Improving public safety in the District of Columbia requires a comprehensive approach that includes
multiple strategies spanning all City agencies, as well as the community at large. One facet of such a
comprehensive approach is to improve outcomes for youth so that fewer become enmeshed in the
justice system, become victims of crime, or both. This is the last in a series of briefs that address
ways in which improving youth outcomes can result in better public safety for the District.

Childhood abuse and neglect and placement
in the child welfare system are correlated with
higher rates of justice system involvement.

Reducing harm to children in the home,
strengthening families, and investing in
systems that support children who are
abused and neglected should be part of a

comprehensive public safety
strategy in the nation’s
capital.

“The implementation of best practice interventions for maltreated
youth would decrease the chances that a person will be involved in
criminal activity by promoting emotional health, decreasing
homelessness, substance abuse, teen birth rates, and school dropout rates.”

Of all individuals currently
in prison in the United
~ Joseph Doyle, “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of
States, over one in every
Foster Care,” American Economic Review, MIT Sloan School of Management, 2007.
three women and one in
be kept in mind when considering the role of
every 10 men report a history of abuse as
children.1 Additionally, abused and neglected
the child welfare agency, its interaction with
children are 30 percent more likely to commit
children and subsequent relation to the
violent crime, 59 percent more likely to be
juvenile justice system.
arrested as juveniles and 28 percent more
likely to be arrested as adults.2 Children who
Washington D.C.’s child welfare system,
are removed and subsequently placed within
Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA),
the child welfare system are twice or even
currently has a total of 817 employees. The
three times more likely to be involved in the
proposed FY14 agency budget is $241.3
justice system than youth who remain inhome.3 Additionally, juvenile arrest rates for
children who age-out of system care are
estimated at 50-67 percent.4
By investing in a robust child welfare system
that provides children and families the
services and supports to reduce abuse and
neglect, D.C. can not only increase positive
life outcomes for youth, but in turn improve
public safety.

million, which represents a 6.1 percent
decrease from the FY13 budget of $257.1
million.5
The aim of the child welfare system is to
provide resources, services and interventions
to assist abused and neglected children and
work to support positive, healthy and safe
families. Within this framework, CFSA
provides services in four main areas:
1. Child Protective Services (CPS). This
involves the taking and investigating of
reports of known or suspected child
abuse and neglect. CPS runs a 24-hour

In protecting children from abuse and neglect,

Hotline which responds to these

child protective agencies are responsible for

reports. Depending on the severity and

working closely with parents and families to

legitimacy of the claim, CPS will follow

ensure that child removal is the last resort.

up with an investigation.

The maintenance of a safe and stable living

2. Assisting families. In order to ensure

environment for a child is fundamentally a

the safety and well-being of children,

parental responsibility. Parents, families and

primary caregivers must be supported

healthy stable living environments are an

as well. This may involve connecting

integral part to child wellbeing, and this must

families with services in the

community that will help them

placement options is included in the

overcome issues that may be

appendix.

interfering with the well-being of their
children, such as substance abuse or

FOUR PILLARS

mental health problems. These services

The nationally recognized Four Pillars
framework consists of:
1. Narrowing the Front Door: CFSA will
seek to keep families together and use
removal only when necessary for the
safety of a child through an increase in
the use of Differential Response*,
kinship care and community supports.
2. Temporary Safe Haven: Children who
have to come into care should be placed
for the shortest amount of time possible
in family-like placements that allow for
continued connections with family,
community and school. Permanency
planning should begin the first day that
children enter care.
3. Promote Child Well-Being: The agency
is committed to collaborating with
educational, mental health and physical
health systems to promote the healthy
development of all children in care. Teen
parenting supports, the prevention of
teenage pregnancy, promotion of high
school graduation and evidence-based
interventions for physical health
conditions and chronic mental health
conditions, including trauma, are key.
4. Exits to Positive Permanency: Youth
who exit care, whether through
emancipation or permanency, should
have lifelong connections in place and
be prepared with the stability, supports
and skills needed for a successful
transition into adulthood.

occur as either a preventative measure
to entering care, often through one of
six Family Support Collaborativesi, or
subsequent to coming into care, as a
requirement to retaining or regaining
custody of a child.
3. Providing safe, out-of-home care. This
is utilized when the home environment
presents too much of a threat to the
safety of the child, necessitating the
removal of the child from the home.
Children may be placed with licensed
foster or kinship caregivers in these
situations.
4. Re-establishment of permanent homes.
If a child is removed from his/her
home, the agency works to address the
issues preventing the child from being
in the home, with the intention of reconnecting (re-unifying) the child with
their original caregiver. If those efforts
are either unsuccessful or unfeasible, a
permanent home for the child is sought
through relatives, guardianship or
adoption. A more comprehensive
description of CFSA’s processes and
In Washington D.C., There are five independent,
nonprofit Family Support Collaboratives providing
neighborhood-based prevention services and support to
families. Each Collaborative provides unique services
and supports tailored to meet the needs of their
respective communities, such as youth violence
prevention and intervention and workforce
development. For more information see: Healthy
Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council,
“Our Mission.” http://dccollaboratives.org/
i

* described later in this document
Source: Center for the Study of Social Policy, “LaShawn A. v.
Gray Progress Report for the Period July 1-December 31,
2011,” May 2012. http://www.cssp.org/publications/childwelfare/class-action-reform/LaShawn-A-v-Gray-ProgressReport_May_21_2012.pdf.

DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
“Abused Child: The term “abused” – when used in reference to a child – means:
a. Infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child
b. Sexual abuse or exploitation of a child
c. Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child
The term “abuse” does not include discipline administered by a parent, guardian, or custodian to his or her
child, provided that the discipline is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree and otherwise does not
constitute cruelty.
Sexual Abuse means:
a. Engaging in, or attempting to engage in, a sexual act or sexual contact with a child;
b. Causing or attempting to cause a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct; or
c. Exposing a child to sexually explicit conduct.
Neglected Child: A “neglected child” means a child:
a. Who has been abandoned or abused by his or her parent, guardian or other custodian, or
b. Who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, or education as required by law, or other
care or control, necessary for his or her physical, mental or emotional health, and the deprivation is
not due to the lack of financial means of his or her parent, guardian or other custodian; or
c. Whose parent, guardian or other custodian is unable to discharge his or her responsibilities to and for
the child because of incarceration, hospitalization, or other physical or mental incapacity; or
d. Whose parent, guardian, or custodian refuses or is unable to assume the responsibility for the child’s
care, control, or subsistence and the person or institution which is providing for the child states an
intention to discontinue such care; or
e. Who is in imminent danger of being abused and whose sibling has been abused; or
f. Who has received negligent treatment or maltreatment from his or her parent, guardian, or other
custodian; or
g. Who resided in a hospital located in the District of Columbia for at least 10 calendar days following
the birth of the child, despite a medical determination that the child is ready for discharge from the
hospital, and the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child has not taken any action or made any
effort to maintain a parental, guardianship, or custodial relationship or contact with the child.”
Source: Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Policy/CFSA+Policy+Manual+Table+of+Contents/Program+Policies/Program+-+Hotline.

Similar to other jurisdictions, D.C.’s child
welfare system has faced numerous
challenges, oversight and ultimately reforms.
Most recently in 2012, CFSA Director Brenda
Donald implemented an aggressive reform
agenda including the implementation of the
Four Pillars framework. A complete timeline
of D.C.’s child welfare reforms which
provides a more comprehensive overview of
challenges and reforms in the District can be
found in the appendix.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, a
child is abused or neglected every three hours
in Washington, D.C.6 The District has the
second highest rate of children in care (per
1,000) of all comparable urban jurisdictions,

Although the number of youth removed from their homes
declined 43 percent since 2003, D.C. still removes youth at a
higher rate than comparable cities.
8,000

7,547

Number of Children

7,000

5,920

6,000

5,555
4,519

5,000
4,000

3,070

2,784

3,000

2,563

2,373

4,328

2,306

4,463

2,297

4,216

4,301
3,753

3,595

2,171

2,093

1,851

1,735

Sept.
2009

Sept.
2010

Sept.
2011

FYTD
2012
(Mar.)

2,000
1,000
0
Sept.
2003

Sept.
2004

Sept.
2005

Sept.
2006

Sept.
2007

Number of Children in Out-of-Home Care

Sept.
2008

Number of Children CFSA Serves

Source: Child and Family Services Agency, “Children and Youth CFSA Serves,” April 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/LaShawn%20Data/FS%2002%20Child%20Stats%20Apr
%202012.pdf

including New York City, Atlanta, Chicago,

Foster care is not categorically a more harmful
option, as children experiencing severe abuse

7

Detroit, and Philadelphia.

As of February 2012, the D.C. child welfare
system was serving 3,595 youth between birth
and age 21. Between 2005 and 2011, the
number of District children in foster care
8

declined 33 percent, from 2,588 to 1,744. This
decline is in line with a decade long decline in
the total number of youth involved in the
child welfare system nationwide.9 Nationally,

may benefit from being removed from their
home. However, for youth in lower-risk
situations, greater efforts at in-home services
and community supports may yield improved
short and long-term outcomes.13 This may be
particularly relevant in cases of neglect, which
currently comprise two-thirds of the entries
into out-of-home care in the District. 14

between 2005 and 2011 the number of youth

To support further reductions in the use of

in foster care declined 22 percent and the total

foster care, it is important for policymakers in

number of youth served by the child welfare

D.C. to examine how D.C. can better serve its

10

system declined 19 percent. While D.C. has

youth, enhance services and support for

seen declines above the national average, the

families and work to increase district wide

District is still removing children from their

public safety. District policies and resources

homes at higher rates than other comparable

should acknowledge that the majority of cases

cities.11 In fact, of all youth served by CFSA,

that lead to referrals and out of home

the percentage removed from their homes and

placements may be better served by

placed in foster care increased from 40.7

alternatives that emphasize in-home services,

12

percent in 2003 to 48.3 percent in 2012.

community supports and stability, all of

which can serve to reduce future justice

poverty are more likely to have substance

system contact and promote positive life

abuse issues, mental health issues and stress

outcomes for D.C youth.

associated with unemployment, all of which
are risk factors for child maltreatment.
Community and family economic instability
may also present a challenge in providing
children basic health, food, education and
housing needs. It should be noted that the
inability of a family to meet the
aforementioned needs is criteria for child
welfare system involvement.

