Good afternoon.

I am Councilmember Zachary Parker, Chair of the Committee on Youth Affairs.

Today is June 10, 2026.

We are meeting in room 123 of the John A.

Wilson Building and virtually via Zoom.

The time is now 2 o'clock p.m.

and I'm calling to order this public hearing.

I want to acknowledge my colleague, Councilmember Brook Pinto, from Ward 2, who I'm told will be joining us virtually soon.

And I'm looking forward to a robust discussion today.

Today the committee convenes to hear public and government testimony regarding two pieces of legislation.

First, the committee will hear testimony regarding B 26-0071, the Uniform Unregulated Transfer of the Child Custody Act of 2025, introduced by Chairman Mendelssohn at the request of the Uniform Law Commission.

This legislation prohibits a parent from transferring custody of a child to someone beyond family members and certain other specified categories of individuals if the parent intends to abandon the parents' responsibilities regarding that child.

The committee is joined virtually today by Chair James McKay of the DC Uniform Law Commission, and we look forward to engaging with him on the proposed legislation's intent and the need to take legislative action.

We will also hear testimony on B 26-0479, the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Amendment Act of 2025, which was introduced by Councilmember Pinto and co-introduced by myself, Councilmember Nadeau, Councilmember Felder, and former Councilmember McDuffie.

B 26-479 would establish a grant program with in the Child and Family Services Agency to support the creation and operation of youth villages across the district, modeled after the district's senior villages funded by the Department of Aging and Community Living.

As introduced, this legislation would provide grant funding up to $300,000 to eligible nonprofit organizations to develop neighborhood-based hubs that provide daily sports social and educational programming and connections to service providers to high risk or justice-involved youth up to the age of 25.

To hear the agency's position on the bill.

My name is Angela Hubbard, and I serve as the first vice president of programs for the National Coalition of 100 Black Women Incorporated.

Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

chapter.

Our mission is to advocate on behalf of black women and girls to promote leadership development and gender equity in the areas of health, education, and economic empowerment.

I come before you today in support of the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Amendment Act of 2025, as many elements of this legislation align with NCBW's mission, and our chapters work with young girls in the district.

NCBWDC is a nonprofit advocacy organization committed to empowering black women and girls through impactful programs, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships.

Our vision is a world where gender and racial disparities no longer exist.

And that world starts right here in our local community here in the district.

The reality for black girls in the district is that they experience system involvement at rates that far exceed their population share.

The data shows us that black children make up roughly 60% of D.C.'s youth population, with over 85% of children in foster care.

Black girls are suspended at nearly 20 times the rate of white girls in DC schools, according to federal civil rights data.

Black girls represent the majority of girls referred to the juvenile justice system, despite no evidence of higher rates of misbehavior.

DC's child and family services agency reports that family instability, housing insecurity, and untreated trauma are leading drivers of system involvement, all issues that disproportionately affect black families.

Once involved, black girls face harsher consequences and fewer supportive interventions.

Too often families are forced to navigate fragmented systems, long wait lists, and services that are not intensive enough to prevent deeper system involvement.

These inequities, under resourced communities, and systems that intervene too late and too are too harshly.

NCBWDC works to combat these issues through our robust mentoring program that serves high school girls, our scholarship program for college-bound seniors that will pursue Steam majors, and our immersive girls in Steam Day career exploration experience that exposes high school girls to real world steamed careers and pathways, along with several other advocacy programs that promote educational access and increase graduation rates for black girls in the district.

The youth villages model is a nationally recognized evidence-based family centered program that has demonstrated success across other states, resulting in reductions in foster care entries, lower recidivism among justice-involved youth, improve mental and behavior health outcomes, and optimize school engagement.

As NB and NCBWDC advocates for policies and strengthen families to that strengthen families, reduce racial disparities and protect black girls from systems that too often fail them.

We firmly believe that the youth villages legislation will do much to address the needs of black girls.

It is not only just a program expansion, it is critical equity intervention.

