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. Opening Remarks 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. Public Comments & Testimony - 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. Government Testimony - 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. Discussion and Outcomes 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: - Youth will receive direct notice of the hearing date and time (previously only counsel). - The hearing officer must be a licensed attorney (removing the possibility of unqualified staff). - The deputy director must "shall consider" the recommendation of the placement review committee (previously "may consider"). - The director will not be able to increase the level of restrictiveness on appeal of a placement decision; the director can only affirm or lower. - Agency appeal of a hearing officer's finding of no violation will be limited to material errors of fact or law. 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.