Family and neighborhood poverty are two of

Washington D.C. has one of the highest child

the strongest predictors of child maltreatment.

poverty rates in the United States, which is

While poverty is not a direct cause of child

concentrated in Wards 7 and 8. Nearly 50

abuse or neglect and should never be a reason

percent of youth in Ward 8 and 40 percent of

for removing a child, the conditions and

youth in Ward 7 live below the federal

challenges poverty causes can impede a

poverty lineii.15 In 2011, Ward 8 had the

family’s ability to ensure the safety and well-

highest unemployment rate in the country

being of its children. Families experiencing

(25.2 percent), the lowest average family

Wards 7 and 8 have the highest percent of D.C. children living
below the poverty line.
48%

50
45

40%

40

Percent

35
30

29%

28%

31%

23%

25

18%

20
15

12%

10
3.1%

5
0
DC

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey, 2005-2009,” Accessed October 2012.
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/wards/wards.html.
In 2012, the federal poverty guideline for a family of
four was $23,050. Source: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, “2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines,”
accessed February 2013.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
ii

Number of Substantiated cases of abuse

Wards 7 and 8 comprise over half of all substantiated cases of
abuse in the District.
671

700
600
500
400

360

343

300
200

147

140
86

100

79
4

0
Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Source: DC Action for Children, "Substantiated Cases of Abuse and Neglect by Ward (Number) - 2009,"
Accessed October 2012. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?state=DC&ind=4799.

income in the city ($44,076); and over one in

family income in the city, only had four cases

three (35 percent) residents living in poverty.

of abuse and neglect in 2009.18

According to data from CFSA, the majority of
youth entering care are Title IV-E eligible
indicating that they are in poverty.16

Examining child welfare system involvement
in D.C. by Ward shows that Wards 5, 7 and 8
have significantly higher rates of involvement
than the District as a whole. Specifically, the
percentage of substantiated cases of abuse and
neglect in Wards 5, 7 and 8 represent 75
percent of all cases in the District. People of
color, specifically African Americans and to a
lesser extent Latinos, have disproportionately
higher child welfare system involvement than
their White counterparts in the District. Of the

Ward 8 also consistently has the highest

children involved in D.C’s child welfare

number of substantiated cases of child abuse

system, 99 percent are youth of color.19

and neglect in the city. Youth in Ward 8

Additionally, the highest percentage of people

comprised 37 percent (671 cases) of the total

of color in Washington D.C. reside in Wards 7

cases in the District in 2009, nearly twice as

and 8, where there is a significant intersection

many compared with the next-highest ward,

of poverty, unemployment and lowest

Ward 7 (360 cases).17 In contrast, Ward 3,

average household income.20 Of the youth

which has the lowest unemployment rate,

served by CFSA, 93 percent are African

lowest child poverty rate and highest average

Wards 5, 7 and 8 have the highest percentage of people of color in the District.
100
Non-Hispanic Other
90
80

American Indian (non-Hispanic)

Percent

70
60

Asian/Pacific Islander (nonHispanic)

50
Hispanic

40
30

Black (non-Hispanic)
20
10

White (non-Hispanic)

0
Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “DC Ward Profile,” Accessed October 2012.
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/wards/wards.html.

American, six percent are Latino, and the
majority are low-income.21
The disproportionate representation of
African American youth in the child welfare
system can be attributed to a number of
factors, including structural racism (i.e. racial
residential segregation, criminal justice
policies), socioeconomic inequalities,
historical injustices,22 race-based differences in
Child Protective Services involvement, and a
lack of culturally relevant and responsive
prevention and family preservation
programming. 23

The racial disproportionality of communities
of color involved in the child welfare system
is mirrored in the District’s juvenile justice
system. 24 In FY11, 96 percent of youth under
the supervision of Department of Youth and
Rehabilitative Services (DYRS), the District’s
juvenile justice agency, were African
American, with the remaining four percent
being Latino.25 The concentrated impact in
Wards 7 and 8 seen in the child welfare
system is similarly evident in the juvenile
justice system, with 50 percent of youth under

DYRS supervision being from Wards 7 and 8

educational instability and out-of-home

during FY11.

placement instability.

These statistics suggest that how the city

There is a higher prevalence of
mental health issues among
children in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems than in
the general population. Child

chooses to make investments in high risk
wards, including Wards 7 and 8, is reflected
by the area’s concentrated impacts related to
poverty, race, child welfare and crime. There
is a serious need for social and economic
supports to promote family economic
stability, and best practice prevention and
early intervention programming to increase
child well being for youth and residents now
and in the future.

maltreatment has been evidenced to increase
the rates of mental health problems in youth,
including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and depression. 28 These problems are
compounded in youth who experience
multiple forms of maltreatment (i.e. physical
abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, home
removal and/or abandonment), which can
result in exacerbated mental health symptoms
and complex trauma. 29

THE TYPE OF MALTREATMENT
IMPACTS THE TYPE OF ASSOCIATED
DELINQUENCY

Research has consistently shown that
maltreated youth are at an increased risk of
engaging in subsequent delinquency.26
Particularly, certain risk factors associated
with maltreatment predispose youth to

Different types of child maltreatment are
associated with different types of delinquency.
Physical abuse tends to be most correlated
with violent delinquency, whereas neglect is
predictive of offending in a more general
sense. Sexual abuse, on the other hand, is
more predictive of arrest for sex crimes than
other forms of abuse, and victims are nearly
28 times more likely to be arrested for
prostitution than the general population. The
age that maltreatment is experienced also
influences delinquency, with those
experiencing maltreatment during
adolescence, or consistently from early
childhood into adolescence, more likely to
commit an offense than those who experience
maltreatment solely in early childhood.

delinquent behaviors. Therefore, a
comprehensive understanding of these factors
should inform interventions aimed at
preventing youth from crossing over to the
juvenile justice system from the child welfare
system.27 Major risk factors include mental
health issues, multiple forms of victimization,

Sources:
Denise Herz et al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System
Youth: Strengthening the Connection Between Child
Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: The
Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012).
http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/msy/AddressingtheNeedso
fMultiSystemYouth.pdf.
Cathy Spatz Widom, Victims of Childhood Sexual AbuseLater Criminal Consequences,” (Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice, 1995).
http://www.cj.msu.edu/~outreach/mvaa/Child%20Protecti
on/Victims%20of%20Childhood%20Sexual%20Abuse%2
0Later%20Criminal%20Consequences.pdf.

COMPLEX TRAUMA: “refers to a child’s exposure to multiple or prolonged traumatic events and
the related impact of those events on their development. Typically, complex trauma is chronic, begins
in early childhood and occurs within the primary care giving system (i.e. the home). Children
experience various forms of maltreatment either simultaneously or sequentially including physical
and sexual abuse, neglect and/or domestic violence. These traumatic experiences lead to a loss of
safety, direction and the ability to detect or respond to danger cues which often sets off a chain of
events leading to subsequent or repeated trauma exposure in adolescence and adulthood.”
Source: The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, “Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents,” October 2012.
http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/complex-trauma.

The child welfare system has the highest rate
of trauma-affected youth of any youth-serving
system.30 Involvement in the child welfare
system, almost by definition, means that a
youth has likely experienced at least one
major traumatic event, with many youth
exposed to multiple and/or prolonged
traumatic events, such as parental
incarceration, domestic violence, substance
abuse and community violence. 31 The
experience of multiple traumas is cumulative
and leads to a more complex symptom
response than traditional Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Youth with
complex trauma histories may experience an
array of adverse developmental outcomes32
and higher rates of internalizing problems 33
including conduct disorders, anxiety
disorders, adjustment disorders, emotional
disorders 34 and increased levels of
posttraumatic stress.35 Entry into the child
welfare system itself can lead to additional
stress and trauma if the youth is removed
from their home, experiences multiple out-ofhome placements or has to transfer schools
and peer groups.36
In a study examining trauma exposure in
foster care youth, 70 percent of the youth
reported experiencing at least two of the
following traumas: physical abuse, sexual
abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and domestic
violence.

37

More than one in 10 reported

having experienced all five types of trauma. 38

Approximately two in every three males and
three in every four females involved in the
juvenile justice system are believed to possess
one or more psychiatric disorders.39 In
addition, the majority of youth involved in the
juvenile justice system have also experienced
trauma. 40 Mental health problems are
significant risk factors for delinquent behavior
and subsequent justice system involvement. 41
Child maltreatment is a significant source of
trauma experienced by incarcerated youth,
with 38 percent reporting a history of physical
abuse. 42

Victimization increases the
likelihood of involvement in both
the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems. Aside from an
increased risk of having experienced violence
at home, maltreated youth often experience
multiple forms of violence in various contexts,
both in and outside the home. Youth can
experience violence either directly or
indirectly (i.e. witnessing violence in the
home, school or community), both of which
have serious implications. Some common
types of youth victimization include child
abuse, domestic violence, bullying, crime and
physical assault.43 The exposure to multiple
forms of abuse, violence and/or victimization
is known as polyvictimization. 44

Polyvictimization is often associated with the

and emotional health of youth. Both

following four prior circumstances: 45

experiencing and witnessing violent

1. Dangerous Families: living in a family
that experiences considerable violence
and conflict
2. Family Disruption and Adversity:
having a family dealing with multiple
problems that may compromise a
child’s supervision or create unmet

victimization has been shown to increase
violent crime, property crime and drug use
among youth.48 Additionally, being a victim
has also been linked to depression, decreased
social control, weakened social bonds (i.e.
family and community connections) and
increased delinquent peer associations.49

emotional needs such as issues related

Threats to the safety and well-being of

to money, employment and substance

children within the child welfare system

abuse

encompass a much broader scope than what

3. Dangerous Neighborhoods: residing in

children may experience at home. One of the

or moving into a neighborhood where

indicators that youth in the child welfare

there are frequent incidents of violence

system are subject to other forms of violence

4. Emotional Problems: research shows

is the number of violent homicides among

that a child with preexisting emotional

youth known to the system. Violent homicide

problems has an increased chance to

is now the leading cause of death for youth

engage in risky behavior, act

“known to the D.C. child welfare system” (are

aggressively and compromise their

currently or have been previously engaged

ability to protect his or herself.

with CFSA) at the time of their death. Of the

Victimization tends to be disproportionately
distributed amongst certain demographics
and environments,46 including African
American male youth, youth in single-parent
households and youth in households with
caregivers other than their biological
parents.47

27 youth in the District who died as a result of
homicide in 2009, 18 were known to CFSA.50
All 18 victims were African American, 16
were males51 and the majority were involved
in either the juvenile or adult justice systems.52
These staggering numbers warrant serious
attention into issues faced by a child involved
in the child welfare system and highlights the

Polyvictimization is largely experienced by

importance of interventions encompassing all

youth in the child welfare system and has

forms of violence and victimization.

long-term implications
on physical, mental,

A child is abused
or neglected
every three

hours in
Washington, D.C.