In closing, we urge the council to pass the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Amendment Act, and we look forward to collaborating with DC agencies and community partners to support and provide resources that will ensure the success of youth villages.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'm told we are now joined by Magdalena Chungus.

Uh why don't we go to Mr.

Stein and then we'll go to Magdalena Chungis?

You may begin.

Can you hear me?

Uh Councilman Parker, my name's Alex Stein, and I came here specifically at this meeting because the last meeting that I was at, I thought the lack of professionalism that you had when running a meeting.

Typically, when people actually decide to show up in person, you would give them the ability to speak before you would somebody online.

So I was at the last advisory council, and you're letting all these people speak online instead of just letting the people that actually were there in person speak first.

And so I go to a lot of council meetings.

And you have testimony regarding the bills today.

Of course, but I want to talk, I was just trying to talk to you about how you running.

One minute and 20 seconds left.

No, I'm just saying you're terrible at your job, Councilman Parker.

And and listen, I think black kids should be able to shoplift.

I don't know why we arrest black kids.

Um I want to free Carmelo Anthony.

I think Carmelo Anthony should not be in jail.

I mean, he did that in self-defense.

We're gonna pivot.

No, it's about a youth.

What I'm saying is Carmelo Anthony is typical to what is happening to the youth of Washington, D.C.

We need to free Carmilla Anthony.

Thank you.

And we do we're gonna do Councilman Parker.

What I'm literally trying to speak about the youth in DC.

Yes, because I think the kids in DC, they should be able to stab people and they should be able to get away with it, Parker, because I'm sick and tired of holding these kids accountable.

If you're black and your ancestors were slaves, you should have the right to do whatever you want now in the current 2026 time line that we're in.

So I'm sick and tired of the racism.

Me, I'm a young black man myself.

So for my grandfather owned a plantation, and he got, you know, my great great grandmother pregnant.

And so I'm actually probably blacker than you, Mr.

Parker.

So I just want to say this.

As a black man in a black city, I want to fight for Carmelo Anthony.

He deserves to be free.

We need to get Carmelo Anthony out of jail.

Free Carmelo Anthony.

All he did was stab one kid at a track meet that was trying to assault him.

And for your testimony, he should be free.

Free Carmelo.

And we will proceed with the hearing.

With that, we will turn to Magdalena Chongus.

Thank you, Councilmember Parker.

And I'll share I really appreciate the work that you do advocating for young people.

My name is Magdalena.

I'm the policy manager at Council for Court Excellence.

And I'm here testifying on the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Act.

We support the bill in concept with the aim of providing funding to neighborhood-based nonprofits to support youth who have been in contact with or who are at risk of contact with the juvenile justice system.

The bill aligns with a fiscal year 26 budget priority from this committee to establish a re-entry program for youth exiting detention to reduce recidivism rates by connecting them to housing, mentorship, and educational and workforce opportunities.

But currently as drafted, it's not designed to specifically target only this unique population of justice-involved youth.

Particularly for youth re-entering the community after commitment to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, targeted programming specific to their unique needs is essential.

Programming such as the Youth Villages has the potential to support youth with positive adult relationships, relevant skills, and impact recidivism rates if the focus is on evidence-based practices.

The criminal justice coordinating council's youth recidivism report released in 2022, found that 47.6% of youth with a previous DYRS commitment were adjudicated again within two years of their commitment.

Furthermore, of youth committed to DYRS, an increased percentage had been placed in out of state facilities from 2024 to 2025.

This population of youth face additional barriers, both while committed and in trying to reintegrate into DC post-commitment, given their distance from DC.

And as such are a sub-population of justice-involved youth who could benefit from programmatic support and could be that could be funded through this bill.

In order to more precisely target justice impacted youth and be able to ensure measurable outcomes, we have a few recommended amendments.

Well, the bill is currently written would establish the grant program within the child and family services agency.

We understand that some individuals at CFSA are concerned that this bill does not fully align with their mission.

And as a community-based organization that works in coalition with grassroots orgs, advocates, and government staff, we often receive feedback directly from those partners.

And in this case, we've received feedback that another DC agency might be better to house the administration of youth justice, the youth village grants.

