<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:92140.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-740
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4850/S. 2826
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND OTHER ACTIVITIES CHARGEABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART AGAINST
THE REVENUES OF SAID DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
District of Columbia
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-140 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Dietrich
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Page
District of Columbia: Courts..................................... 1
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
District of Columbia:
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency............... 39
Public Defender Service...................................... 85
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
District of Columbia............................................. 103
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
Also present: Ms. Norton and Senator Strauss.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Courts
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS; CHAIR, JOINT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
opening statement of senator mike de wine
Senator DeWine. Welcome, everyone. We have with us this
morning two members of the Kiev City Council. Let me see if I
can do the pronunciation, Yurly Zumko and Andre Radrewski. If
you could stand, in the back. Thank you very much for joining
us. I am glad to have you with us.
I hope you enjoy your stay with us today; I hope we do not
bore you too much with our hearing today.
This hearing today will come to order. We will convene the
first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of
Columbia.
I want to take this opportunity to, again, thank Senator
Landrieu, our subcommittee's Ranking Member and to recognize
her continued commitment to improving life for the residents of
this Nation. It is good to be with you again.
Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
on a number of important issues for our Nation's Capital, and I
am sure that we will continue to work together this year as we
work on the fiscal year 2005 D.C. Appropriations Bill.
Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget
request for the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997, the Federal Government is required to finance the
District of Columbia Courts.
The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in
fiscal year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level. I understand that the lion's share of
this increase is to be used to restore the now vacant Old
Courthouse, so that it can house the Court of Appeals, which in
turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie Courthouse for a
safe, family-friendly Family Court.
The renovation of the Old Courthouse also will be an
important historical preservation achievement. This building,
the fourth oldest in the District of Columbia, has great
historic significance. It is where President Lincoln's first
inaugural ball was held, and where his assassination
conspirators were tried and convicted.
For a time, the building served as a hospital for the
wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where Frederick
Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
law.
The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very
historic building to be restored to its former majesty, while
also configuring it to be used to serve the people of the
District as a working courthouse.
I am pleased that Judge Wagner, Judge King followed the
advice of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB
to support these construction efforts. I congratulate them for
it. It is to their credit that the President has included
adequate funding for these important Capital projects in his
budget request.
I must say, however, that I am concerned to know that court
officials and representatives of the National Law Enforcement
Museum Fund have, unfortunately, been unable to reach an
agreement on the design of their shared space in Judiciary
Square.
On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the Courts
reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse.
On the other hand, Congress authorized the National Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund to build an underground Law
Enforcement Museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old
Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the Courts and the Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement that
complies with both mandates. I am sure that they will be able
to do this.
I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund
fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and the
design of the plaza area, which will provide the entryway to
both buildings. This disagreement has apparently been going on
for almost a year, with no resolution in sight.
I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in
delays to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased
construction costs.
As chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100
percent of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to
ensure that there are no construction cost overruns involving
Federal funds.
As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will
present the Courts' overall budget request, and then I will ask
our witnesses from the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund,
the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of
Fine Arts to join the panel to discuss the design disagreement,
which I have just mentioned.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Witnesses will be, of course, be limited to 5 minutes for
their oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be
placed in the record in their entirety.
[The statement follows]:
Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine
Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today I am convening
the first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of Columbia.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Landrieu, our
subcommittee's Ranking Member, and to recognize her continued
commitment to improving life for the residents of the District of
Columbia. Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
on a number of important issues for our Nation's capital, and I am sure
that we will continue to reach across the aisle as we begin work on the
fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget request for
the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal
Government is required to finance the District of Columbia Courts.
The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in fiscal
year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level. I understand that the lion's share of this increase will be used
to restore the now-vacant Old Courthouse so that it can house the Court
of Appeals, which, in turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie
Courthouse for a safe, family-friendly Family Court. The renovation of
the Old Courthouse also will be an important historic preservation
achievement. This building--the 4th oldest in the District of
Columbia--has great historic significance. It is where President
Lincoln's first inaugural ball was held and where his assassination
conspirators were tried and convicted. For a time, the building served
as a hospital for wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where
Frederick Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
law.
The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very historic
building to be restored to its former majesty, while also configuring
it to be used to serve the people of the District as a working
courthouse.
I am pleased that Judge Wagner and Judge King followed the advice
of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB to support these
construction efforts. It is to their credit that the President has
included adequate funding for these important capital projects in his
budget request. I am concerned, however, to know that Court officials
and representatives of the National Law Enforcement Museum Fund have
been unable to reach an agreement on the design of their shared space
in Judiciary Square. On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the
Courts reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse. On the
other hand, Congress authorized the National Law Enforcement Memorial
Fund to build an underground Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land
that partially abuts the Old Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the
Courts and the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement
that complies with both mandates.
I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund fundamentally
disagree on the level of construction and the design of the plaza area,
which will provide the entryway to both buildings. This disagreement
has apparently been going on for almost a year, with no resolution in
sight. I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in delays
to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased construction
costs. As Chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100 percent
of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to ensure that there
are no construction cost overruns involving Federal funds.
As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will present the
Courts' overall budget request, then I will ask our witnesses from the
National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, the National Capital Planning
Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts to join the panel to
discuss the design disagreement which I have mentioned.
Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks.
Copies of all written statements will be placed in the Record in their
entirety.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
welcome to our distinguished panelists this morning, and
welcome to all of our guests.
I want to just reiterate again how much of a pleasure it is
for me to work with Senator DeWine. We have worked as a
partnership now for several years and we can see such progress,
particularly in the area that we are going to be discussing
this morning, the renovation and development of Judiciary
Square, the establishment of a very family-friendly or child-
centered Family Court that will service not only the District,
but serve as a model for the Nation.
We commend you all for the work that is ongoing, and we
look forward to continuing the partnership in that regard.
I also express, again, the importance, at least from our
perspective, Mr. Chairman, of the focus on establishing the new
Family Court, because not only are we establishing a new
building that is operational and conducive to good judgments
and outcomes, but through the partnership of this committee, it
can help to build a new initiative in the City that strengthens
families, protects children from harm and expedites life
changing and sometimes threatening decisions, to make sure that
families and the well-being of children are of paramount
importance for us, for this committee.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So with that, I will just put the rest of my statement in
the record. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the focus this
morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
As the first hearing of year I wanted to join my Chairman, Mr.
