Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
On October 7, 2026, from 12:02 PM to 4:00 PM, the Committee on Youth Affairs, chaired by Ward Five Councilmember Zachary Parker, held a round table in Room 412 of the John A. Wilson building and virtually via Zoom to discuss the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) fifth rulemaking on community placement of juvenile offenders. The hearing featured testimony from advocates, youth, and government witnesses regarding proposed changes that critics argue undermine due process and increase secure detention.
Chairperson Parker delivered an opening statement expressing serious concerns about the proposed rules. He noted that research shows 70% of juveniles nationally are rearrested within two years of secure detention and 78% of those released from New Beginnings in 2023 had later justice system involvement. He argued that the rules reverse progress, remove safeguards, and make it extremely difficult for youth to remain in community placements. He questioned the timing of the rulemaking, coming months before a new administration.
Magdalena Chungas (Council for Court Excellence): Opposed the rulemaking, citing lack of engagement with advocates, expanded grounds for revocation, lengthy pre-hearing detention, and increased exposure to violence. She stated the changes misalign with DC code's least restrictive placement and due process requirements.
Whitney Lockheim (Open City Advocates): Described previous collaborative drafting efforts with DYRS that were abandoned. She criticized the three-business-day appeal timeline, the removal of the three-member panel, and the ability of the director to make unilateral decisions. She asked the committee to press DYRS not to finalize the rule before the new administration.
Raymond New (Open City Advocates): Argued the new regulations completely upend due process by allowing revocation for undefined reasons, placing decision-making solely with the deputy director, and permitting DYRS to appeal unfavorable decisions. He stated the process gives the director control over outcomes.
Melissa Milchman (Coalition for Juvenile Justice): Asserted the rule is inconsistent with national best practices, makes it easier to remove youth from community settings, weakens graduated responses, increases detention, and reduces youth and family participation. She urged alignment with evidence-based approaches.
William Mount (DC Juvenile Bar Association): Highlighted troubling practices where youth are forced to sign agreements without counsel, emergency removal lowered to a "reasonable basis", expansion of mandatory revocation categories from 13 to 20, and the elimination of a neutral panel. He supported recorded hearings and representation but said the rule overall moves in the wrong direction.
Moyanulua Adiosun (Youth Leaders in Action): A young person speaking on behalf of YLA, expressed concern that youth lack voice in placement decisions and that the definition of "danger to self" is too broad, contrary to the 2016 Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act. She called for intervention before removal.
Isabel LeBlanc (Youth Leaders in Action): Criticized the constructive notice provision, which allows hearings without youth present, and the pre-hearing detention for indefinite periods. She argued the changes undermine trust and legitimacy.
Hadiah Bradford Ill (YLA): Testified about systemic failures, including youth sent out-of-state to unsafe facilities and housing discrimination against independent youth. She demanded guardrails and local trauma-informed care.
Tara Martin (Raised 1 Teacher 1 Delaney Martin Foundation): As a parent with experience in DYRS, she emphasized the need for family engagement and criticized the exclusion of parents from the process.
Aquarius Van Garson (former Commissioner, DCHA): Called for redaction of the Honorable Vincent Gray's "kids first" program and proposed a more integrated approach to funding and oversight.
Public Defender Service (PDS) Testimony (Caterina Seminova and Britney Mobley): Provided detailed legal analysis, arguing the rules violate due process by: allowing detention without notice, removing the three-member panel, permitting the deputy director to act as prosecutor and sentencer, and allowing the director to increase restrictiveness on appeal. They highlighted the elimination of the credible messenger program and the expansion of mandatory revocation categories. They noted the overwhelming majority of committed youth are Black and from disadvantaged backgrounds. They read statements from youth expressing distrust in the system.
Director Sam Abbott (DYRS): Stated the regulations were developed to balance due process, rehabilitation, and public safety. He acknowledged the need for changes and said the agency is open to reasonable modifications. He supported mandatory attorneys for hearings, recorded proceedings, and the placement review committee advising the deputy director. He defended the separation of violation determination (hearing officer) from placement decision (deputy director) as a more therapeutic and operationally efficient approach.
General Counsel Ayesha Braithwaite Fluker and Assistant General Counsel Millicent Jones: Explained the drafting process and responded to questions. They noted that the hearing officer would be a licensed attorney (a change they are adopting) and that the notice provision would be revised to include the youth directly. They clarified that the director would not increase restrictiveness on appeal of placement decisions, and agency appeal of violation findings would be limited to material errors of fact or law.
Chairperson Parker pressed DYRS on specific provisions, including notice, detention timelines, the role of the placement review committee, the expansion of mandatory revocation categories (e.g., gang recruitment), and the appeals process. Director Abbott and General Counsel Fluker committed to several revisions:
Director Abbott declined to give a specific timeline for finalizing the rules but agreed to provide a comprehensive list of changes to the committee by October 23, 2026. Chairperson Parker indicated he would schedule a follow-up meeting with stakeholders by the end of November.