We encourage the committee to seriously consider the suggestion to house this grant program to a district or office that is better suited for this work, such as one that provides employment or job training, offers education and skills training opportunities, operates extra curricular activities programs, or specializes in youth who are justice system involved.

We hope that the investment in prevention and re-entry programming continues to be a priority for this committee.

And we see the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Amendment Act as an opportunity to focus on prevention and support positive youth services for youth rather than more punitive approaches and to put financial resources into neighborhood orgs with existing and trusted relationships with yet people.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Um I am going to bypass questions.

I do want to acknowledge uh both of your testimonies.

If you haven't yet submitted your written testimony, if you can please do so, so we have that on the record.

But I do acknowledge that generally you're supportive of the underlying legislation, although Ms.

Chungas, you have some recommended changes, which we have also noted.

So thank you.

Thank you.

We will turn to members of the DC Uniform Law Commission.

First, we'll have James McKay, and then we'll have Libby Snyder.

And you may begin, Mr.

McKay, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, uh Chairperson Parker, members of the committee.

Good afternoon.

I'm James McKay, Chair of the DC Uniform Law Commission.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify and support a bill 2671 Uniform Unregulated Regulated Transfer of Child Custody Act, also known as the Uniform Child Custody Transfer Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act.

I just want to note a little discrepancy, which I hope you will pick as a technical matter.

The Act is an important public safety measure.

I have to apologize.

I had a rope for ribs so I can't talk very well, but it addresses the potentially dangerous situation in which the parents have a child who are facing difficulties with raising the child seek to transfer custody of the child outside the district's welfare system.

Such an action might cause the child serious emotional harm or physical danger.

In some cases, a child might be exposed to a child molester or sex trafficker.

The Uniform Act protects children by prohibiting a parent from transferring custody of a child to someone beyond family members and certain other specified categories of individuals if the parents intend to abandon the responsibility in serving the child.

The prohibition applies to a parent or guardian with custody of a child, as well as an individual with whom a child has been placed for adoption.

The act prohibits a respective transferry from receiving custody of a child in an unregulated transfer and prohibits an intermediary from arranging in the unregulated child custody transfer.

The act prohibits a parent from using various advertising or solicitations such as social media or chat rooms to identify prospective transfer of the child.

The act also prohibits a prospective transfer or intermediary from advertising or soliciting to find a child or facilitate the child's transfer.

The act gives authority to the child and family services agents and the DC Attorney General to investigate alleged transfers and violation of the act and to enforce and punish violators.

The Uniform Act was finalized three years ago and has been enacted in five states and introduced to additional jurisdiction.

Therefore, I urge the committee to report favorably on Bill 2671.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony, and I heard you loud and clear.

But I hope you're on the mend.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Next, we'll have Libby Snyder.

Thank you very much, Chairperson Parker and members of the committee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Libby Snyder, and I'm a staff attorney at the Uniform Law Commission.

Thank you for considering this bill to enact the Uniform Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act.

This was promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in 2021, as Commissioner McKay said, and it's been enacted in five states.

This act was drafted in the careful and lengthy manner that's typical of Uniform Law Commission Acts.

The drafting involved ULC commissioners as well as family law experts, child advocates, state child welfare agencies, and the U.S.

Department of State, national adoption organizations, foster care experts, family court judges, among others.

The Uniform Child Custody Transfer Act is consistent with recommendations from a U.S.

working group composed of representatives from several federal agencies, state child welfare organizations, and the National Association of Attorneys General.

It's been enacted in Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Washington State so far.

And I really hope the District of Columbia will become the sixth state to enact it.

In late 2013, a Reuters investigation on the practice of parents re-homing their adopted children through online forums resulted in public outcry.

This practice, which is more formally known as the unregulated transfer of custody of children, occurs in the shadows of child welfare oversight.

An unregulated custody transfer occurs when a parent or guardian of a child or an individual with whom a child has been placed for adoption, transfers custody of the child without state agency or court oversight to assure the new custodian is safe and appropriate for the child.

