Performance Oversight Hearing
Child and Family Services Agency / Office of the Ombudsperson for Children
January 28, 2026
Committee on Youth Affairs
Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker, Chairperson
Testimony of Joshua Miller, PhD
Research & Advocacy Director, Open City Advocates
Good afternoon. My name is Joshua Miller, and I’m the Research & Advocacy Director at Open City Advocates.
We remain concerned by the defunding of the Office of Independent Juvenile Justice Facilities Oversight. For years, Open City Advocates has called for independent oversight of youth committed to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services through the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Today we repeat that call: either restore funding for OIJJFO to continue its work, or extend the Ombudsman for Children’s jurisdiction to fill the gap.
Here is why oversight matters.
Under DYRS care, some youth wait in limbo, warehoused while the agency figures out where to place them. Other youth are sent hundreds of miles away to supposedly specialized facilities, making family visits nearly impossible. The staff in those out-of-state facilities often hold our city’s youth in contempt. Some of these surrogate caregivers are openly racist and enjoy using despicable racial slurs, then documenting a child’s responsive outrage as evidence of their pathology.
Even when a child’s case moves smoothly, the agency’s transition planning is inadequate. Release planning comes late or not at all. Community placement agreements are cookie-cutter rather than individualized. If a parent did this, we would call it neglect. What is it when the system does it?
DYRS rarely gets the children in its care to school on time. Some go days or even weeks without attending school at all, receiving paper packets instead of classroom instruction. When youth are released, DYRS usually fails to plan for their transition back to community schools. If a parent did this, we would call it educational neglect.
Youth needing mental health treatment or substance abuse services wait weeks or months. When treatment is provided, it is often generic rather than tailored to individual needs. The Office of Independent Juvenile Justice Facilities Oversight found that 73 percent of youth with identified substance use histories received no evidence-based treatment. Suicide risks are ignored. The agency’s own staff say that it focuses on secure detention, not treatment. If a parent did this, we would call it medical neglect.
Even when judged merely for its efforts at secure detention and safe custody, the agency fails. DYRS staff know that some youth are angry with others. Rather than intervening, some incite violent incidents, encourage youth to nurture beefs, and offer treats and perks for beating other children. Sometimes they just let kids run free and attack each other. If a parent did this, we would call it abuse.
When a child is committed to DYRS, the agency acts in loco parentis. It takes on obligations that previously fell to parents.
The staff witnessing these conditions are mandatory reporters. But who do you call when the problem is the system itself?
We call for external oversight. If CFSA investigated DYRS, they’d be forced to take custody of these kids away from their fellow public employees.
But the Ombudsman for Children only has jurisdiction over DYRS-committed youth if they’re dual-jacketed with an active CFSA case, which only happens if there’s a problem with their biological parents or legal caregivers. For the majority of DYRS-committed youth, the Ombuds office has no access at all.
We are asking you to fix that.