The meeting concluded at 4:00 PM.
Good morning. I am Ward Five Councilmember Zachary Parker, Chair of the Committee on Youth Affairs. Today is October 7, 2026. We are meeting in room 412 of the John A. Wilson building and virtually via Zoom. The time is now twelve oh two PM, and I am calling to order this round table on the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services fifth rulemaking on the community placement of juvenile offenders. I want to thank in advance all of our witnesses for attending this important round table. On May 22nd of this year, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services or DRS proposed new rules that would drastically alter the agency's approach to process for removing youth and community placements. To begin, the new rules should be commended for establishing a youth's right to counsel and community status review hearings. While these changes are wide-ranging, we will use this hearing as an opportunity to dig into the most critical dangers to youth interest created by DUIRS's rulemaking. Furthermore, these changes invite speculation as to whether D R S is committed to ensuring that children have community placement options at all. With the system created under these new rules, once a child is initiated in this system, or in this process against them, it appears extremely difficult for a child to ever to return to their community placement. Because DRS has removed several critical safeguards with this rulemaking, it is possible that we are looking at a future where virtually no child is able to secure a community placement and remain in it. Research has consistently shown that children who are kept in the community have higher achievement rates than their peers left to languish in detention. In particular, children who remain in the community during their commitment have a significantly lower chance of recidivism than those that remain in secure facilities. On a national level, research shows that 70% of juveniles committed to secure detention are rearrested within two years. This accords with local trends in Washington, where our former OIJJFO found that 78% of all juveniles who entered and were released from secure detention at New Beginnings in 2023 were found to have later justice system involvement. Given these statistics, it feels obvious that keeping children in secure detention en masse is not an effective public policy or public safety solution. If children are being released from local detention just to return shortly to adult prison, this speaks to the fact that juvenile agencies are failing to properly rehabilitate them within their detention centers. If children are statistically better off and create less crime when they are committed to community placements, it should be natural for DRS to encourage more community placements rather than less. Instead, these new rules, as I highlighted from DRS, would funnel more children back into places that cannot ensure their rehabilitation and success. One of the best illustrations of the concerning departures made in these rules is the proposed reversal of the long hill requirement under the 1985 Jerry M consent decree to quote provide youth with the least restrictive placement in quote in accordance with public safety. Instead, these rules claim that a subjective, quote, public safety determination made by a single individual rather than a panel is worth more than a child's right to rehabilitation in the place that they are most likely to succeed. This stands against decades of agency progress and rectifying a system that used to be known for remedial punishment and rat infested sales. Freedom from unjust detention is the basis of American political thought. It is shocking, I will say that D R S would play so hard and fast with this freedom with virtually no input from external advocates or legal experts. Perhaps that was exactly the point to hide these rules from expected criticism until the opportunity to force them through presented itself. Now, with less than four months before the beginning of a new administration, DRS is attempting to finalize these rules. It bears repeating for the record. Between when these rules were first proposed in May of this year and today, DRS has continued to use all of the former regulations in its community placement procedures. Given this context, it makes little sense to me to change the very rules that D R S still continues to enforce every day in favor of new rules that may endanger children's right to remain free from unwarranted secure detention. DRS is responsible for the rehabilitation of children charged with delinquency. We must ensure that its own processes are not so alien to child development, that they interfere with the district's express mandate for our juvenile system. The fifth rulemaking proposals are a reversion of the district's commitment to serving, protecting, and empowering our youth. Instead of looking to principles of child psychology or relevant legislative history that uphose these principles, DRS has chosen to strip youth of their second chance to succeed before they even get out the gate. Today we will hear from the public defenders' service and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services on their perspectives on this rulemaking. I hope to learn more about the genesis of these proposals and get answers as to why these changes happen behind closed doors without justification for the exclusion of the help of local advocates and more importantly, why we should be doing this at this time of the year. I look forward to also hearing from public witnesses about how this rulemaking is expected to affect them, their families, and their children. And so with that, I look forward to today's hearing. As I call you, I would ask that witnesses present themselves at the panel before us. Each witness will have three minutes if they represent an organization and two minutes if they are here representing themselves. If you are joining us testifying online, please make sure you accept or upgrade yourself to a panelist when the committee staff sends you the invite. And with that, our first panel will include Magdalena Chongus from the Council for Court Excellence, Whitney Long Luke with Open City Advocates, Raymond Yu, with Open City Advocates, Melissa Milchman from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. And I believe Melissa is joining us virtually. William Mount is joining us virtually. Hadiah Bradford Ill from the JAC Youth Leaders in Action. Okay. We're going to keep going.