While the extent of the practice is impossible to determine precisely, reported cases suggest that it occurs throughout the United States.

The U.S.

Department of State believes that children adopted internationally are at especially high risk of being victims of unregulated child custody transfers.

The U.S.

Department of State participated in the ULC's drafting committee and believes this uniform law could contribute to reducing barriers to combat this issue.

The Uniform Unregulated Child Custody Transfer Act provides a needed regulatory framework to prohibit unregulated custody transfer of children.

And specifically, the act does the following.

It addresses certain child custody transfers that might present dangers of various kinds to a child.

A custody transfer to an unrelated person who's unknown to the child might expose the child to a transferee who is unfit or unable to care for the child.

It might cause or exacerbate existing psychological problems for the child.

The transferee might not have authority to make or authority required by law to make everyday decisions regarding the child's health, education, and welfare.

And in some cases, the child might be exposed to a child molester or sex trafficker.

The prohibition does not apply to existing methods for transferring custody of a child, including guardianship, adoption, and actions that fall under DC's Newborn Safe Haven Amendment Act of 2010.

The Act protects children by prohibiting a parent from transferring custody of a child from someone beyond family members and certain other specified categories of individuals if the parent intends to abandon their rights and responsibilities regarding the child.

The prohibition applies to a parent or guardian or custodian of the child, as well as to an individual with whom the child has been placed for adoption.

It prohibits a prospective transferee from receiving custody of a child in an unregulated transfer and an intermediary from arranging an unregulated child custody transfer.

The act prohibits a person from using various forms of advertising or solicitation, like social media or chat rooms to identify prospective transferees.

It also prohibits a prospective transferee or intermediary from advertising or soliciting to find a child or facilitate a child's transfer.

And finally, the act provides the children and family services agency with authority to investigate alleged transfers in violation of the act, to enforce the act and other state law and to punish violators.

Currently, there's limited authority for state and local child protection authorities across the country to take action in response to reports of unregulated child custody transfers and the widely varying responses from state to state when an unregulated child custody transfer situation is reported, it contributes to that harm.

Removing this barrier is critical to current and future efforts to stop unregulated child custody transfers.

This act allows the children and family services agency and the attorney general of the District of Columbia with the authority to investigate reports of unregulated child custody transfers.

This bill is a step the district can take to end the practice of unregulated child custody transfers.

I urge the committee to report favorably and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony.

I do have some questions, and I welcome either of you or both of you to jump in and answer them.

I'm going to follow up with the agency, but uh do you all track by any chance how often these unregulated transfers are happening to your knowledge?

Maybe one shall answer that.

Happy to require data collection across the country, but because these transfers are occurring in the shadows of state and local child welfare oversight, it is very difficult to find hard data on how often this is occurring.

And so we we do hope that the federal law will be amended to include some data tracking.

Okay, you spoke to the legislation prohibiting uh advertising on social media to identify a transferee or potential transferees seeking a child uh custody transfer.

Does this happen in DC currently, to your knowledge?

I'm not aware of it of uh recent cases of it happening in DC, but the Reuters investigation and um some investigations since analyzed over 5,000 posts from a five-year period on a certain internet message board, and they found that on average a child was advertised for rehoming there once a week.

This was a Yahoo group that has since been shut down.

Um there are you know ongoing investigations to see where else this is occurring, but I do know that there are you know Facebook groups and different threads online where these advertisements do happen, although I don't have any specific examples of it happening in the district.

And then I know oh go for it, Mr.

Mc Commissioner McKay.

Well, you know, if one really bad situation from what is it a regulated transfers, would would be a very tragic situation, and this is to prevent it from happening, and even though we we don't know it's gonna happen, we wouldn't want it to happen.

And this is uh appropriate a proactive sort of legislation.

Absolutely.

Um you know that other jurisdictions have moved similar legislation in you all's experience.

Have there been lessons learned?

Or I would imagine the introduced legislation um addresses some of those lessons that you've learned over time.

But if you could speak to it, that would be helpful.