DeWine in welcoming the witnesses and sharing a brief philosophy on our
leadership of this committee and our goals. The D.C. Appropriations
bill, under my chairmanship and continuing with Mr. DeWine, has charted
a course to support targeted investments in the District. Congress is
partnering with the District by enhancing security and emergency
preparedness; strengthening schools and education standards; supporting
the Family Court and child welfare. These three areas support the
District's Mayor Anthony Williams' goal to revitalize neighborhoods and
increase the population of the city by 100,000 people in the next 10
years. People want good schools and dynamic, safe neighborhoods. This
committee will continue this partnership, following on our investments
in the Family Court and child services and development of excellent
charter schools.
Today's hearing is focused on one of our Federal agencies, the D.C.
Courts to discuss their fiscal year 2005 budget request. In addition,
we have asked the National Capital Planning Commission, Commission on
Fine Arts, and the National Law Enforcement Museum to join us to
discuss the Judiciary Square Master Plan and we appreciate their
attendance. The Courts are really the core of the D.C. Appropriations
bill and the center of our attention. This subcommittee exercises the
``State'' oversight function for the District, similar to how other
cities and States interact.
As one of the central functions transferred to the Federal
Government in the 1997 Revitalization Act, the Courts serve a unique
role to serve the public and be accountable to the Congress. I believe
this Court, lead by Chief Judge King and Chief Judge Wagner has met
this responsibility aptly. The fiscal year 2005 budget reflects a
commitment to improved management of the Courts and justification for
increased budget authority.
The focus of this year's budget is infrastructure, and I commend
the Courts for making this a priority. In addition, I am pleased to see
over the 3 years that I have been on this committee that the Courts
have undertaken facilities Master Planning process in close
consultation with the Federal oversight panels. I look forward to a
presentation on the Master Plan for Judiciary Square and supporting the
Courts' needs for implementing this plan. Major renovation and
expansion of the Courts' facilities is important to this committee;
however we want to examine the process undertaken to prioritize these
projects and decisions made to focus on construction/renovation rather
than rehabilitation of existing buildings. I understand that there are
serious maintenance issues in the current facilities, such as
inadequate heating and air conditioning, poor lavatories, and an
unfriendly public space.
This committee has invested in regular maintenance at levels much
higher than our predecessors. I think much progress has been made;
however I understand the need for the focus to shift now to long term
capital projects, such as constructing a new Family Court and
completing the restoration of the Old Courthouse. These are ``marquee''
projects which receive a great deal of attention from Congress and the
community, but they are also much more costly and therefore take a
greater bite out of the budget. I recognize their importance but there
is also a balance with ongoing maintenance and making improvements to
public space while rehabilitation projects are underway. I would be
interested to hear your thoughts on balancing these capital
infrastructure needs.
The committee is also joined by witnesses from the National Capital
Planning Commission, Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Law
Enforcement Museum to discuss judiciary square master planning. The
committee is particularly concerned with lack of coordination and
cooperation with the Museum. Federal dollars and oversight is directing
the development of Judiciary Square. It is critical that we can
appropriately direct resources to the moving priorities that also
reflect the needs of the District. The committee has been actively
engaged in creation of the family court and need for a dedicated space
for children and families. Progress of the family court construction is
dependent on agreement of the law enforcement museum and Old
Courthouse, freeing up space in the main Courthouse. I look forward to
hearing progress of the various projects and options for moving forward
with restoration of the square to the original historic design.
I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to working to
improve the appearance and utility of Judiciary Square.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.
Senator Strauss has provided a statement to be included for the
record as well.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on the
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, and an attorney who practices in our local courts, I would
like to thank you for holding this hearing this morning, and for
considering the needs of the people in the District of Columbia.
I fully support the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request for the
District of Columbia Courts. It is vital that the District of Columbia
Court System be fully funded in the amount proposed by the courts. As
the District of Columbia Senator, I myself cannot vote on this
appropriation. I am limited to merely asking you to support their
requests.
As in the past, it appears that the President's request is
significantly less than the amount requested by our judicial
institutions. I find this unfortunate. Unlike citizens of any other
jurisdiction, we lack the legal rights to make these funding decisions
on our own. As I have stated before, unless the local courts are fully
funded by this subcommittee and the Congress, they will not be fully
funded. This is not just an issue of simply allocating appropriations,
but for the residents of our Nation's Capital, an issue of fundamental
justice.
There is a compelling argument to be made that District of Columbia
should not have to look to Congress for the sole financial support of
its courts. I for one agree with that position. This is again a case
where the many limits on the District of Columbia's ability to have
self-government adversely impact the taxpayers of your own States. For
the record, if Congress would simply grant the District of Columbia's
petition for Statehood, the restrictions on our revenue-raising ability
would be lifted and we could fund our court system ourselves and over
$260 million can be returned to the Federal treasury. I have made this
argument case many times before many committees of this body. I do not
intend to discuss D.C. Statehood here today because the unfortunate
truth is that while this status quo is maintained, it is absolutely
essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court System, and I am
obligated to support that appropriation.
The President is requesting $225 million for the District of
Columbia Courts for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $41.5 million to
the Defender Services. The Courts themselves are requesting $272.08
million for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $50.5 million for Defender
Services. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
Columbia Courts furthers the Courts developments by building upon prior
achievements, and supports the Courts' commitment to serve the citizens
of the District of Columbia. The D.C. Courts will be more empowered to
fulfill this commitment by having the necessary funds to do so, and
will be extremely limited in their abilities if they do not.
In order for the District of Columbia Courts to continue to provide
the highest level of justice to the citizens of the District of
Columbia, it is crucial that they receive additional resources in the
fiscal year 2005. The Court's requests command considerable capital
investments in facilities, infrastructure, security, and technology, as
well as operational investments to enhance the administration of
justice and service to the public. If the courts are unable to obtain
additional capital resources, The Moultrie Courthouse and the
District's historic Old Courthouse, along with Buildings A and B, will
continue to deteriorate; the Courts' information technology will fail;
and needed security measures and equipment will not be installed,
putting the Courts' buildings and the public at risk.