Educational instability
increases the risk of future
justice system
involvement. Educational
outcomes for youth involved in the
child welfare system are impacted
by the cognitive, behavioral, social
and emotional effects of family
instability and maltreatment. 53
Maltreated youth are more likely to
perform poorly in school and
experience a host of educational
challenges, including: suspension,
truancy, not being prepared for
class, failure to complete
homework, underperforming on
standardized tests, poor
relationships with teachers and
feeling insecure and a sense of not
belonging at school resulting in
low involvement in school-related
activities. 54 They are also less likely
to graduate high school and less
likely to attend college.55 Research

MOVING INNOVATION FORWARD:
THE OFFICE OF WELL BEING
CFSA’s Office of Well Being promotes healthy growth and
development for children, youth, and families involved with the
child welfare system. The following programs are managed by
this office to help address service needs to ensure well-being
for youth and families:
 Education services include prevention of truancy,
school placement, special education, and
achievement. Contracts with tutoring and
transportation vendors help to support educational
outcomes, including maintaining school placement.
 Mentoring services are offered through the Agency’s
Volunteer Mentoring Program and help to support
school attendance, achievement, and emotional wellbeing.
 Domestic violence services include an assessment
for families involved in domestic violence, a safety
plan to address the needs, and referral to community
resources.
 Substance abuse services include referrals for youth
and adults to DC’s Addiction Prevention and Recovery
Administration (APRA) for assessment and treatment,
in addition to identifying and addressing barriers to
treatment.
 Day Care vouchers through the Department of
Human Services (DHS) and subsidies provided by
CFSA are available through this office.
 Rapid Housing applications for families are
processed through this office.
Source: Mindy Good, Director of Communications, Children and Family
Services Agency, personal correspondence February 1, 2013.

has consistently shown that higher rates of

six months academically behind their peers.59

educational attainment are associated with

As a result, almost half of youth in foster care

56

lower crime.

Therefore poor educational

placement do not graduate high school.60

outcomes and lack of school attachment

Knowing the importance of education not

associated with child maltreatment only

only to the life outcomes of youth, but also to

serves to increase the risk of juvenile

citywide public safety, policymakers and

delinquency. 57

community leaders should continue to invest

In addition to the obstacles faced as a result of
maltreatment, involvement in the child
welfare system itself can be disruptive to the
educational process. This is particularly
evident for youth in foster care, who change
schools two to three times per year on
average.58 Each time a foster youth changes
schools, it is estimated that they fall three to

in education and work to reduce the number
of school changes experienced by foster care
youth in the District.

The type and number of
placements influence delinquency
outcomes for child welfareinvolved youth. Youth who move

frequently due to foster care placement
disruptions are at risk of poor educational
outcomes and decreased emotional health.61
These youth also tend to experience an
increase in behavioral problems such as
depression, anxiety and aggression.62 While
one of the predictors of placement disruption
is a child’s behavioral problem while in care
and a foster parent’s inability or
unwillingness to continue care, these
behavioral problems have only been shown to
increase after a placement change.63 Therefore,
an out-of-home placement in itself is
associated with delinquency and disruptive
behavior and if placement instability
continues, the risk of delinquency increases
further.

Youth involvement in the child welfare
system is often the result of a confluence of
factors that impact a parent’s ability to
provide safe and stable care for a child. Often
times, external family pressures and
influences brought on by community
instability and lack of available resources has

Additionally, placing a child in a group home

a direct bearing on the family and parenting.

has also been associated with increased rates

There are a number of parental risk factors

of delinquency. By contrast, kinship

associated with child welfare system

placements (placement with a relative of the

involvement, including single-parent

child) are 70 percent less likely to be

households, mental health issues, substance

disruptive for a child than non-kinship

abuse, domestic violence,67 young

placements. Kinship placements are

motherhood, parental stress, low parental

associated with decreased behavioral

education level and parental criminal justice

problems and increased positive outcomes for

system involvement. 68 Similarly, these

youth. 64 In FY12, only 17 percent of foster

parental risk factors are also associated with

children in DC were placed with kin.65

juvenile delinquency and youth involvement

Promoting the use of kinship placements, and

in the justice system.69 Therefore it is

increasing the level of support given to foster

important to understand and address

parents and kin, has been shown to reduce the

community and parental factors that increase

incidence of placement disruptions and

a child’s risk of involvement in both the child

should remain a priority for CFSA and

welfare and juvenile justice systems.

66

policymakers in D.C.

Parental mental health is a
significant factor of youth child
welfare system involvement.
Nationally, close to 25 percent of caregivers
referred to Child Protective Services have had

a major depressive episode within the
previous year, as opposed to seven percent of
adults in the general population. 70 Women
are more susceptible to depression than men,
and represent a disproportionate amount of
the primary caregivers referred to the child
welfare system.71 The link between maternal
depression and child welfare system
involvement is related to the symptoms of
depression and their effect on parenting
practices. These symptoms have been

PRIMARY REASONS FOR YOUTH
ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Neglect
Physical Abuse
Parental Incarceration
Parental Substance Abuse
Inadequate Housing

Source: Children and Family Services Agency, Annual
Public Report FY2011 (Washington, D.C.: 2012)
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Who+We+Are/P
ublications/Reports/Annual+Report+2011/Annual+Report+
2011

correlated with physical and emotional

the likelihood of reunification and result in

neglect and abuse, harsh parenting, corporal

the termination of parental rights.76

punishment and yelling. 72

Policymakers and practitioners need to be

The impact of trauma on parenting has been

aware of the impact of trauma and parental

less studied, but is increasingly relevant.

mental health on the stability of home and

Trauma often occurs along with depression,

family environments and provide parents and

and parents of maltreated children frequently

communities with affordable and accessible

possess histories of PTSD and other major

mental health services.

mental health disorders at significantly higher

Parental substance abuse is a
serious public health concern and
extremely prevalent in child
welfare cases. Nationally, between 60-70

rates than the general population. 73 Trauma
exposure is associated with high rates of
substance abuse, lower levels of parenting
satisfaction, increased levels of neglect,
physical punishment and psychological
aggression which can lead to child welfare
involvement. 74 Domestic violence is the most
frequently cited source of trauma in women
and children. 75

percent of parents involved in substantiated
cases of child abuse or neglect have a
substance abuse disorder. 77 This number
increases to 80 percent for parents of youth
placed in foster care. 78 Parental substance
abuse increases the likelihood of parental

Parental trauma has implications beyond

rights being terminated, out-of-home care,

increasing the risk for child welfare

longer stays in care, re-victimization and

involvement. It also has an impact on child

adoption.79

welfare interventions and outcomes. Trauma
symptoms or related conditions may inhibit a
parent’s ability to engage successfully in the
services mandated by the child welfare
system. This may increase the likelihood that
a child will be removed from home, decrease

Child welfare system attempts at engaging
parents with substance abuse issues in
treatment have proven challenging in spite of
its importance. Nationally, out of every 100
child welfare-involved parents required to
complete substance abuse treatment, 64 will

complete an intake interview, 50 will attend

behavioral and psychological problems. Of

“some” treatment, and only 13 will complete

these children, one in five experience

treatment.80 Addressing the underlying

internalizing problems, such as depression

barriers to successfully completing treatment

and anxiety, and one in three experience

is critical. Additionally, policymakers have a

significant externalizing problems, such as

responsibility to ensure that communities and

aggression and disruptive behaviors.84

families have the resources available to them
to ensure positive life outcomes for their
children, which includes investing in and
increasing access to community based
substance abuse prevention and treatment
programming.

D.C. has one of the highest incarceration rates
in the country,85 which has direct and longterm implications on the city’s youth. This
impact is disproportionately prevalent among
African American children and children of
parents with low levels of educational

Parental incarceration is a top
reason for D.C. children entering
care. Neglect accounts for nearly two-thirds

attainment. Nationally, African American

of children who enter out-of-home care in

than White children to have a parent in

D.C., with physical abuse being the second

prison.86 Incarcerated parents face significant

leading reason.81 In 2010, parental

barriers to retaining their parental rights due

incarceration surpassed parental substance

to typical sentences averaging between 80 and

abuse as the third highest reason for District

100 months. Additionally, the inability of

children entering care,82 and in 2010, one in

parents in prison to access adequate

every six kids entering foster care had an

reunification services such as parenting

incarcerated parent.83 Children of incarcerated

classes, substance abuse and mental health

parents in foster care are at a significantly

treatment as well as the inability to participate

higher risk of experiencing emotional,

in dependency proceedings and irregular

children are three times more likely than
Latino children and seven times more likely

FOUR PATHWAYS TO CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
INVOLVEMENT:
1. Involves a youth who has an open child welfare case and subsequently gets arrested for
delinquency, entering the delinquency system at some level.
2. This pathway is similar to the first except the child welfare case was closed prior to the time
of the delinquency.
3. The youth is a victim of maltreatment, but the maltreatment has not come to the attention of
the child welfare system. In the process of investigating the delinquency charge, the justice
system identifies the maltreatment and initiates child welfare system involvement.
4. A youth is placed in a correctional facility and upon release from the facility there is no safe
home for him/her to return to. Consequently, the justice system initiates a referral to child
welfare to prepare for the youth’s release.
Source: Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, Addressing the Needs of MultiSystem Youth: Strengthening the Connection Between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: The Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012). http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/msy/AddressingtheNeedsofMultiSystemYouth.pdf.

contact with children only serves to increase
the challenge of retaining parental rights and
the negative impact of this on children.87
While all of the aforementioned parental risk
factors increase the likelihood of child
maltreatment and subsequent involvement in
the child welfare system, they are often
situated in the context of neighborhood and

into the other system. In spite of the
prevalence of maltreatment and delinquency,
those in the child welfare or criminal justice
systems may not realize a child is a crossover
youth. Not being known to one or both
systems can occur if the maltreatment and/or
delinquency has not been identified or
formally reported.89 As a result, the total
number of crossover youth in the District is
unknown.

community poverty and disadvantage.

Youth who have experienced maltreatment
and engage in delinquency have differing
levels of involvement in each system and fall
into three main groups: crossover youth,
dually-involved youth
and dually-adjudicated
youth.

