety of the young offenders. For that reason, my committee held a hearing on the youths who have been killed while committed to DYRS custody. Through the testimony of the deceased juveniles' parents, we learned of weaknesses among DYRS case managers. We are holding Schiraldi accountable for the immediate implementation of his plan to strengthen case management.

In addition, the council has reduced the risk to nonviolent youths held in group homes while awaiting trial by passing the Juvenile Speedy Trial Act, which council member Phil Mendelson and I sponsored (and which, ironically, King opposed). Under the new law, nonviolent youths must be tried within 45 days, which dramatically reduces the pressure for group homes to house them and the need to establish more such homes in our community.

This diligent oversight and legislative action to relieve youth crime and violence is informed by frequent contact with the youths and staff in the juvenile detention system. My staff visits youth detention facilities regularly, and as King has noted I organize pickup basketball games with the youths at both Oak Hill and the Receiving Home -- occasionally even winning a game with my squad of officials and council staffers. These games provide an informal way to observe the conditions at the facilities and talk directly with youths.

My offer to King to attend our next game -- scheduled for this month -- stands.

The writer, a Democrat, represents Ward 6 on the D.C. Council.