I recognize that it can be tempting to refer to the increase of
funds allotted to the District of Columbia Courts by the President in
his request between 2004 and 2005 and conclude that the Court's needs
have been met. I urge you to look past this deceiving increase. The
Office of Management and Budget generated marks are inadequate to meet
the needs of the District of Columbia Courts, and need to be considered
a floor and not a ceiling for purposes of the fiscal year 2005 budget.
I realize the President has other priorities, but the District of
Columbia Courts are in dire need of revenue for program enhancements
and physical improvements. The budget requests they have submitted are
reasonable.
The current and future needs that will be met by the budget
proposal submitted by the District of Columbia Courts are diverse. They
include investing in human resources, broadening access to justice and
service to the public, promoting competence, professionalism and
civility, improving court facilities and technology, enhancing public
security, and strengthening services to families. In this hearing, the
witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that they request regarding
the aforementioned capital improvements for the fiscal year 2005. With
the cooperation of and significant input from General Services
Administration, the District of Columbia Courts previously proposed a
Master Plan for Facilities. The fiscal year 2005 capital request
reflects the significant research and planning included in this Master
Plan. It is essential that the Courts receive the funds needed to
complete this three-part plan in order to ensure the health, safety,
and quality of court facilities and begin to address court space needs.
Let me briefly address whatever conflicting design issues which may
or may not exist between the D.C. Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Fund. I am pleased that the D.C. Courts recently submitted
a viable design that will simultaneously comply with Federal law and
address the concerns of the Memorial Fund. The NCPC has encouraged the
Memorial Fund to accept this resolution as a sound starting point for
development, so that this project does not exceed budget restrictions,
thereby costing taxpayers more money in order to complete it. Judiciary
Square is the historic home of the D.C. Courts, and an original element
of the L'Enfant plan. I am not convinced that any significant conflict
between the plans of the two institutions exists. To the extent that
one does however, any competing needs must be resolved in favor of our
judicial branch. While the planned museum will no doubt enhance the
culture and aesthetics of our community, the Court System is a
necessary government function. While the Court System is ready now with
capital funding, the museum continues to solicit private contributions.
Any restriction of the Courts' mandatory operations would be a
disservice to the people of D.C., no matter how noble the symbolism of
the planned museum.
Notwithstanding the importance of fully funding the District of
Columbia Court System operating budget, I would like to ask the
subcommittee to focus your attention on the Defender Services line
item. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fully fund the Defender
Services line item, at the Court's mark. Presently, there is a mere $9
million difference in the two requests.\1\ In order to provide adequate
representation to families in crisis, we need to fully fund Defender
Services. I said it last year, and it remains true for fiscal year
2005, all of this Committee's accomplished work on restructuring the
Family Court is in jeopardy unless it has the resources to sustain it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President allotted $134 million for Court Operations while
the Courts requested $151.15 million, a difference of $17.15 million,
and the President allotted $93.4 million for Capital whereas the Courts
requested $120.93 million, a difference of $27.53 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that it is not the lawyers but the D.C. Court System
itself who is asking for an increase in the hourly rate paid to
attorneys that provide legal services to the indigent. Their request
includes those attorneys that work hard to represent abused and
neglected children in Family Court. The first fee increase in nearly a
decade was implemented in March of 2002 when it was adjusted to the
present rate of $65 per hour. In the fiscal year 2004 request, the
Courts recommend an incremental increase from the current $65 an hour
to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per hour. They are again
requesting the new rate this year.
This adjustment is important because the Federal Court's appointed
lawyers, literally across the street, already get paid $90 an hour to
do very similar work. Therefore, the disparity in pay between the two
systems creates a disincentive amongst the ``experienced'' attorneys to
work for Defender Services in the D.C. Court. I call on this
subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive by fully funding
the requested increase in the Defender Services line item in the bill
for fiscal year 2005, and then fight vigorously to defend that mark
against adverse House action if a conference committee fight becomes
necessary.
The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
most vulnerable citizens--its children. Although the budget provides
training for new attorneys, it is the experienced advocates who best
serve these special clients. We are in danger of losing our most
experienced child advocates due to budget cuts. A deficiency in funds
to Defender Services will compromise the safety of children in the
District of Columbia, so I am compelled to ask you to secure children's
safety in the District of Columbia by fully funding Defender Services.
In closing, I wish to sincerely thank the subcommittee for holding
this hearing. I know that this subcommittee has been firmly committed
to meeting its fiduciary obligations regarding appropriations for the
D.C. Courts. On behalf of my constituents, I thank you for all your
hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued
cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in this
subcommittee for our Court system. In particular, I commend Senators
DeWine and Landrieu for all the great work that they have done on the
important issue. Both of you have generally treated the D.C. Courts
with the same consideration as if they were courts in your own States.
Finally, let me thank Kendra Canape, Marco Berte and Brian Rauer of my
staff, for their assistance in the preparation of this testimony.
Senator DeWine. Judge King and Judge Wagner, thank you very
much for joining us. And we welcome your opening statements.
Let me just announce to everyone: We have a vote on the
Senate floor at 10:30. This committee will finish by 10:30
today one way or the other--so we will be able to do that. I am
sure there is plenty of time for us to do our business here
today.
Judge King.
Judge King. If Judge Wagner would start?
Senator DeWine. Oh, Judge Wagner, if you wish to start.
Judge Wagner. Yes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE ANNICE M. WAGNER
Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Landrieu, subcommittee members.
Senator DeWine. Good morning.
Judge Wagner. I want to thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing in my
capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia. Of course, Chief
Judge Rufus King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, is present and joins in this statement and will make
a statement of his own.
My remarks this morning will summarize only and highlight
our most critical priority, our capital budget request. I want
to thank you for including in the record the detailed written
statement we have submitted. I plan to focus my remarks on this
critical capital requirement.
The District of Columbia Courts, as you know, serve
approximately 10,000 members of the public each day. They
handle more than 200,000 cases each year, and employ a staff of
1,200 who directly serve the public, process cases, and provide
administrative support.
The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are
significant because they include funding for projects critical
to maintaining, preserving, and building safe and functional
courthouse facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of
the administration of justice in our Nation's Capital. Of
course, included in that is our Family Court, in which you both
have been so interested in the past.