Dually-involved youth are those known to
the juvenile or adult justice system and the
child welfare system at the same time.90
However, it should be noted that a youth’s
level of involvement in each system does not
have to be formal in order to be termed a
dually-involved youth.91 In some situations
involvement may be preventative and youth
might be engaged in a diversion program,
such as Youth Court, or voluntary family
support services, such as a Family Support
Collaborative. The total number of duallyinvolved youth in the District is similarly
unknown and difficult to track because of the
informal nature of contact with either system
and a lack of cross-systems information
sharing.92

CROSSOVER YOUTH

Youth who experience maltreatment and engage in delinquency and who may or may
not be known to the child welfare and/or juvenile justice systems

Crossover youth
represent the largest
group, encompassing
DUALLY-INVOLVED YOUTH
all youth who have both
Crossover youth who have some level of concurrent involvement (diversionary, formal,
experienced
or a combination of both) with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems
maltreatment and
engaged in
delinquency.88 These
DUALLY-ADJUDICATED YOUTH
youth have “crossed
Dually-involved youth who are formally involved (sustained dependency court
over” from involvement
allegation) and are adjudicated by the delinquency court
in either the child
Source: Shay Bilchik et al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth Strengthening the
welfare system or the
Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice,” (Washington, DC: The Center for
juvenile justice system
Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012) http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/resources.html

Dually-adjudicated youth are those formally
involved in both the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems.93 This often means a
youth who is formally involved in both
systems through being adjudicated by DYRS
and a client of CFSA. A commonly used term
for these youth is “dual-jacketed” youth. In
FY11, 113 youth in the District were “dualjacketed”94 and comprised approximately nine
percent of DYRS’s 1,269 committed youth that
year. 95 DYRS-involved youth only constitute
approximately one-third of all youth involved
in the District’s juvenile justice system, so the
total number of dually-adjudicated youth,
although unreported, is much higher.
Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) has
case management responsibility for dualjacketed youth unless Family Court transfers
this responsibility to DYRS due to public
safety concerns. 96 In FY12, a little under half
of the dual-jacketed cases were transferred to
DYRS.97 Regardless of who takes on the role of
primary case manager, both agencies are
responsible for coordinating care throughout
the duration of the case.98
Youth involved in multiple systems have
complex needs requiring a high level of
collaboration and communication between

DIVERTING YOUTH THROUGH “YOUTH
COURT”
Youth Court is a voluntary alternative
sentencing program for first time, nonviolent
youth who committed crimes in the District.
Rather than going through the traditional
juvenile justice system, eligible youth are
diverted to Youth Court, where their case is
heard by a jury of their peers. The youth jurors
identify the underlying issues and situations that
the defendant faced prior to being charged, and
use that information to assign relevant
community-based sanctions. Sanctions may
include attending jury duty, participating in girls
or boys group, performing community service,
writing letters of apology to the victim and/or
their family, and/or participating in mental
health, mentoring, substance abuse or
shoplifting programs. If the youth completes
their sanctions, the charge will not appear on
their record.
Over the past 16 years, Youth Court has
diverted over 6,595 youth from the juvenile
justice system, with a number of positive results.
Over 90 percent of youth participants do not
recidivate and 70 percent finish high school and
continue on to higher education. In addition,
Youth Court is cost-effective with low
administrative costs and the majority of staff
being comprised of volunteers from the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, Howard University and
Georgetown University.

systems. Within four and eight years of the
time they turn 18, dually-involved youth have
been shown to be two to three times more
likely to access three or more service systems
than their peers involved in just the child
welfare or juvenile justice system.99 As adults,
youth who were dually-involved are more
likely to have involvement in the adult
criminal justice system as well as the mental
health/substance abuse and public welfare
systems.100

The expansion and increased utilization of
community-based diversion programs, such as
Youth Court, would be particularly beneficial to
District youth involved in the child welfare
system. For these already-vulnerable youth, it
provides another layer of support and is a
valuable alternative to a criminal charge and
further involvement in the justice system which
can have a lasting impact on their well-being,
including their educational, occupational and
housing prospects.
Source: Youth Court of the District of Columbia, “Youth
Court of the District of Columbia,” January 2013.
http://youthcourtofdc.org/.

The District should implement a universal

education, youth employment and mental

case plan that is consistent across all youth

health systems. These four systems are

serving systems. The lack of cross-systems

interwoven and in order to ensure that

collaboration is an immense barrier to

District youth are given the opportunities for

meeting the complex needs of youth in the

successful life outcomes, all four must have

District and such a plan would allow for

the necessary resources and incorporate

greater coordinated services and continuity of

evidence-based programs and best-practice

care for youth involved in D.C.’s education,

models.

mental health, child welfare and juvenile
justice systems. Currently there is no
automated database of information about
youth being jointly served, 101 and increased
attention around a more comprehensive and

The following are some examples of best
practice community-based interventions that
have been proven to prevent child welfare
and juvenile justice system involvement:

collaborative relationship is warranted. In

Differential Response

addition, continuity of care needs to be

Differential response is an approach that

prioritized if a case transfer occurs. The

tailors Child Protective Service responses

District should seek to have CFSA be the

based on the type, severity and risk of child

primary case manager for dually involved

abuse or neglect reports, rather than just

children to ensure the youth and their family

applying a one-size-fits-all approach to

get the broadest array of services possible,

investigations and interventions. Generally,

and the youth’s unique challenges resulting

cases that are identified as involving severe

from abuse and neglect are not forgotten.

types of maltreatment are referred for a
standard CPS investigation, but those
identified as low and moderate risk may be
referred to an alternative response. 102 The
alternative response is used in cases where the
child is not in immediate or serious danger.103
This type of response can be particularly
useful in cases of neglect, which constitute the

While no single strategy will guarantee

majority of child welfare cases in the District

reductions in delinquent behavior, criminal

and nationally. Differential Response engages

activity, or crime rates, a robust child welfare

the family voluntarily (as opposed to

system can have a positive public safety

involuntarily through the standard response)

benefit. However, it should be noted that a

in an identification of family strengths and

child welfare system can only be as strong as

needs to determine which service referrals

its supportive agencies – meaning that in

may be useful to support positive parenting

addition to making more investments in

and family well-being. Often times, the

D.C.’s child welfare system; similar

alternative response may not necessitate a

investments should be made in D.C.’s

formal substantiation of child maltreatment,

of the child welfare system without being put

Nurse Family Partnerships for
Low-income Families (NFP)

on the child protection registry. 104 This

NFP is an intervention for low-income, at-risk

national best-practice approach both lowers

women, pregnant with their first child. The

the number of youth involved in the child

program involves intensive home visitation

welfare system and works to ensure that

by nurses throughout pregnancy and two

families are more likely to benefit from

years subsequent to birth.110 Efforts are

services through the non-adversarial

focused on the promotion of child

approach.105 CFSA has started a phased

development and parenting skills. Extensive

implementation of differential response in

research has been conducted on the program

Washington D.C. with the hopes of full

over the last 3 decades, with the level of

program implementation by 2013.

proven of effectiveness unsurpassed in

and the family will receive supports outside

evidence-based home visitation programs.111

Triple P Positive Parenting
Program (Triple P)

Prenatal and early childhood home visitation

Triple P is a multi-level public health

by nurses has been shown to decrease the

approach to parenting and family support. It

rates of child abuse and neglect as well as

has been clinically proven in the United States

criminality and behavioral problems. 112 It also

and internationally over the last 30 years and

reduces the number of subsequent

is grounded in social learning, cognitive-

pregnancies, welfare dependence, substance

behavioral and developmental theory.106 The

abuse, and number of lifetime sexual partners

type and level of intervention is determined

for the mothers.113

on a case by case basis, depending on the
strengths, needs and goals of parents.
Interventions vary from tip sheets and videos
on positive parenting, to brief targeted
interventions by primary care practitioners, to
intensive parent training focused on broader
family issues such as anger and stress. 107
Triple P is targeted at reducing risk factors for
child maltreatment and behavioral and
emotional problems in children through
changing dysfunctional parenting practices
and enhancing parental skills. 108 In a study of
85,000 families, the effects of Triple P
Parenting was found to result in 688 fewer
cases of child maltreatment; 240 fewer out-ofhome placements; and 60 fewer children with
injuries requiring hospital treatment per
100,000 children under age eight.109

Effective Black Parenting Program
(EBPP)
The Center for the Improvement of Child
Caring (CICC) launched the EBPP in the
1970’s, the first culturally-adapted parenting
program for parents of African American
children.114 Though previous parenting
programs have shown some positive results
with African American parents, they failed to
address critical aspects of African American
life, including traditions in African American
family life, the importance of positive cultural
heritage promotion and the impact of slavery
on child rearing. 115 EBPP content includes
Culturally-Specific Parenting Strategies;
General Parenting Strategies; Basic Parenting
Skills Taught in a Culturally-Sensitive
Manner, Using African American Language

Expressions and African Proverbs; and

“booster session” one to two months after the

Special Program Topics (including Single

11th weekly session. The CPP is evidence-

Parenting and Drug Abuse Prevention). 116

based: the children of parents who attended

The program has been proven successful with

the program had fewer behavioral problems

parents (including teen parents) of African

at home, in school and during videotaped

American youth between the ages of birth

interactions with their parents. 124 Parents who

and-18, and is the program of choice for

participated in the program had increased

hundreds of institutions serving African

parenting confidence, used less corporal

American families nation-wide.

117

It has been

applied most frequently with high-risk

punishment and were more likely to use
positive and consistent discipline strategies. 125

populations, and has been utilized in

Crossover Youth Practice Model
(CYPM)

substance abuse prevention, child abuse
prevention, delinquency prevention, school

The CYPM was created and released by the

reform and historically Black churches and

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform in 2010 to

faith groups. 118

identify ways to meet the high level of need of

The Chicago Parenting Program
(CPP)

dually involved youth. 126 To date, it has been

The CPP is a parenting, health promotion and

country. 127 The goals of the CYPM are to

prevention program with the purpose of

reduce the number crossover youth; reduce

promoting communication and behavior

the number of youth entering care and the

management with children.119 It was designed

length of stay in out-of-home care; and reduce

with input from African American and Latino

the disproportionate representation of

parents to be contextually and culturally

children of color in each system. 128 The model

relevant to the needs of low-income families

seeks to achieve these goals through aligning

of color in urban communities.

120

implemented in 25 jurisdictions across the

The

the vision and missions of child welfare and

program content is tailored to the individual
needs, interests and values of the participants.

121

juvenile justice agencies, developing practices
and policies specifically related to serving

For example, African American parents may

dually-involved youth, improving case

talk about how the stress of racism affects

management services across systems, tracking

their parenting, whereas Latino parents may

population trends to inform decision-making,

focus on the parenting impact of being

cross-system training regarding the functions

immigrants.122 The CPP is particularly useful

and processes of each system and continuous

for parents with low reading skills, as all

quality improvement. 129

handouts are written at a 5th grade reading
level.123 The program is typically run over the
course of 11 weeks and consists of weekly
group sessions, videotaped lessons, practice
assignments and consistent parent
evaluations. A 12th session is held as a

Strengthening Families Approach
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
(CSSP) spent a year engaging with exemplary
early care and education programs and
practitioners nationwide and conducting

research on the link between child abuse and
neglect prevention, early care and
education.130 The work of CSSP culminated in
an understanding of the value of five
Protective Factors in preventing or decreasing
child abuse and neglect. The five Protective
Factors which form the foundation of the
Strengthening Families Approach include:
Parental Resilience, Social Connections,
Concrete Support in Times of Need,
Knowledge of Parenting and Child
Development and Social and Emotional
Competence of Children. 131 The approach is

In 2010, the District noted in its prevention

based on research showing that the promotion

plan that “the cost of failing to prevent child

of protective factors can support a family

abuse and neglect is approximately $104

environment conducive to optimal child

billion annually in the U.S.”134 The average

development, reduce child abuse and neglect,

annual cost to the District for one youth

and enhance family strengths. 132 Over 30

served in out of home care by CFSA is around

states are now using the tools and strategies of

$50,000 per year,iii which can include foster

the approach to enhance programs working

care, group homes and/or residential

with children and strengthen families in child

treatment.135 With a total of 1,827 youth in

welfare systems. 133

foster care placements in FY11, that equates to
roughly $73.1 million in total tax dollars.
Considering that youth in the D.C. foster care
system are often dual-involved or later in