Of course, so um Utah was actually the first state to criminalize unregulated child custody transfers, and they did so before the Uniform Law Commission drafted our bill.

And so we we worked actually very closely with Utah and their attorney general's office um in drafting the Uniform Act to sort of learn from them, and um in the drafting of our Uniform Act, Utah participated so greatly that they actually um found that what we ended up with was better than what they had in their state law, and they have since repealed their old state law and have enacted this because they do think it's a better version of what they intended to do um, you know, years before we drafted the Uniform Act.

Um, and I do think there is uh at least one case out of Utah, it went up to the Court of Appeals where a child was removed from uh a couple because of uh it was an instance of an unregulated child custody transfer.

Are parents who engage in unregulated child transfers still legally responsible for the well-being of the child and other jurisdictions?

I think that it um what this would do is give the child uh protection agency the authority to file um whatever cases needed to begin that you know child in need of care action, and so um if a child has been subject to an unregulated custody transfer, um, I ideally the state, and I this is how it works, and the states have enacted it, the state would then take custody of the child and it would become a situation where the child is placed in foster care.

Um, you know, I do think you would have to terminate the natural parents' parental rights, as well as investigate, you know, the people who did have uh physical custody of the child before the child was removed.

Yes, understood.

And then how, if at all, did the commission's work with stakeholders inform the legislation?

I think it informed the legislation greatly.

I mean, we learned so much in talking with so many different child welfare agencies about process and what's needed.

Um, the core of this act is is attempting to provide some, you know, extra clarity where there is certain there's current ambiguity.

Um, CAPTA, the child abuse uh prevention and treatment act, the federal law, it does not define unregulated custody transfers and it leaves you know application of the law both at the federal and state level ambiguous.

And so what we heard from many different stakeholders in the process was that you know the the state child welfare agencies weren't certain that they had authority to do home visits or investigations based upon reports of unregulated custody transfers, and so what we're trying to do is give them that authority so that if these reports come in, they know what they can do, they know what they can't do, and they know you know that they're allowed to investigate to ensure that that child is safe.

Understood.

Was there anything that we didn't address in Commissioner McKay?

It seems like you want to jump in.

No, I thank you.

I would call the water front.

It's a very simple act, it's a public safety act.

It's really important to protect these children.

And that's that's why we have to council when enacted.

Understood.

Understood.

Well, I want to say thank you for your work and your diligence.

Um, I do think it is a thoughtful piece of legislation.

I'm eager to hear from the agency to see what data they collect if any as well as their views on the bill.

But uh we plan to move swiftly and marking it up.

Um, and again, thanks for your testimony today.

Thank you.

Awesome.

And with that, I believe we are turning to our government witnesses.

Um, and so I will ask our friends from CFSA if they could join us.

Or our friend.

Uh, and then uh Deputy Director is great to see you as always.

Uh if you could just stand and raise your right hand, just which is customary, we swear in our government witnesses.

Um, and if you could repeat after me, do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to provide to the committee on youth affairs is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Awesome, thank you.

Uh, and with that, you may uh provide your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman Parker, uh, council members, committee and staff.

I am Elizabeth Muffoleto, deputy in the Office of the Hotline and Investigations at the DC Child and Family Services Agency.

I'm here to testify on two bills, B-26-0071 and B26-0479.

The Uniform Unregulated Transfer of Custody Act of 2025.

This bill includes the following provisions.

Bans unregulated custody transfers when a parent or adoptive parent seeks to permanently give up parental rights to someone other than a parent, step parent, adult family member, fictive kin or person acting in local parentus.

It prohibits anybody, excuse me, anyone from receiving custody or helping arrange a custody transfer if they know or should reasonably know it violates the UUTCCA.

It prohibits individuals from soliciting or advertising to transfer or locate a child for an unlawful custody transfer.

It forbids, excuse me, acting as an intermediary soliciting or advertising for custody transfers that violates the UUTCCA.

If enacted, when an individual participates in an unregulated transfer of custody, the child and family services agency, CFSA, may conduct a home visit and take necessary measures to safeguard the welfare of the child if there's reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the UUTCCA has occurred.