Just under a year ago, we appeared before the subcommittee
to discuss our capital budget. We appreciate the support for
our Master Plan for Facilities that you, Mr. Chairman, in
particular, expressed at that time.
And we have taken your advice to heart, working very
closely with the administration during its review of the
Courts' capital budget request.
We are very gratified that the President has included in
his budget recommendations the major components of our
facilities renovation plans, particularly the restoration of
the Old Courthouse for use by the Court of Appeals, which is
the highest court in this jurisdiction. The restoration of this
architectural jewel, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, will not only serve to address the Courts' space
requirements, but it will also help to revitalize this
important public area in our Nation's Capital.
Since the most recent study for the restoration of the Old
Courthouse was completed in 1999, with the support of this
subcommittee, we have been successful in mothballing the
building, so to speak; that is, securing its roof and making it
watertight, to prevent further deterioration.
Last year, we procured a nationally renowned architectural
and engineering firm, Beyer Blinder Belle, to design the
restoration. Representatives of that firm are with us today,
Mr. John Belle and Mr. Hany Hassan. They are recognized as
bringing sensitive solutions to complex urban problems
requiring a delicate mix of appropriate historic restoration
and bold inventive design, and have received as a result
Presidential Design awards, this country's highest award for
public architecture. They have worked on such things as the
Grand Central Station and the Ellis Island restorations.
The design for the restoration of the Old Courthouse itself
is now at the 50 percent complete stage. We will be ready to
submit this design to the regulatory agencies next month, with
the final design to be completed in August of this year.
We are scheduled to begin construction in January 2005 and
plan to relocate the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to
the Old Courthouse when it is restored, and we expect that to
occur in January 2007.
This relocation is a critical path of interdependent
actions, which must occur in a complex sequence. That is, one
thing must occur so that other parts of the Court can be
accommodated, including the finalization of our Family Court
with its own separate entrance on C Street.
Formal review and approval by the regulatory agencies of
the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any
delay will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration
and delay implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for
Facilities, including the Family Court.
As you may know, both the Commission of Fine Arts and the
National Capital Planning Commission called for a coordinated
design agreement between the Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Museum, which is authorized to build an underground
museum with above-ground entrance pavilions on part of the
site.
At that time, it appeared that both projects were on
similar construction schedules. Subsequently, however, we have
learned that the museum construction may not commence until
sometime between 2009 and 2012, up to 5 years after the
completed Old Courthouse is scheduled to become the seat of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
But we are confident that our respective architects will
eventually reach a design for the plaza entranceway which is
agreeable to all parties. However, to address the area in the
interim between construction projects, our architects have
prepared a phase one design that completes the Old Courthouse
restoration without infringing on the area authorized for the
museum. Therefore, an agreement on plaza entranceway design
should not delay the restoration and use of this important
public building.
We recognize that coordination must continue with the
museum and that some modifications to the site may be
necessary.
Senator DeWine. Judge, if you could conclude, please, if
you could finish it.
Judge King. Sir, I do not know if it's appropriate, but I
would be happy to yield most of my time to Judge Wagner.
Senator DeWine. That would be fine.
Judge Wagner. Well, I have only a couple more statements to
make.
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Judge Wagner. The principles of aesthetics, urban design,
planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and
natural resources will be best served by permitting the
restoration of the historically and architecturally significant
Old Courthouse.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, I thank you for your support of our facilities and
plans and for this opportunity to discuss this very important
issue in our capital budget.
And Chief Judge King and I, we will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request of
the District of Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing
in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia. I also serve as Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Rufus G.
King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is also
present today and joins in this statement.
As you know, the Joint Committee is the policy-making body for the
District of Columbia Courts. By statute, its responsibilities include,
among others, general personnel policies, accounts and auditing,
procurement and disbursement, management of information systems and
reports, and submission of the Courts' annual budget request to the
President and Congress. This jurisdiction has a two-tier system
comprised of the D.C. Court of Appeals, our court of last resort, and
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court of
general jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative
support functions for our Courts are provided by what has come to be
known as the Court System.
My remarks this morning will summarize the request and highlight
our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me this morning,
along with Chief Judge King, are Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer
for the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee and Mr. Joseph
Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. We are prepared to answer
questions you may wish to pose concerning the budget request for the
Courts.
INTRODUCTION
Unquestionably, we live in a changing environment, facing new
challenges to our Nation, our Nation's capital, and our court system.
Whatever challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of
justice remains crucial to our way of life. The District of Columbia
Courts are committed to meeting these new challenges. We have been
steadfast in our mission, which is to protect rights and liberties,
uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly
and effectively in the Nation's Capital. Through our Strategic Plan,
finalized in fiscal year 2003, the Courts strive to enhance the
administration of justice; broaden access to justice and service to the
public; promote competence, professionalism, and civility; improve
court facilities and technology; and build trust and confidence. We
appreciate the support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes
possible the achievement of these goals for our community.
The Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound financial
management. We are undergoing significant changes to meet the
challenges of new technologies and are working to ensure that the
courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure. Although we
have requested funds for several important operating initiatives, the
critical focus of our fiscal year 2005 budget request is our
infrastructure.
To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2005, the
D.C. Courts are requesting $272,084,000 for Court operations and
capital improvements and $50,500,000 for the Defender Services account.
The Federal Payment request includes: $9,109,000 for the Court of
Appeals; $88,714,000 for the Superior Court; $53,331,000 for the Court
System; and $120,930,000 for capital improvements for courthouse
facilities.
The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in
fiscal year 2005. To build on past accomplishments and to support
essential services to the public in the Nation's capital, investment in
infrastructure, technology, and security are essential priorities. Only
by investing in these areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure
that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
up-to-date, that our information technology is capable of meeting
today's demands; and that the type of security necessary to protect our
citizens and our institution is in place. Focus on these capital areas
is particularly critical now to meet each of these needs and to ensure
that the quality of justice is not compromised.