AVERAGE DAILY COST OF DYRS PROGRAMS FOR
COMMITTED YOUTH
New Beginnings Youth Development Center
Residential Treatment Centers
Therapeutic Family Homes
Group Homes
Independent Living Programs
Extended Family Homes

$761
$294
$289
$274
$232
$228

custody of the juvenile justice
system, the lack of
preventative services leads to
further costs. In addition, in
FY2011 the Department of
Youth and Rehabilitative
Services (DYRS) spent $55.2
million on committed services

Source: Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services, Annual Performance
Report Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: 2012).

for youth.136

There is a wide range in cost between different out-ofhome placements and this annual value averages the
annual cost of all out-of-home placement options.
iii

AVERAGE DAILY FOSTER CARE RATES FOR 2013
Level
I – Regular
II – Special
III – Handicapped
IV – Multi-handicap

Children 11 and Under
$32.23
$32.87
$34.94
$41.00

Children 12 and Over
$36.33
$37.62
$40.22
$47.39

Note: The above rates reflect those foster care homes recruited and trained by CFSA and do not
account for contracted services. The compensation rate is based to cover basic needs of children
including food, shelter, clothing and etcetera and does not account for any taxpayer costs
associated to medical or mental health needs (i.e. Medicaid).
Sources:
Children and Family Services Agency, Foster Care Rates Effective January 1, 2013 (Washington, D.C.: 2012).
Children’s Rights, “Foster Care Rates by State,” accessed February 2012. http://www.childrensrights.org/policyprojects/foster-care/hitting-the-marc-foster-care-reimbursement-rates/foster-care-rates-by-state/

Policymakers should focus on finding

value being a direct monetary benefit to

solutions that allow for positive life outcomes

taxpayers.138

for D.C. youth while working to decrease
youth involvement in CFSA and DYRS,
increase cost-savings and maintain public
safety. The Washington State Institute for
Public Policy (WSIPP) has done numerous
studies to examine the cost-savings and
benefits of various programs related to child
welfare and juvenile justice system
involvement. Included in WSIPP’s work are
two model programs mentioned in this
report: Nurse Family Partnerships for LowIncome Families and the Triple P Positive
Parenting Program. In their cost-benefit
analysis, WSIPP found that the Triple P
Positive Parenting Program had an estimated
cost-benefit value of $722 per participant with
$344 of that value being a direct monetary
benefit to taxpayers.137 Similarly, WSIPP
found significant cost savings and social
benefits for the Nurse Family Partnerships for
Low-Income Families (NFP) program. The
estimated cost-benefit value of NFP is $13,181
per participant with $6,219 of that benefit

Both NFP and Triple P Positive Parenting are
designed to be intervention programs for at
risk youth and families which stabilize the
home environment and parenting practices so
that continued and future child welfare
involvement are greatly reduced or
eliminated. By focusing on effective evidence
based intervention strategies such as Triple P
Positive Parenting and NFP, D.C. can reduce
costs to the child welfare system by working
to prevent CFSA involvement for youth and
families. Reducing child welfare involvement
– and thereby the number of youth who cross
over into the juvenile justice system –
produces tax savings and public safety gains.
By implementing more effective preventative
programming D.C. can curb long term justice
system costs by helping families establish
positive supportive home environments for
youth, thus reducing the likelihood of future
justice system involvement and related costs.

8. Prevention services are necessary to
Youth involved in, or at risk of being involved
in, the District’s child welfare system stand to
benefit from a comprehensive, proactive and
effective child welfare system. However, the
success of the child welfare system is reliant
upon the support of strong collateral youthserving systems, including the mental health
system, education system and employment
programming. The collective ability of these
four systems to support the safety and wellbeing of youth has a significant impact on
youth trajectories and life outcomes. The
following recommendations acknowledge the
interconnectedness of all youth-serving
systems; are cost-effective; promote public
safety; decrease justice system involvement;
and increase positive life outcomes for all
individuals, families and communities in the
District.

reducing the number of children who
enter care, which is an investment that
will pay off in reduced foster care,
criminal justice and human costs.
2. Prioritize educational support and
stability. Children involved in the
child welfare system, and particularly
those in out-of-home placements, are at
an increased risk of experiencing poor
educational outcomes. 140 Promoting
school engagement among these youth
has been proven to mediate the
relationship between maltreatment and
delinquency.141 In line with CFSA and
federal policy through the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008, if a child
experiences a removal or placement

1. Expand the District’s child

change, efforts should be made to keep

maltreatment prevention efforts. The

the school the same, if at all possible.142

D.C. Government and Prevent Child

This will support consistency, peer

Abuse America introduced the

relationships and stability for the child.

District’s first city-wide child

There should also be cross-system

maltreatment prevention plan in 2010.

communication and collaboration

However, in Fiscal Year 2013, the CFSA

between the child welfare system and

budget cuts prevention services by $1.2

educational system. Investments in the

million.139 CFSA should consider

District’s education system focused on

making prevention a central function

combating low levels of educational

by adding it as a fifth pillar to the

attainment and truancy, while

current Four Pillar framework.

promoting early education, after-school

Interventions must be culturally

care and mentoring programs would

relevant and available in the areas of

interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline

the District facing concentrated

and decrease justice system spending.

disadvantage, including Wards 5, 7 and

3. Enable access to timely, appropriate,
culturally responsive and traumainformed mental health prevention
and treatment for District youth and
their families. The prevalence of
mental health issues in both parents
and children involved in the child
welfare system warrants routine and
effective screening and assessments;
the availability of timely, accessible
and consistent evidence-based
treatment services; continuity of care
across all youth-serving systems;
and youth-serving professionals that

In October of 2012, CFSA received a $3.2 million,
five-year grant from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services to make trauma-informed
treatment central to its practice. The grant will be
used to train those who work with youth involved in
the District’s child welfare system, including foster
parents, attorneys, social workers and other
professionals. CFSA will be the first public child
welfare agency to make trauma-informed treatment
the foundation of its work. This is a promising
development; however, the effective and sustainable
implementation of the funding will be key to its
impact.
Source: Child and Family Services Agency, “Federal Grant Will
Support Cutting Edge Treatment for Child Victims of Abuse and
Neglect,“ October, 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/News+Room/Federal+G
rant+Will+Support+Cutting+Edge+Treatment+for+Child+Victims+o
f+Abuse+and+Neglect.

are informed in basic mental health
science, terminology and resources.

in employment programs, and

Mental health services should be

employers willing to hire youth with

located in proximity to biological and

previous justice system involvement,

foster parent homes with hours that are

will promote positive workplace

accessible to working caregivers. Due

experiences, earning potential, and

to the disproportionate impact of

positive outcomes for District youth.

trauma youth in the child welfare

Employment opportunities for youth

system face, it is also imperative that all

transitioning into independence and

child welfare staff and service

adulthood are particularly meaningful

providers are able to identify traumatic

for youth aging out of the foster care

experiences and trauma-related

system.

symptoms in both youth and

5. Increase collaboration and

caregivers, so they are empowered to

communication between the child

recommend trauma resources and

welfare system and juvenile justice

provide trauma-informed services.

system. While youth in the child

4. Provide meaningful and sustainable

welfare system and juvenile justice

employment opportunities to youth.

system possess many of the same risk

Because of the strong interrelationship

factors and needs, the youth involved

between poverty and child welfare

in both systems generally require more

system involvement, creating

intense services and supports than

pathways to economic stability and

youth involved in just one of the

prosperity must be created.

systems. In spite of being a high-need

Implementing innovative incentives to

population, crossover youth tend to be

engage and sustain youth participation

under-identified and underserved
because of the lack of cross-systems

coordination.143 The conflicting goals

for low and moderate risk families

and processes of the child welfare and

should be prioritized so that fewer

juvenile justice system can interfere

children are brought into care and the

with the way crossover youth are

ones who do enter care receive serious

served. The child welfare system often

in-home supports to prevent out-of-

views youth as victims in need of

home placements. Differential response

protection, whereas the juvenile justice

has been evidenced to improve family

system often focuses on the need for

engagement, increase community

144

behavioral change.

Crossover youth

involvement, sustain child safety, and

are likely in need of both, so each

increase worker satisfaction in other

system needs to broaden their capacity

states,145 and its phased

to serve the complex needs of these

implementation has commenced in the

youth.

District. It is cautioned, however, that

6. Professionals working with children

insufficient staffing and resources limit

should be trauma informed. Those

its implementation and effectiveness.

working in the juvenile justice system

Sufficient staff training, manageable

should be trauma-informed and

worker caseloads and the increased

equipped to identify and refer mental

utilization of community resources can

health issues. Professionals in the child

ensure the program is implemented as

welfare system should screen for a

intended so its expected outcomes can

youth’s risk for delinquency and

be achieved.146

develop targeted interventions aimed

8. Provide for each child’s long-term

at delinquency prevention. Beyond the

individual requirements for treatment

need for collaboration between the

and support while ensuring immediate

child welfare system and juvenile

child safety and placement needs.

justice system, there is a need for

While youth are in care, individualized

collaboration across all systems

assessments focused on child physical

involved with crossover youth,

and mental health and behavior should

including the education, substance

be continuously conducted to identify

abuse and mental health systems.

and respond to children’s changing

There is also a need for more accurate

service needs. Foster care should be

and consistent reporting to identify the

utilized as a temporary intervention

total number of crossover youth in the

and diligent efforts should be made to

District (not just dual-jacketed youth

achieve permanence, regardless of the

with DYRS).

child’s age. Efforts at permanent

7. Continue to narrow the front door

placements for older youth in foster

through the broader application and

care should not be abandoned just

implementation of differential

because the youth will age out of the

response. Community-based referrals

system in several years. Nearly 25

percent of youth in the District’s care

parents in dependency proceedings,

are between the ages of 18 and 21, and

concerted efforts should be made to

formal transition planning can support

communicate consistently with these

a smooth transition out of care if they

parents and support communication

have not been connected to a

and visits between the parent and

permanent placement.

youth when appropriate.