Should a home visit take place, CFSA will be obligated to prepare a comprehensive report regarding the child's wealth, excuse me, the child's welfare and the plan for permanent placement, and submit this report to the State Department.

Determining the legislative and fiscal implications of this legislation is challenging due to the lack of comprehensive data on unregulated transfer of custody nationwide and its limited occurrence within the district.

Nevertheless, CFSA supports legislation that establish establishes procedures designed to safeguard children.

Should the legislation be enacted, CFSA would be at a minimum required to create training programs for social workers and develop policies and procedures regarding unregulated transfer of custody.

If this bill continues to move forward, CFSA would appreciate the opportunity to provide additional recommendations to the committee.

B26-0479, the Youth Villages Grant Establishment Amendment Act of 2025.

CFSA appreciates the council's commitment to supporting youth across the district.

However, the proposed bill does not align with CFSA's mission or statutory role as a district's child welfare agency.

Our work is centered on protecting children from abuse and neglect, strengthening families, and supporting young people in foster care and those transitioning out of care.

The bill envisions activities outside the mission, excuse me, that mission and would require CFSA to take on responsibilities for which the agency is neither structured or resourced.

I also want to highlight that youth villages is the trademark name of a national nonprofit that currently partners with CFSA to deliver the life set program.

Using the same or similar name for a district run grant program would create confusion for youth, families, providers, and the broader community.

Should the council wish to continue exploring this policy concept, CFSA recommends two changes.

One, renaming the renaming the program to avoid confusion with the existing nonprofit partner.

Two, resign reassigning the proposal to another district agency with a mission more closely aligned to workforce development, educational enrichment, extracurricular programming, or services for justice involved youth.

CFSA values the council's dedication to improving outcomes for young people across the district.

We share that dedication and we appreciate the opportunity to work together on initiatives that support youth and their families.

At the same time, because this proposed bill falls outside of CFSA's mission and capacity, and due to the concerns around its name, we cannot support the bill as written.

We look forward to continued collaboration as the council considers next steps.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any questions.

Love it.

Short sweetened to the point.

Let's tackle them one at a time.

So I'll start with the Uniform Unregulated Transfer of Child Custody Act of 2025.

I think I know what you're going to say, but what data, if any, do you all have access to represent how often these unregulated transfers are happening in the district?

Unfortunately, CFSA has not, to our knowledge, encountered these type of transfers, so we don't have any data to report out.

But uh what we heard from uh our friends at the commission is that they're likely happening, they're just happening in the shadows as they put it.

Correct.

And so uh I I take what you just said as uh there haven't been any cases that have risen to your radar that you're aware of.

Correct.

Understood.

Um, what is the agency's current protocol when it discovers this sort of unregulated child transfer?

So currently the agency does not have a protocol for this specific population of children.

However, our current district laws allow CFSA to investigate reports of abuse and neglect of children who reside in the District of Columbia by their caregiver when it's reported to our hotline.

Can you say that last part one more time?

I'm still processing.

Sure.

Yes, I understood.

So we don't have specific protocol for these unregulated transfers.

DC's current law allows the agency to investigate abuse and neglect by a caretaker when it's reported to our hotline.

Understood.

Um there aspects of the bill the agency finds may present challenges for you.

So just as you indicated, we won't know unless a call is made to our hotline.

So if this is enacted, we can implement it, but a call would need to be made to our hotline so that CFSA was aware that this unregulated transfer occurred.

Yep, okay.

Um.

But I'm hearing that as written, there aren't any explicit challenges that you're seeing.

I did hear in your testimony that you would have to notify the State Department.

Yes.

Can you elaborate on that?

Um, are there other cases or referrals that rise to the level of the State Department?

No, and I would defer to the commission.

Yeah, regarding that.

Um commissioners, if you all, I know I'm jumping back, but if you care to weigh in, it struck me that this type of referral would have to go to the to the US State Department.

Who's on you?

And if you're talking, I can't hear you because you're on mute.

Hi, yes, sorry about that.