The Courts' fiscal year 2005 request is a fiscally responsible
budget that continues to build on our achievements. We are particularly
proud of our progress with a number of recent initiatives. These
include:
--completion of the D.C. Courts' first Master Plan for Facilities
that evaluates the Courts' space needs and provides a blueprint
for space utilization, both short-term and long-term;
--submission of a draft Master Plan for Judiciary Square to the
National Capital Planning Commission, providing a plan for
revitalization and urban renewal of this historic area where
the Courts are located that dates to the original L'Enfant Plan
for the Nation's Capital;
--implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
Fiscal Year 2001; to date, the Courts have implemented the one
family one judge principle and transferred all required
children's cases to Family Court judges, created attorney
panels and practice standards for neglect and juvenile cases,
established a Family Treatment Court, piloted a Self-Help
Center for litigants with assistance from the bar, increased
resources devoted to family matters with the addition of nine
magistrate judges and three Family Court Judges, and opened the
Mayor's Services Liaison Center in the courthouse;
--completion and initial implementation of the Courts' 5-year
strategic plan, ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
Capital,'' following 9 months of extensive input from the
public, practicing attorneys and other stakeholders, detailed
analysis of community trends, and significant work by the
Courts' Strategic Planning Leadership Council;
--implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)
in Family Court substantially completed in 2003;
--creation of community-based courts, such as the criminal Community
Court and prostitution calendar, that seek to improve the
quality of community life by reducing nuisance crimes through
community-based sanctions and treatment and social services to
solve the underlying problems leading to the unlawful behavior;
and
--opening the Domestic Violence Satellite Center in Southeast, in
cooperation with community-based advocacy groups and District
agencies, to facilitate protection orders and services for
large number of domestic violence victims who reside east of
the Anacostia river.
CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 PRIORITY--INFRASTRUCTURE
The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000
courthouse visitors each day, handle more than 200,000 cases each year,
and employ a staff of 1,200 who directly serve the public, process the
cases, and provide administrative support. The District of Columbia
Courts are among the busiest and most productive court systems in the
United States.\1\ For example, the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia has the second highest number of cases filed per judge, and
the highest number of civil and criminal case filings per capita of all
unified State courts in the Nation. Our Court of Appeals has the
highest number of appeals filed per capita among all States with a
similar court structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Examining the Work of State Courts 2002: A National
Perspective from the Court Statistics Project'', by B. Ostrom, N.
Kauder, & R. LaFountain (National Center for State Courts 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are significant
because they include funding for projects critical to maintaining,
preserving, and building safe and functional courthouse facilities
essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice
in our Nation's Capital. To effectively meet these demands, the Courts'
facilities must be both functional and symbolic of their public
significance and character. In the 2005 capital budget, the Courts
highest budgetary priority seeks to comprehensively address these
issues.
In preparing the fiscal year 2005 capital budget request, the
Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to
performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions. The
Courts' request for capital funding is particularly critical in fiscal
year 2005 because of the need to (1) address essential public health
and safety conditions in our extremely busy court buildings; (2) meet
the courts' space shortage requirements for conducting business, which
includes our new Family Court, recently established by Congress; and
(3) avoid interruption of ongoing projects, as that typically results
in substantially increased costs.\2\ Significantly increased space
needs for court operations and inadequate capital funding in prior
years that necessitated maintenance deferral compel the Courts'
significant capital request for fiscal year 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, in the last decade, the estimated cost for
restoring the Old Courthouse has more than tripled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of
space in Judiciary Square. The Courts are responsible for four
buildings in the square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the
Moultrie Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B,
which are located between 4th and 5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W.
In addition, when the District government's payroll office vacates
Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will be
returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent studies by the General
Services Administration (GSA) have documented both the D.C. Courts'
severe space shortage \3\ and the inadequacy of the physical condition
of the Courts' facilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, 2002.
\4\ Building Evaluation Report, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities,
secured by the General Services Administration (GSA), defined a present
shortfall of 48,000 square feet of space, with a shortfall of 134,000
square feet projected in the next decade. GSA proposed to meet the
Courts' space needs through three mechanisms: (1) renovation of the Old
Courthouse for use by this jurisdiction's court of last resort, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which will free critically
needed space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations; (2)
construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, a major portion
of which will be developed as a separately accessible Family Court
facility; and (3) the future occupation of Building C, adjacent to the
Old Courthouse.
The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the
entire court system. We are very pleased that the President has
recognized the importance of this project by supporting it in his
budget recommendation. Investment in the restoration of the Old
Courthouse not only will improve efficiencies by co-locating the Court
of Appeals with all related support offices, but also will provide
37,000 square feet of space critically needed in the Moultrie
Courthouse for Superior Court and Family Court functions. The Moultrie
Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial
court. It has three separate and secure circulation systems--for
judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the
courthouse each day. The Moultrie Courthouse was completed in 1978 for
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and a 44 judge trial court,
the Superior Court. Today it is strained beyond capacity to accommodate
62 associate judges and 24 magistrate judges in the trial court, as
well as senior judges and support staff for the two courts. Essential
criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space
in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Courts have clearly outgrown the space
available in the Moultrie Courthouse. The space is inadequate for this
high volume court system to serve the public in the heavily populated
metropolitan area in and around our Nation's Capital. The Courts
require well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient operations
in a safe and healthy environment.
HISTORIC JUDICIARY SQUARE
The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
lend dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and, at
the same time, complicate somewhat efforts to upgrade or alter the
structures within the square. As one of the original and remaining
historic green spaces identified in Pierre L'Enfant's plan for the
capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the
Nation's Capital.
The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest buildings in the
District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and
Francis Scott Key practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his
part in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The
architectural and historical significance of the Old Courthouse led to
its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
unique character of the building, together with its compact size, makes
it ideal for occupancy by the highest court of the District of
Columbia. At the same time, the structure is uninhabitable in its
current condition and requires extensive work to meet health and safety
building codes and to readapt it for use as a courthouse. Since it has
been vacated, and with the support of Congress, the Courts have been
able to take steps to prevent its further deterioration. The
restoration of the Old Courthouse for use as a functioning court
building will not only provide much needed space for the Courts, but it
will also impart new life to one of the most significant historic
buildings and precincts in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of
the Courts and benefit the community through an approach that
strengthens a public institution, restores a historic landmark, and
stimulates neighborhood economic activity.
Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930's, are situated
symmetrically along the view corridor comprised of the National
Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, and John Marshall Park and form
part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These
buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent years,
with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. The Superior
Court's two highest volume courtrooms, Small Claims and Landlord and
Tenant, moved into Building B in November 2003. This move has freed
space in the Moultrie Building needed immediately for the Family Court,
permitting the construction, scheduled to be complete in July of this
year, of three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized
case intake facility, a family-friendly waiting area, a separate
courthouse entrance, and District government liaison offices for family
matters.
The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, while not
historic, is also located along the view corridor and reinforces the
symmetry of Judiciary Square through its similar form and material to
the municipal building located across the John Marshall Plaza.
Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of
Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk's
offices, as previously described.
JUDICIARY SQUARE MASTER PLAN
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the
D.C. Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially an
urban design plan--before any construction could be commenced in the
area. The D.C. Courts have worked with all stakeholders on the Plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), the
Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department. A draft Judiciary
Square Master Plan was submitted to the NCPC in June 2003 and
subsequently approved in August 2003. We plan to submit the finalized
Judiciary Square Master Plan next month, in March 2004.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan integrates the facilities
development program of the Courts into a rapidly changing and publicly
oriented area of the District. The Plan resolves important technical
issues related to access, service, circulation, and security while re-
establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ``City of
Washington.'' It provides a comprehensive framework for project
implementation and lays the groundwork for the regulatory approval
process with the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Historic
Preservation, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, and the
District of Columbia Department of Transportation, among others.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan recommends (1) re-introduction of
landscaped green space around court buildings and the construction of
secure underground parking garages for the Courts' vehicles now parked
in surface lots; (2) integration of a new service area, security
features and landscape concept; and (3) coordination of the Courts'
development with development of the National Law Enforcement Officers
Museum by the Memorial Fund.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of
one of the last original green spaces in the District of Columbia
awaiting revitalization, incorporating areas where the public can
gather and creating a campus-like environment where citizens can feel
safe and secure. The Judiciary Square Master Plan will be of great
benefit to the City of Washington.
MASTER PLAN FOR FACILITIES
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
projects since fiscal year 1999, when the Courts assumed responsibility
for our capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works.
In 1999, GSA produced a pre-design study for the renovation of the Old
Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals. In 2001, GSA prepared
Building Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C.
Courts' facilities, which have been adversely affected by maintenance
deferrals necessitated by severely limited capital funds in prior
years. These projects culminated in the development of the first Master
Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space
requirements and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization,
both in the near and long term.
The Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, completed in December
2002, incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning by
experts in architecture, urban design, and planning. During this study,
GSA analyzed the Courts' current and future space requirements,
particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the
Family Court. The Master Plan examined such issues as alignment of
court components to meet evolving operational needs and enhance
efficiency; the impact of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law
Number 107-114); accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and
planning to upgrade facilities, including, for example, security,
telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space
shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable
square feet, and, as noted above, proposed to meet that need through
renovation of the Old Courthouse for use by the D.C. Court of Appeals;
construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse; and
reoccupation of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In
addition, the Plan determined that other court facilities must be
modernized and upgraded to meet health and safety standards and to
function with greater efficiency.
FAMILY COURT IN THE MASTER PLAN
Interim Family Court Space Plan
The Master Plan concluded that the Family Court would be most
effectively and efficiently located in the Moultrie Courthouse. The
Master Plan incorporates an interim space plan that provides the
facilities necessary to fully implement the Family Court Act, as well
as a long term plan that optimizes space and programmatic enhancements
for family matters. The interim space plan for Family Court will be
complete in the summer of 2004, and fully consolidates public functions
on the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse. As this interim space plan
proceeds towards completion, procedural changes have been implemented
within the Family Court that meet the requirements of the Family Court
Act. Essential capital components of the plan are straightforward:
--During fiscal year 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate nine new Family
Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The Courts
also constructed four new hearing rooms in Building B for
Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect
cases and renovated short-term space for the Mayor's Services
Liaison Office.
--Two Superior Court operations formerly located on the JM level of
the Moultrie Courthouse, Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant,
were relocated in November 2003 to Building B to free space for
the Family Court.
--Construction on the JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse began in
December 2003 and will provide three new courtrooms, three new
hearing rooms, the Mayor's Services Liaison Office, a
Centralized Family Court Case Filing and Intake Center, a
family-friendly child waiting area, and a new Family Court
entrance from the John Marshall Plaza into the Moultrie
Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the
courthouse's JM-level will be redesigned to create family-
friendly seating and waiting areas. This work will be complete
during the summer of 2004.
Long Term Family Court Space Plan
The long-term plan to optimize space and provide programmatic
enhancements for the Family Court includes expansion of the Moultrie
Courthouse. The Courts are pleased that the President's 2005 budget
provides funding for the design work for the Moultrie Courthouse
expansion. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-
friendly facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity
and separate entrance, which will be a model for the Nation. The plan
envisions a safe facility that will be inviting and welcoming to
families with children of all ages and that will incorporate a ``one-
stop'' concept by locating all related court units in one place and
making it easier for families to access needed social services from
D.C. government agencies. The interim Family Court plan was designed to
transition smoothly into this long-term plan and to maximize the
efficient use of time and money.
The Master Plan studied the cost and feasibility of expanding the
Moultrie Courthouse in the Feasibility Study for the H. Carl Moultrie I
Courthouse--May 2003. This approach has been developed with the
overarching objectives of keeping the court system continually
operating efficiently, while carefully complying with the Family Court
Act. Independent projects related to the Family Court Act include the
renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse to free space in the
Moultrie Courthouse, system upgrades and renovation of Buildings A & B,
occupation and renovation of Building C, leasing of space for functions
not directly related to the public and court proceedings, and
renovation and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. These projects
will shift operations currently located in existing Court facilities
(1) to create ``swing space'' that permits the required construction to
take place in an operating courthouse that receives 10,000 members of
the public daily and (2) to make contiguous space available for all
related Family Court functions.
THE COURTS' STRATEGIC PLAN
The capital projects included in this request are an integral part
of the Courts' Strategic Plan, completed in 2002. The Strategic Plan of
the D.C. Courts, entitled ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
Capital'', articulates the mission, vision, and values of the Courts in
light of current initiatives, recent trends, and future challenges. It
addresses issues such as implementation of a Family Court, increasing
cultural diversity, economic disparity, complex social problems of
court-involved individuals, the increasing presence of litigants
without legal representation, rapidly evolving technology, the
competitive funding environment, emphasis of public accountability,
competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks.