9. Part of ensuring long-term success for

11. Minimize placement disruptions in

youth in care involves the provision of

out-of-home care through dedicated

comprehensive transitional services for

efforts at identifying kinship

foster youth preparing for

placements and sufficient foster home

emancipation and independent living.

and kinship supports. There should be

The establishment of long-term

an increase in the utilization of pre-

supports should be comprehensive and

removal Family Team Meetings to

include building life-long relationships

support children remaining in-home

with at least one caring adult, in

through crisis stabilization, or to

addition to planning around housing,

engage, license and support placement

medical care, mental health services,

with relatives as the next best option.

continuing education, adult life skills

Kinship placements can reduce trauma

development and employment. This

and decrease placement disruptions if

could prevent recidivism into the child

out-of-home placements are necessary.

welfare system, decrease cross-over

D.C.’s current rate of kinship

into the juvenile justice system, and

placement is lower than the national

promote a healthy transition into

average, even though these placements

adulthood.

are “three times as stable as non-

10. Engage family, including fathers,

kinship foster homes and four times as

incarcerated parents and extended

stable as group homes” and are “more

family to support family functioning.

likely to lead to positive permanency

Many of the children that come into

outcomes (reunification, adoption or

care were/are living in single female-

guardianship) than any other foster

headed households and are lacking the

care placement.”147

presence of a prominent paternal figure

12. Child welfare caseworkers should help

in their lives. An awareness of the role

alleviate barriers to care. Caseworkers

that fathers have in the social,

should work to ensure that caregivers

emotional and developmental needs of

receive consistent communications

children should inform a specific policy

about the treatment plan and goals for

delineating a comprehensive approach

the youth in-care, and ensure that

to engaging fathers across all levels of

sufficient supports can be provided to

care. In addition, while there are

caregivers to prevent placement

barriers to involving incarcerated

disruption. This may include the

provision of respite care, transportation

The multiple and complex

assistance to and from service provider

environmental factors associated with

appointments, and referrals to after-

child maltreatment are concentrated in

school programs and service providers

particular wards. It is integral that

that are conveniently located and

holistic supports be made available in

available outside of the caregiver’s

these areas that address inter-related

work hours.

issues and prevent child welfare

13. Economic investments should be
concentrated in the wards facing

system involvement.
14. Commence tracking of long-term child

significant challenges through a

welfare involved youth outcomes.

confluence of race, poverty, crime,

Currently there is no system in place

unemployment, and educational

which looks at long-term outcomes of

disparities, particularly Wards 5, 7 and

District youth with previous

8. An acknowledgement of the external

involvement in the child welfare

factors which compromise family

system. This data could be used to

safety needs to inform efforts at child

identify new trends, highlight areas of

maltreatment prevention both on the

concern and target future

policymaking and practitioner level.

interventions.

CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT
CFSA’s Child Protective Services Administration accepts reports of suspected child abuse and/or
neglect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, through the District’s Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, walkin reports, faxes, emails or letters.148
CPS staff review reports of suspected child abuse and/or neglect and a determination regarding the
appropriate response time and pathway is made. Pathways include 1) Information & Referral, 2)
Family Assessment and 3) CPS Investigation.
1. Information and Referral: CPS staff make referrals to CFSA’s community partners,
including Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives, based on a brief
assessment of the needs identified by the caller.149
2. Family Assessment: An evaluation is conducted to determine a family’s strengths and
needs; if there is a risk of child abuse or neglect of any child in the home; family
functioning; and access to resources.150 This information is used to develop a service
plan.

3. CPS Investigation: Reports that are referred for investigation are assigned one of two
response times, depending on the level of danger and risk assessed. When a
determination is made that there is no immediate danger or imminent risk of abuse or
neglect, a 24-Hour Response Time is assigned.151 However, if it is indicated that a child is
in immediate danger, an Immediate Response Time is assigned which requires that an
investigation commence within two hours.152 Investigations involve face-to-face contact
with the child and engagement with the family in their home to assess safety and risk
factors.153 If a case requires ongoing services or further assessment, it is transferred to the
In-Home and Permanency Administration, Out-of-Home and Permanency
Administration or a private agency in collaboration with CFSA’s Contract Monitoring
and Program Improvement Administration.154

CHILD WELFARE PLACEMENT OPTIONS IN THE DISTRICT
There are a number of in-home and out-of-home placement options for children who enter the child
welfare system. Current policies dictate that the least restrictive setting that meets the child’s needs
be utilized, with priority given to relative and kin providers.
In-Home Placement: In-home placements keep families in-tact through children remaining at home
with their birth parent(s). The family is typically referred to community-based services, including
Family Support Collaboratives, and receives supervision and case management from a child welfare
caseworker to monitor safety and progress towards service goals.

Out-of-Home Placement: Out-of-home placements are utilized when in-home placements present
too much of a risk to the safety and well being of a child. They may include foster care, kinship care,
therapeutic foster care, residential/group care, emergency care and/or an Alternative Planned
Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA).




Kinship Care: If children must be removed from their home, kinship care is generally the
preferred option as it is considered to support family preservation.155 Children are placed
with relatives or close family friends (referred to as fictive kin) who must become licensed.156
In FY12, only 17 percent of District foster care youth were placed with kin.157
Foster Care: Children are placed with trained and licensed non-relative adults who provide
shelter and care.158 In FY11, DC children in foster care were four times more likely to
experience a placement disruption than children in kinship care.159 At the end of FY11, there
were 1,827 children in foster care.160 In FY12, only 17% of the District children in foster care
were placed with kin.161









Therapeutic Foster Care: A form of non-relative foster care differentiated by the level of
training the foster parents undergo to support specific medical, behavioral, mental health
and emotional needs of children.162 Generally there are lower limits on the number of
children that can be in the home at one time and there is an increased level of support
around the children in these placements.
Residential/Group Care: The use of community-based group homes, residential facilities
and secure facilities may be used if a child’s physical or behavioral needs require a level of
structure and care that exceed the capabilities of a family-type setting.163 In FY11, children in
residential/group care were five times more likely to experience a placement change than
children in kinship care.164
Emergency Care: A temporary placement that may include a shelter/group facility or family
setting that is utilized when a child is removed from their birth parents, but does not yet
have a longer-term placement option in place.165 Utilized as a short-term intermediate option
while longer-term placement options can be assessed and secured.
APPLA: Generally utilized as a last resort option when there is no goal for placement with a
legal, permanent family, and the primary permanency options of reunification, adoption,
guardianship or legal custody have been exhausted.166 APPLA is only applicable to youth
over the age of 16 and plans must include permanent placement options that meet the
adolescent’s needs.167 Of the 1,827 children in foster care at the end of FY11, 455 youth were
referred to APPLA placements. 168

Primary Permanency Options: The achievement of permanency is one of the central goals of the
child welfare system. There are four primary options for this, including reunification, adoption,
guardianship and legal custody, with reunification being the most preferred option.


Reunification: Reunification is the return of children in out-of-home care to their homes with
their primary caregiver(s). It is contingent upon the attainment of service goals by the
primary caregiver and the most preferred permanency option for children involved in the

child welfare system.169 Of the 1,827 children in foster care at the end of FY11, 32 percent
(591) achieved reunification.170


Adoption: A permanency option in which either relatives or nonrelatives become the child’s
primary caregiver.171 Of the 1,827 children in foster care at the end of FY11, nearly 20 percent
(361) achieved adoption.172



Guardianship: If reunification is not a viable option, guardianship is a permanency option in
which relatives become the primary caregivers.173 Of the 1,827 children in foster care at the
end of FY11, nearly 21 percent (378) achieved guardianship.174



Legal Custody: When legal responsibility is granted to someone who makes decisions for the
child and agrees to take care of the child’s shelter, education, medical and food needs.175 Of
the 1,827 children in foster care at the end of FY11, 0.4 percent (eight) achieved legal
custody.176

DISTRICT CHILD WELFARE REFORM TIMELINE
1989: The LaShawn A. v. Gray case, a federal class action suit brought by national advocacy
organization, Children’s Rights, was brought against the District child welfare system, “alleging
numerous violations of state and federal laws”.177 The suit sought comprehensive reforms that
would provide the level of protection and care District youth deserved, and charged the D.C.
government with “failing to comply with reasonable standards of care in almost every area of its
child welfare system; jeopardizing the health and safety of thousands of abused and neglected
children in its custody; and causing emotional and physical harm to children in foster care, as well
as children who were not in the District’s custody, but who were the subject of inadequately
addressed reports of neglect.”178
1991: Over 1,000 admissions were heard at the LaShawn A. v. Gray trial from social workers, foster
parents, biological parents, psychiatrists, Defendants, and other relevant experts. United States
District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan came to the “inescapable conclusion” that “the District did
not comply with federal law, District law, or the United States Constitution.”179 The verdict was
appealed by the District.
1993: Judge Hogan’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals.180 The Center of the Study of
Social Policy was appointed as the District’s Monitor and the District was court-ordered to reform 18
components of its child welfare system.181
1995: Due to a failure to satisfactorily progress towards achievement of the court-ordered reforms
between 1991 and 1995, an unprecedented federal takeover of the agency occurred, removing
control from the District government.182
2001: The District regained control of the agency and CFSA became a cabinet-level agency after the
passage of the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency Establishment Act in

2011.183 The Court instituted a probationary period and the District agreed to implement additional
child welfare reforms.184
2003: The probationary period was terminated due to the achievement of certain positive courtordered results. An Implementation Plan (IP) was negotiated and approved, which detailed specific
outcomes to be achieved by December 2006.185 Outcomes included reducing caseloads, increasing
health and mental health services to children and reducing the number of children in group
homes.186
2006: CFSA was unable to achieve the outcomes delineated in the IP by its expiration so an
Amended Implementation Plan (AIP) was approved towards continued reform efforts.
2008: In spite of a Court-appointed Monitor overseeing agency operations, performance continued
to wane, prompting Children’s Rights, to file a motion of contempt.187 Children’s Rights and CFSA
negotiated an order with specific requirements that CFSA was to meet. Again, CFSA was unable to
comply, prompting Children’s Rights to file a renewed motion for contempt, which was granted.188
In spite of this, CFSA filed a motion for a timeline that the agency could exit court oversight, which
was denied and upheld by the Court of Appeals.189 The Banita Jacks case also occurred in 2008,
bringing negative public attention to the agency and dramatically increasing the number of reports
of child abuse and neglect the agency received. Banita Jacks and her daughters were under CFSA
oversight, during and prior to the time she murdered her four daughters in her home. The bodies
were not discovered for an estimated seven to eight months, in spite of monthly visits that were
supposed to have been occurring by CFSA social workers.190
2009: The Court Monitor reported that CFSA had still not complied with the requirements of the
AIP, and that performance had actually “deteriorated in several vital areas since July 24, 2008,”
prompting Children’s Rights to renew its motion for contempt.191 CFSA again moved for a timeline
to exit court supervision.192
2010: Judge Hogan denied CFSA’s motion for a timeline to exit court supervision and issued an
Implementation and Exit Plan that replaced the 2007 AIP and detailed outcomes CFSA must achieve
and maintain to exit Court oversight.193
2011: CFSA appealed the IEP, but the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Hogan’s decision.194 The Court
Monitor released a new report finding “significant deficiencies in the agency’s performance.”195 By
year end, CFSA had achieved 44 of the 92 performance standards of the LaShawn Exit Plan.196
2012: Brenda Donald came in as the acting Executive Director on January 3, 2012, and was confirmed
as the agency Director on April 17, 2012. This is her second tenure as the agency’s Director. Donald
has expressed motivation to rebuild the agency still recovering from the Jacks’ tragedy and has
already aggressively implemented a number of structural and programmatic reforms that show