I was pulling up the bill so I could get the um actual uh line there.

But it would a report would have to be made to the uh U.S.

Department of State only in certain cases, and that would be if it was a report of an unregulated child custody transfer that was about a child adopted or placed through an intercountry adoption.

If it's not that specific um situation, then the report does not need to be made to the U.S.

Department of State.

And that's just because they were they're especially concerned about international implications and keeping an eye on intercountry adoption.

Understood, and and jurisdictional boundaries understood.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um so the agency is my understanding, you've reviewed the bill and you've signaled support for the bill, to my knowledge.

How did the agency engage with stakeholders, or can you just walk me through what that review process entailed?

Sure.

So um in 2023, CFSA was advised by the chair of the DC Uniform Law Commission, um OAG, that they were drafting the U UTCCA bill and asked for our input.

We reviewed and researched the information provided by the ULC and the proposed bill.

We also check our checked our records and determined that we had not encountered this type of custody transfer.

Um so from 2023 to 2025, CFSA offered um input concerns and recommendations.

Um we did not engage in external stakeholders, but we recommended that the ULC um contact DOH and MPD for their input as well.

Understood.

Um and I I hear you when you say the implications of uh this bill are hard to identify because right now there are no known cases uh and you don't know how many cases there might be, but what type of resources might you need in order to implement this bill?

I'm sorry, it's okay.

Currently, none that I'm aware of, it would fall under my purview in the Office of Hotline and Investigations, and so it would just be training get having knowledge of what to do, um, provide uh policies and procedures to my social workers as to how to respond to this type of call.

Okay, uh, anything else that we did not touch on this bill that you care to share?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay, great.

Um, and let the record show that the agency is in support.

Then we'll turn to the youth villages grant establishment amendment act of 2025.

You noted that the agency is against this legislation and that you see it outside of the scope of your mission.

Uh can you clarify if you view the funded activities as child welfare prevention efforts?

I'm sorry, can you release that last part?

Some uh some might argue that the the bill's intended activities might prevent young people from entering the system, which is part of your mission.

And so if you could just speak more to uh the prevention components of the bill and whether or not that does in line with your mission.

Right.

Understood.

Um and so we support this, the agency supports the need for this type of legislation, though we don't believe it's um situated for CFSA, suited for CFSA.

Do you have an idea of which agency would be better?

Um I can't, I'm not at liberty to say, but I would encourage um council to look at other organizations that specifically, and I believe there was previous um testimony on I sorry, I can't remember her name, but uh those agencies that focus on employment, job training programs, um education, skill building, um skill training, uh more um agencies that specialize with youth who are justice involved or at risk of being justice involved, um, and see.

But wouldn't this essentially be a grant program of sorts that a provider would be doing the work and like your family success centers, you're issuing grants for a partner to engage with the community.

Um it would strike me that I I hear you and I'm sensitive to your argument that this isn't fully aligned with the CFSA mission, but it would strike me that the infrastructure is already there to issue grants for community-based organizations to do work with young people.

And so how would this be different than let's say what a family success center does?

So I can't speak to the family success center.

I don't know that they're um equipped to be able to handle what is being recommended.

Um and therefore, again, further.

No, no, no.

I guess I'm not suggesting family success centers should take on this work, but uh the argument could be made that the work of a family success center that is beyond making referrals to CFSA could be outside of the scope of the agency.

And I could see a world where this could be set up similarly that CFSA issues a grant.

Community partners are working with young people, both in terms of prevention but care.

And I think it's more about um us not being we don't we are not the experts regarding this is specific to youth that are um justice involved or at risk of being justice involved.

Understood.

Um we work solely with families that um are at risk for abuse and neglass and are in foster care, and so we just don't feel that it's the right fit for our agency and our mission.

Understood.

Umside of that, are there other areas you would recommend that we focus to amend this bill outside of just uh sending it to another or better suited agency?

Um give me one moment.

No worries.

And while you're like thinking about that, you know, I'm struck by your testimony that yeah, I you think this could be helpful in the ecosystem of what district government provides.