Improved facilities were a need identified as a high priority among
all constituency groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan
was developed. ``Improving Court Facilities and Technology'' is the
Plan's Strategic Issue 4. The Strategic Plan states:
``The effective administration of justice requires an appropriate
physical and technical environment. Court personnel and the public
deserve facilities that are safe, comfortable, secure, and functional,
and that meet the needs of those who use them. Technology must support
the achievement of the Courts' mission.''
Two strategic goals relate to the facilities and technology
enhancements in this capital budget:
``Goal 4.1: The Courts will provide personnel and court
participants with a safe, secure, functional and habitable physical
environment.
``Goal 4.2: The Courts will provide technology that supports
efficient and effective case processing, court management, and judicial
decision-making.''
The fiscal year 2005 capital budget request will help the D.C.
Courts attain these goals.
CAPITAL FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2005
To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community
and the demands confronting the District's judicial branch, adequate
resources are essential. The most critical issue we face today is
sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' severe space shortage
and aging infrastructure. Investment in these areas is critical to
enable the Courts to provide to the public and our employees facilities
that are safe, healthy, and reasonably up-to-date and to provide the
type of security necessary to protect our citizens and our institution.
Unless infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional capability of
the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the District of
Columbia will be compromised.
The first part of the Capital Budget request identifies projects to
renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified in the
Master Plan for Facilities. The request is a comprehensive, 5-year
plan, with projects divided into phases to the extent practicable: $63
million is requested for the construction phase of the Old Courthouse
renovation, which will begin in fiscal year 2005; $13.9 million is
requested for the design phase of the Juvenile Holding area renovation,
C Street Expansion, and Renovation and Reorganization portions of the
Moultrie Courthouse Renovation and Expansion project in fiscal year
2005. For design and pre-design work to renovate Buildings A and C and
for phase 1 construction in Building A, $4.9 million is requested. We
are very pleased that the President has supported these essential
elements of our Master Plan in his fiscal year 2005 budget
recommendations. In addition, to design and prepare signage and
security lighting to guide the public through the court complex, which
will become increasingly important as court operations move out of the
Moultrie Courthouse, $2 million is requested.
The second part of the Capital Budget request addresses the
condition of the Courts' existing infrastructure, including projects
necessary for the health and safety of the public in the courthouse and
including the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS). To meet
these needs, the Courts make the following requests: $6 million for
fire and security systems, as recommended by GSA and U.S. Marshal
Service studies; $15 million for HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades
to remediate lead-contaminated drinking fountains, provide adequate
ventilation, and meet electrical load needs, among other things; $1.1
million to renovate dilapidated restrooms used by the public and court
staff; $2.6 million for, among other things, ADA accessibility, safety
repairs, and refurbishment of run-down areas in courtrooms and secure
areas. To replace prisoner elevators, alleviating trial delays because
of inability to transport incarcerated persons, $0.2 million is
requested. To improve safety and ADA accessibility in public areas, to
clean the exterior of the Courts' buildings, to replace doors and
windows in historic Buildings A and B, and to make other general
repairs, $9 million is requested. Finally, $2.83 million is requested
for continued implementation of IJIS. While we are pleased that some of
these projects, such as IJIS, elevators and escalators, and general
repairs, have been supported, we remain concerned that continued
deferral of needed maintenance projects will increase costs by delaying
major work and by forcing inefficient repairs of equipment that has
reached its expected life and requires major overhaul.
The capital projects identified are critical to the Courts' ability
to meet the current and future needs of the District of Columbia
Courts. Approval of the requested capital funding in fiscal year 2005
offers important advantages including: (1) addressing urgent public
health and safety conditions in the Court's busy buildings; (2)
allowing ongoing projects to continue without interruption, thereby
avoiding increased costs occasioned by delays; (2) and meeting the
Courts' critical space requirements, including our new Family Court.
STATUS OF KEY CAPITAL PROJECTS
Old Courthouse Restoration
The D.C. Courts' numerous facilities renovation projects have
converging critical scheduling paths. The Old Courthouse project is the
first step in a series of interdependent moves that must progress in
sequence to provide space and make way for the next step in the Courts'
Master Plan. Since the pre-design study for the restoration was
completed in 1999, the Courts have, with the support of Congress, taken
steps to preserve the building, including making watertight the roof,
and mothballing the building. Design of the Old Courthouse restoration
began April 30, 2003 with the selection, from among nearly 30 bids in
the General Services Administration procurement process, of Beyer
Blinder Belle Architects and Planners LLP (BBB). BBB is a nationally
renowned architectural and engineering firm whose historic preservation
and renovation projects have included Grand Central Station, Ellis
Island, and the U.S. Capitol. BBB has nearly completed the design for
the first phase of the restoration, the parking garage to be shared by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and its construction is
scheduled to commence later this year.
The Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the preliminary concept design
for the Old Courthouse on October 16, 2003. The Commission's
recommendations were incorporated in the design, which is currently 50
percent complete. Upon completion of this milestone, formal review by
regulatory agencies (e.g., the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)) is required for the
project to proceed. The Courts are prepared to present the 50 percent
complete design to the NCPC in March 2004. Formal review and approval
of the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any delay
will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration, and delay
implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for Facilities, including
enhancement to and the full consolidation of all Family Court related
elements.
Both the CFA and the NCPC called for a coordinated design or
agreement between the Courts and the National Law Enforcement Museum
(NLEM), which is authorized to build an underground museum with
aboveground entrance pavilions on part of the site. At that time, it
appeared that both projects were on similar construction schedules.
Subsequently, we have learned that the NLEM construction may not
commence until sometime between 2009 and 2012. The Old Courthouse
construction is scheduled to commence in January 2005 with occupancy
scheduled for January 2007.
Our architects have prepared a ``Phase 1'' design that completes
the Old Courthouse restoration without infringing on the area
authorized by legislation for the museum. Therefore, an agreement on
plaza entranceway design should not delay the restoration and use of
this important public building. We recognize that coordination with the
NLEM must continue, and that some modifications to the site may be
necessary. However, the principles of aesthetics, urban design,
planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and natural
resources, which the CFA and NCPC must foster, will best be served by
permitting the restoration of the historically and architecturally
significant Old Courthouse to proceed.