dedicated movement beyond the scope of the Court order. A Four Pillar strategic framework was
initiated by Ms. Donald and has begun implementation.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Prior abuse reported by inmates and probationers,” 1999.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/parip.pdf.
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Long - Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect.” Child
Welfare Information Gateway, 2006. http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm.
3 Joseph Doyle, “Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of
Foster Care, 2008. http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_jpe_aug08.pdf.
4 Joseph Doyle, 2008.
5 Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Investing in Tomorrow: Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan Children and Family Services (Washington, D.C.: 2013).
http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/rl_cfsa_chapter_2014.pdf
6 Children’s Defense Fund, Children in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund, 2011).
http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/cits/2011/children-inthe-states-2011-dc.pdf.
7 Casey Family Programs, A Comparison of Urban Jurisdictions: Child Welfare and Demographic Indicators
(Washington, DC: 2011).
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/Doing%20Good/Urban_Comparisons_FY09.pdf.
8 Center for the Study of Social Policy, “LaShawn A. v. Gray Progress Report for the Period of July 1-December 31,
2011,” May 2011. http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/LaShawn-A-v-Gray-ProgressReport_May_21_2012.pdf
9 Government of the District of Columbia, Child and Family Services Agency, “Child and Family Services Agency
Performance Oversight, Fiscal Year 2011-12, Testimony of Brenda Donald, Acting Director,” 2011.
http://www.collaborativeconnectiondc.com/donaldtestimony.pdf.
10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption – FY 2002-FY2011 (Washington,
D.C.: 2012). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/trends_fostercare_adoption.pdf
11 Child and Family Services Agency, Government of the District of Columbia, “Public Oversight Hearing on Agency
Performance 10-11, Testimony of Roque R. Gerald, Interim Director,” 2011.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/Media/Testimonies/CFSA%20FY10%20oversight%20testimony%20F
INAL.pdf.
12 Child and Family Services Agency, “Children and Youth CFSA Serves,” April 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/LaShawn%20Data/FS%2002%20Child%20Stats%20Apr%202012.pdf
13 Joseph Doyle, 2008.
14 Government of the District of Columbia, Child and Family Services Agency, “Child and Family Services Agency
Performance Oversight, Fiscal Year 2011-12, Testimony of Brenda Donald, Acting Director,” 2011.
15 DC Action for Children, “A Tale of Three Cities: What the Census Says About the District and How We Must
Respond,” May 2011, http://www.dcactionforchildren.org/sites/default/files/CensusBrief4-27-11%20FINAL.pdf.
16 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012,
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
17 DC Action for Children, "Substantiated Cases of Abuse and Neglect by Ward (Number) - 2009," Accessed October
2012. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?state=DC&ind=4799.
18 DC Action for Children, "Substantiated Cases of Abuse and Neglect by Ward (Number) - 2009," Accessed October
2012.
19 Child and Family Services Agency, 2009 Needs Assessment Report (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/CFSA-2009-Needs-Assessment.pdf
20 Neighborhood Info D.C., “Neighborhood Profiles,” accessed November 2012.
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/profiles.html
1

Child and Family Services Agency, 2009 Needs Assessment Report (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/CFSA-2009-Needs-Assessment.pdf
22 Harold Briggs and Bown McBeath, “Infusing Culture into Practice: Developing and Implementing Evidence-Based
Mental Health Services for African American Foster Youth,” Child Welfare 89, no.1 (2010). 31-60.
23 Harold Briggs and Bown McBeath, 2010.
24 Harold Briggs and Bown McBeath, 2010.
25 D.C. Department of Rehabilitative Services, 2011.
26 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, “Internalizing Symptoms Linking
Youths’ Maltreatment and Delinquent Behavior,” Child Welfare 90, no.3 (2011): 69-89.
27 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
28 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
29 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
30 Robert Pynoos, John Fairbank and Christine James-Brown, “Effectively Addressing the Impact of Child Traumatic
Stress in Child Welfare,” Child Welfare 90, no.6 (2011): 11-17.
31 Robert Pynoos, John Fairbank and Christine James-Brown, “Effectively Addressing the Impact of Child Traumatic
Stress in Child Welfare,” Child Welfare 90, no.6 (2011): 11-17.
32 Robert Pynoos, John Fairbank and Christine James-Brown, 2011.
33 Johanna Greeson, et al., “Complex Trauma and Mental Health in Children and Adolescents Placed in Foster Care:
Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network,” Child Welfare 90, no.6 (2011): 91-108.
34 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
35 Johanna Greeson, et al., 2011.
36 Robert Pynoos, John Fairbank and Christine James-Brown, 2011.
37 Johanna Greeson, et al., 2011.
38 Johanna Greeson, et al., 2011.
39 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
40 Daniel Coleman and Lisa Stewart, “Prevalence and Impact of Childhood Maltreatment in Incarcerated Youth,”
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 80, no.3 (2010): 343-349.
41 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
42 Daniel Coleman and Lisa Stewart, 2010.
43 Kimberly Bender, Ariana Postlewait, Sanna Thompson and David Springer, 2011.
44 David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Sherry Hamby and Richard Ormrod, Polyvictimization: Children’s Exposure to
Multiple Types of Violence, Crimes, and Abuse,(Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, 2011).
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/235504.pdf.
45 David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Sherry Hamby and Richard Ormrod, 2011.
46 David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Sherry Hamby and Richard Ormrod, 2011.
47 David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Sherry Hamby and Richard Ormrod, 2011.
48 Wen-Hsu Lin, John Cochran and Thomas Mieczkowski, “Direct and Vicarious Violent Victimization and Juvenile
Delinquency: An Application of General Strain Theory,” Sociological Inquiry 81, no.2 (2011): 195-222.
49 Wen-Hsu Lin, John Cochran and Thomas Mieczkowski, 2011.
50 District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, “Child Fatalities, 2009: Statistics, Analyses and
Recommendations,” August 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/CFSA%20PDF%20Files/About%20CFSA/Publications/2009%20Chil
d%20Fatality%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
51 District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, “Child Fatalities, 2009: Statistics, Analyses and
Recommendations,” August 2012.
52 District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, “Child Fatalities, 2009: Statistics, Analyses and
Recommendations,” August 2012.
53 Kimberly Bender, “The Mediating Effect of School Engagement in the Relationship between Youth Maltreatment
and Juvenile Delinquency,” Children & Schools 34, no.1 (2012): 37-48.
54 Kimberly Bender, 2012.
55 Kimberly Bender, 2012.
56 Paul Ashton, The Education of D.C. (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2012).
21

Kimberly Bender, 2012.
Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Educational Services,” October 2010.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Policy/CFSA+Policy+Manual+Table+of+Contents/Program+Policies/Progra
m+-+Educational+Services.
59 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Educational Services,” October 2010.
60 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Educational Services,” October 2010.
61 University of California, Davis, Extension, The Center for Human Services, “A Literature Review of Placement
Stability in Child Welfare Service: Issues, Concerns, Outcomes, and Future Directions,” (Davis, CA: UC Davis, 2008).
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/PlacementStability.pdf.
62 University of California, Davis, Extension, The Center for Human Services, 2008.
63 University of California, Davis, Extension, The Center for Human Services, 2008.
64 University of California, Davis, Extension, The Center for Human Services, 2008.
65 Child and Family Services Agency, “FY 2012 Oversight Questions to the Child and Family Services Agency,”
February 2012.
66 University of California, Davis, Extension, The Center for Human Services, 2008.
67 Leah Bromfield, Alister Lamont, Robyn Parker and Briony Horsfall, “Issues for the Safety and Wellbeing of
Children in Families with Multiple and Complex Problems,” Family Matters 88, no.33 (2010): 76-77.
68 Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Evelyn Wei, D. Lynn Smith and Rolf Loeber, “Which Family and Demographic Factors
are Related to Both Maltreatment and Persistent Serious Juvenile Delinquency?” Children’s Services: Social Policy,
Research and Practice 5, no.4 (2002). 261-272.
69 Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Evelyn Wei, D. Lynn Smith and Rolf Loeber, 2002.
70 Patricia Kohl, Jacqueline Kagotho and Dixon Dixon, “Parenting Practices Among Depressed Mothers in the Child
Welfare System, Social Work Research 35, no.4 (2011): 215-225.
71 Patricia Kohl, Jacqueline Kagotho and Dixon Dixon, 2011.
72 Patricia Kohl, Jacqueline Kagotho and Dixon Dixon, 2011.
73 Claude Chemtob, Sascha Griffing, Erika Tullberg, Elizabeth Roberts and Peggy Ellis, “Screening for Trauma
Exposure, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Symptoms among Mothers Receiving Child Welfare
Preventive Services,” Child Welfare 90, no.6 (2011): 109-127.
74 Claude Chemtob, Sascha Griffing, Erika Tullberg, Elizabeth Roberts and Peggy Ellis, 2011.
75 Claude Chemtob, Sascha Griffing, Erika Tullberg, Elizabeth Roberts and Peggy Ellis, 2011.
76 Claude Chemtob, Sascha Griffing, Erika Tullberg, Elizabeth Roberts and Peggy Ellis, 2011.
77 Arazais Oliveros, and Joan Kaufman, “Addressing Substance Abuse Treatment Needs of Parents Involved with the
Child Welfare System,” Child Welfare 90, no.1 (2011): 25-41.
78 Arazais Oliveros, and Joan Kaufman, 2011.
79 Arazais Oliveros, and Joan Kaufman, 2011.
80 Arazais Oliveros, and Joan Kaufman, 2011.
81 Government of the District of Columbia, Child and Family Services Agency, “Child and Family Services Agency
Performance Oversight, Fiscal Year 2011-12, Testimony of Brenda Donald, Acting Director,” 2011,
http://www.collaborativeconnectiondc.com/donaldtestimony.pdf.
82 Government of the District of Columbia, Child and Family Services Agency, “Child and Family Services Agency
Performance Oversight, Fiscal Year 2011-12, Testimony of Brenda Donald, Acting Director,” 2011.
83 Child and Family Services Agency, “Annual Public Report FY2011,” 2011,
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Who+We+Are/Publications/Reports/Annual+Report+2011/Annual+Report+
2011.
84 Center for Social Policy and Research, “Children, Families and the Criminal Justice System,” (Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois at Chicago, 2007). http://fcnetwork.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/what_we_know_now.pdf
85 Justice Policy Institute, “A Capitol Concern: The disproportionate Impact of the Justice System on Low-Income
Communities in DC,” July 2012,
http://www.naco.org/programs/csd/Documents/Criminal%20Justice/A%20Capitol%20Concern.pdf.
86 The Sentencing Project, “Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, Trends 1991-2007,” February 2009,
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_incarceratedparents.pdf.
87 Steve Christian, “Children of Incarcerated Parents,” National Conference of State Legislatures, March 2009.
57
58

Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, Addressing the Needs of MultiSystem Youth: Strengthening the Connection Between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: The Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform, 2012). http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/msy/AddressingtheNeedsofMultiSystemYouth.pdf.
89 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
90 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012,
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
91 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
92 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
93 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
94 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012,
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
95 D.C. Department of Rehabilitation Services, “Trends in DYRS Residential Treatment Center usage,” December
2012. http://dyrs.dc.gov/DC/DYRS/Publication%20Files/Trends%20in%20DYRS%20RTC%20Usagev2.pdf.
96 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012,
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
97 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012.
98 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012.
99 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
100 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
101 Council of the District of Columbia,“FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency”, February 2012.
102 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect,” 2008.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/differential_responsea.cfm.
103 Child and Family Services Agency, “What’s the Difference in Differential Response?” September 2011.
104 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Differential Response to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect,” 2008.
105 Child and Family Services Agency, “Partnering Together,” 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Support+the+Safety+Net/Partnering+Together.
106 Triple P America, “The Triple P System,” 2012. http://www.triplep-america.com/pages/triplep_system/index.html.
107 Ronald Prinz, Matthew Sanders, Cheri Shapiro, Daniel Whitaker and John Lutzker, “Population-Based Prevention
of Child Maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P System Population Trial,” Prevention Science Journal (2009).
108 Ronald Prinz, Matthew Sanders, Cheri Shapiro, Daniel Whitaker and John Lutzker, 2009.
109 Ronald Prinz, Matthew Sanders, Cheri Shapiro, Daniel Whitaker and John Lutzker, 2009.
110 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Nurse Family Partnerships for Low-Income Families,” April 2012.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/3900.NFP.pdf.
111 Nurse Family Partnership, “Proven Results,” 2012, http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/proven-results.
112 David Olds, et al., “Long-term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect,”
The Journal of the American Medical Association 278, no.8 (1997): 637-643.
113 David Olds, et al., 1998.
114 Center for the Improvement of Child Caring, “CICC’s Effective Black Parenting Program,” accessed October 2012.
http://www.ciccparenting.org/EffBlackParentingDesc.aspx.
115 Center for the Improvement of Child Caring, “CICC’s Effective Black Parenting Program,” accessed October 2012.
116 Center for the Improvement of Child Caring, “CICC’s Effective Black Parenting Program,” accessed October 2012.
117 Center for the Improvement of Child Caring, “CICC’s Effective Black Parenting Program,” accessed October 2012.
118 Center for the Improvement of Child Caring, “CICC’s Effective Black Parenting Program,” accessed October 2012.
119 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program: An Evidence-Based Parent Training Program,”
accessed October 2012. http://www.illinoismentalhealthcollaborative.com/provider/2010_EBP/CPP_EvidenceBased_Parent_Training_Program.pdf.
88

Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program,” 2002.
http://www.chicagoparentprogram.org/blog/the-chicago-parent-program.
121 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program,” 2002.
122 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program,” 2002.
123 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program,” 2002.
124 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program: An Evidence-Based Parent Training Program,”
accessed October 2012.
125 Rush University Medical Center, “The Chicago Parent Program: An Evidence-Based Parent Training Program,”
accessed October 2012.
126 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
127 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
128 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
129 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
130 Center for the Study of Social Policy, “The Strengthening Families Approach,” accessed October 2012.
http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/the-basics/the-strengthening-families-approach.
131 Center for the Study of Social Policy, “The Strengthening Families Approach,” accessed October 2012.
132 Center for the Study of Social Policy, “The Strengthening Families Approach,” accessed October 2012.
133 Center for the Study of Social Policy, “The Strengthening Families Approach,” accessed October 2012.
134 D.C. government, “A Call to Action: The District of Columbia’s First Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Plan,”
April 2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/30595217/Prevention-Plan-FINAL-April-2010.
135 Mindy Good, Director of Communications, Children and Family Services Agency, personal correspondence
February 1, 2013
136 Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.:
2012). http://dyrs.dc.gov/DC/DYRS/Publication%20Files/2011%20DYRS%20Annual%20Performance%20Report.pdf
137 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Actions,” April 2012. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-04-1201.pdf.
138 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Actions,” April 2012. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/12-04-1201.pdf.
139 Children’s Law Center, “Testimony before the District of Columbia Council Committee on Human Services, April
22, 2012, Child and Family Service Agency FY 2013 Budget Hearing,” April 2012.
http://www.childrenslawcenter.org/sites/default/files/clc/040212%20Testimony-CFSA%20budget.pdf.
140 Kathleen Noonan, et al., “Cross-system Barriers to Educational Success for Children in Foster Care: The Front Line
Perspective,” Children & Youth Services Review 34, no.2 (2012): 403-408.
141 Kimberly Bender, “The Mediating Effect of School Engagement in the Relationship between Youth Maltreatment
and Juvenile Delinquency,” Children & Schools 34, no.1 (2012): 37-48.
142 Children’s Defense Fund, “Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act Will Improve
Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care,” October 2008. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-researchdata-publications/data/FCSIAA-summary.pdf.
143 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
144 Denise Herz, Philip Lee, Lorrie Lutz, Macon Stewart, John Tuell and Janet Wiig, 2012.
145 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Differential Response to Reports of Abuse and Neglect,” February 2008.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/differential_response/differential_response.pdf.
146 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Differential Response to Reports of Abuse and Neglect,” February 2008.
147 Children’s Law Center, “Testimony before the District of Columbia Council Committee on Human Services, April
22, 2012, Child and Family Service Agency FY 2013 Budget Hearing,” April 2012.
148 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Policy/CFSA+Policy+Manual+Table+of+Contents/Program+Policies/Progra
m+-+Hotline.
149 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
150 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
151 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
152 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Hotline,” August 2012.
120

Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Investigations,” August 2011.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Policy/CFSA+Policy+Manual+Table+of+Contents/Program+Policies/Progra
m+-+Investigations.
154 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title-Investigations,” August 2011.
155 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/types/.
156 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
157 Child and Family Services Agency, “FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency,” February 2012.
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
158 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
159 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Who+We+Are/Publications/Reports/Annual+Report+2011/Annual+Report+
2011.
160 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
161 Child and Family Services Agency, “FY 2012 Oversight Responses to Questions to the Child and Family Services
Agency,” February 2012.
http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12agencyperformance_cfsa_responses.pdf.
162 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
163 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
164 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
165 Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Types of Out-of-Home Care,” accessed October 2012.
166 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/About+CFSA/Policy/CFSA+Policy+Manual+Table+of+Contents/Program+Policies/Progra
m+-+Establishing+the+Goal+of+APPLA.
167 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
168 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
169 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
170 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
171 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
172 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
173 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
174 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
175 Child and Family Services Agency, “Policy Title: Establishing the Goal of Alternative Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA),” June 2009.
176 District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Report 2011 (Washington, DC: Child
and Family Services Agency, 2012).
177 Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.
153

http://www.childrensrights.org/reform-campaigns/legal-cases/district-of-columbia/.

178

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

179

Children’s Rights, “LaShawn A. v. Gray,” accessed October 2012. http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-

content/uploads//2011/08/2011-08-24_dc_lashawn_fact_sheet.pdf.
180

Children’s Rights, “LaShawn A. v. Gray,” accessed October 2012. http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-

content/uploads//2011/08/2011-08-24_dc_lashawn_fact_sheet.pdf.
181

Children’s Rights, “LaShawn A. v. Gray,” accessed October 2012. http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-

content/uploads//2011/08/2011-08-24_dc_lashawn_fact_sheet.pdf.
182

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

183

District of Columbia Government Child and Family Services Agency, “Annual Public Report FY2012,” accessed

October 2012.
http://cfsa.dc.gov/DC/CFSA/Publication%20Files/CFSA%20PDF%20Files/About%20CFSA/Publications/CFSA_Annua
l_Public_Report_FINAL.pdf.
184

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

185

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

186

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

187

Children’s Rights, “D.C. Still Failing to Provide Many Fundamental Services to Children in Foster Care, Says New

Progress Report.” May 2011. http://www.childrensrights.org/news-events/press/dc-still-failing-to-provide-manyfundamental-services-to-children-in-foster-care-says-new-progress-report/
188

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

189

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

190

Child Welfare League of America,”Moving Forward After Tragedy,” July 2009.

http://www.cwla.org/voice/0907national.htm.
191

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

192

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

193

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

194

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

195

Children’s Rights, “District of Columbia (LaShawn v. Gray),” accessed October 2012.

196

Center for the Study of Social Policy, “LaShawn A. v. Gray Progress Report for the Period July 1-December 31,

2011,” May 2012. http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/LaShawn-A-v-Gray-ProgressReport_May_21_2012.pdf.

This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the Public Welfare
Foundation.
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) would like to express gratitude to Eduardo Ferrer of D.C. Lawyers for
Youth, Rebecca Brink of the Children’s Law Center and Debra Porchia-Usher, James Campbell and
Mindy Good of D.C.’s Child and Family Services Agency for their insight into the operations and
institutions of the District of Columbia.
JPI would also like to thank Karina Watts for her significant research support.
JPI staff includes Paul Ashton, Spike Bradford, Zerline Hughes, Adwoa Masozi, Melissa Neal, Kellie
Shaw and Keith Wallington.

Katie is a second year Master of Social Work candidate at Howard University with concentrations in
Criminal Justice and Communities, Administration and Policy Practice. She completed her first year
graduate field placement at Child and Family Services Agency in the In-Home and Permanency
Administration between 2011 and 2012. She is currently completing her second year graduate field
placement at JPI. Katie recently co-founded a nonprofit agency dedicated to individual and systemic
anti-oppression work and developed and launched an after-school hip-hop and entrepreneurship
program at a D.C. public high school in Ward 7. She participates in Students Against Mass
Incarceration at Howard University and volunteers at East of the River Youth Court D.C., a diversion
program for first time youth offenders in Wards 7 and 8. Katie received her undergraduate degree in
Business Administration from the University of Washington.

Prior to joining JPI, Paul spent time as a sexual assault victim advocate and conducting research
examining intimate partner violence in the LGBT community. Paul’s experience with victim issues led
him to author JPI’s white paper: Moving Toward a Public Safety Paradigm: A Roundtable Discussion on
Victims and Criminal Justice Reform. He is also the author of Gaming the System: How the Political
Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies. Paul has also served on the
policy committee of the Delaware HIV Consortium – working to educate the Delaware State
Legislature on the need for increased funding to address homelessness and HIV. Paul received his
Bachelor's Degree in Criminology from The Ohio State University and a Master's Degree in
Criminology from the University of Delaware.

Reducing the use of incarceration and the justice system and promoting policies
that improve the well‐being of all people and communities.

1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
TEL (202) 558-7974
FAX (202) 558-7978
WWW.JUSTICEPOLICY.ORG