The question is where it should live.

Right.

And for right now, CFSA is not aware of any existing grantee who would quickly be able to meet the needs of the grant.

Um, however, there are existing opportunities with other diff district agencies to expand their work, which may align with the scope of the grant requirements and provides a balance of academic job readiness and community service supports.

Understood.

Um I don't want to freak you out by this question, but if we were to move this forward and say we're gonna mark it up and pass it, what might be the consequences to the agency?

I take to heart your concerns and I don't plan to do that.

Uh should we mark it up?

I I would work with colleagues to say are there other better suited agencies?

But if you could just elaborate what might be the consequences today if we were to send this to CFSA.

So CFSA does not have the staff or existing infrastructure to implement this bill.

Um we have a current youth current youth villages life set program at CFSA that employs five people, one supervisor, and four frontline workers.

Um what was the name of that program?

It's called so it's the I had mentioned in my testimony youth Villages, that's the national program.

It's um so youth Villages is the program, and within CFSA, it's our life set program that works with um youth ages 17 to 21 who are in foster care.

Yes.

Um and so is that the program where you're paying some of the young people to like finish their uh academic program?

I will have to get back to you on that.

I think I met one of the young people.

It was great.

Yeah.

She was thriving.

But I thought it was a model that was interesting.

Yes.

So part of that, again, it's a national model that we partner with.

And so that FTE for those five people that work with those youth.

Um they have a caseload of eight, and the FTE dollar amount annually is six hundred and seventy thousand dollars.

That does not include any like associated costs.

So for example, CFSA must pay um youth villages sixty thousand dollars annually for their technical assistance and weekly reporting requirements.

Um, as I indicated, the average caseload for a lifesat worker is eight.

The work is extremely intense with these youth.

They meet at a minimum one time per week.

They work on individual goals that are youth-led, youth-driven.

Um, as you indicated, you met one of our youth that is in that program.

Um, and so we would not be able to take on.

Understood.

Understood.

And for the record, um, the purpose of the bill is to establish a grant program within CFSA to support the creation or operation of youth villages across the district.

It would also provide grant funding to nonprofit organizations to develop neighborhood-based intergenerational networks to provide daily support to youth up to the age of 25.

Uh with that last part, I know there's been focus on older youth within CFSA and trying to motivate them, support them.

Could something like this be used to support older youth within the agency?

I can't speak to this specifically because it is does have a focus on justice involved and at risk of justice involved youth.

We our focus is on youth that are in care.

Understood.

Um sorry.

All right, I've asked it 10 different ways.

I think I'm clear.

I think I'm clear, uh, but I thought I would do justice and just trying to better understand what some of those challenges are.

Was there anything we did not cover?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Um this might be the world's quickest hearing.

Um, happy to be a part of it.

And that is in part because it's a very busy time at the council.

But I I um I do again want to thank our friends um at the DC Uniform Law Commission.

Um, I want to note the agency uh speaks favorably of that bill, um, and we will mark it up and move that forward.

And we will work with council member Pinto to rethink what the parameters of this bill, namely the agency, um, and if it makes sense for us to mark it up, we will do that.

But I hear uh the agency loud and clear.

Um, and so with that and no other testimony, I do again want to apologize to those here in the room and those in the public for the disruption.

I'm gonna classify it as a disruption.

Um, and it's an ever present reminder of the importance of this work that we're doing and and creating safe spaces, namely for black and brown kids here in the district, uh, because we see that uh violence comes in many forms.

Uh and so with that, I'm going to uh wrap this hearing up.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for providing testimony today.

Uh, for anyone that was unable to testify, you can submit written testimony uh for the official record, uh, and you can do that up until 5 30 p.m.

on June 24th of this year.

Uh you can submit that by emailing T.

Franco, that is T F R A N C O at DC Council.gov.

With that, the business before this committee is being concluded.

Uh the time is now 249 p.m.

and this hearing on the of the committee on youth affairs is adjourned.

Thank you all.

There, Loc Loc Loc L' L'honorse, and I'm not doing this'offre, and And Loc