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion
The expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse is a key element in the
long-term plan for Family Court. The expansion builds on the interim
plan for the Family Court, scheduled to be complete the summer, that
will consolidate the public face of the Family Court through a
centralized intake center and space for the Mayor's Services Liaison
Office and provide a separate entrance as well as new courtrooms,
hearing rooms, and a family-friendly child waiting area. The expansion
will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
providing, for example, additional space for child protection
mediation, increased Child Care Center space, and safe and comfortable
family waiting areas. It will also fully consolidate all administrative
operations of the Family Court including relocation of juvenile
probation (the Social Services Division) from Building B to the
Moultrie Courthouse. A portion of the addition will meet critical space
needs for other Superior Court operations. The Courts have requested,
and the President supports, funds in fiscal year 2005 to design the
addition. The addition is scheduled to be completed in 2009.
COMPLETE BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
To provide the highest level of justice to the public in the
Nation's Capital and build on recent accomplishments, it is essential
that the D.C. Courts receive additional resources in fiscal year 2005.
The demands on the Courts require significant capital investments in
facility infrastructure, security, and technology as well as
operational investments to enhance the administration of justice and
service to the public. Without additional capital resources, the
Moultrie Courthouse and the District's historic Old Courthouse and
Buildings A and B will continue to deteriorate, placing public health
and safety at risk and undermining public trust and confidence in the
judicial branch; the Courts' information technology will fail,
threatening judicial decision-making and community safety; and needed
security measures and equipment will not be installed, placing the
Courts' buildings and the public at risk. Investments in operational
enhancements will support strategic management; self-representation
services; complete and accurate trial records; financial, materiel, and
facilities management; and human resource development. Targeted
investments in these critical areas are essential to ensuring that the
Courts can fulfill their mission of providing quality justice in the
District of Columbia. The Court's fiscal year 2005 budget request
addresses these requirements by:
--Investing in Infrastructure.--The fiscal year 2005 capital request
reflects significant study and planning detailed in the D.C.
Courts' Master Plan for Facilities. As noted above, today the
Courts have a space shortfall of nearly 45,000 occupiable
square feet, which is projected to rise to a 134,000 square
feet shortfall over the next 10 years. To begin to address the
Courts' space needs and ensure the health, safety, and quality
of court facilities, the fiscal year 2005 capital request
includes $120,930,000.
Included in the capital budget request is $63,000,000 for the
construction phase of the Old Courthouse restoration project,
which will adapt it for reuse by the Court of Appeals. The Old
Courthouse is an architectural jewel located in one of the
significant green areas of the District original to the
L'Enfant Plan for the capital city. Construction of the
accompanying garage, which will be shared with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and remove surface parking,
will begin during 2004. Restoring this historic landmark to
meet the urgent space needs of the Courts and preserving it for
future generations are critical priorities for the District of
Columbia Courts.
Also included in the capital budget request is $13,900,000 to
begin work on the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, as delineated
in the Master Plan. This amount includes $6,000,000 for the
design phase of the C Street Expansion, which, as noted above,
will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
and meet critical space needs for Superior Court operations.
The total also includes $3,900,000 to renovate and expand space
in the Moultrie Courthouse for the juvenile holding area and
$4,000,000 for the first phase of the renovation and
reorganization of the Moultrie Courthouse, to make optimal use
of existing space as envisioned in the Master Plan.
In addition, the capital budget request includes $34,300,000 to
maintain the Courts' existing infrastructure, preserving the
health and safety of courthouse facilities for the public and
the integrity of historic buildings for the community.
--Enhancing Public Security.--The Courts are responsible for the
protection of 10,000 members of the public who enter the
courthouse each day, among them local and international
visitors and 1,200 court employees. To meet the increased
security threat post-September 11, 2001, the Courts request
$6,956,000. Included in this figure are: $956,000 in
operational expenditures for additional contractual security
officers and $6,000,000 to finance capital security
improvements recommended by a U.S. Marshal Service Physical
Security Survey and a GSA Preliminary Engineering Report,
including design, construction, and installation of a new
security system, as well as additional security cameras, duress
alarms and upgrades.
--Investing in Information Technology (IT).--The Courts are mandated
to operate an automated, integrated case management system to
provide accurate, comprehensive case data across every
operating area and appropriate case data to the judiciary, the
District's child welfare and criminal justice communities, and
the public. To meet this mandate and achieve the Courts'
strategic goal of improving court technology, the Courts
request $6,729,000 and 6 FTEs in fiscal year 2005. This amount
includes $3,899,000 in the operating budget for infrastructure
enhancements, upgrade of IT operations and implementation of
the disciplined processes the General Accounting Office (GAO)
had recommended for the Integrated Justice Information System
(IJIS) project. In addition, the Courts' capital budget request
includes $2,830,000 to finance fiscal year 2005 procurement of
IJIS, which the Court launched in fiscal year 1999.
Implementation of IJIS is well underway, with Wave 1 of the
Family Court module operational in August 2003 and Wave 2
operational in December 2003.
--Strategic Planning and Management.--To support long-range strategic
planning and management, including the development and
assessment of organizational performance measures, $571,000 is
requested. A comprehensive performance measurement system is a
critical element in accountability to the public and would
enable the Courts to report performance to the community. In
addition, an Office of Strategic Management is essential to
make the Courts' strategic plan the dynamic, evolving document
that it must be to focus resources, priorities and actions.
Specifically, the request would finance performance management
software, training, and knowledgeable staff with the expertise
to institutionalize a proactive, coordinated approach to
management including the establishment, analysis, and use of
performance measures for strategic decision-making.
--Serving the Self-Represented.--To enhance equal access to justice
for the more than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to
the D.C. Courts each year, especially in the Family Court,
Civil Division, and Court of Appeals, $2,096,000 and 13 FTEs
are requested for staff and facilities to establish a Self-
Representation Service Center. This amount includes $212,000
and 3 FTEs to assume responsibility for the operation, on a
full-time basis, of the award-winning Family Court Self-Help
Center, which is currently only a part-time operation supported
by volunteers from the D.C. Bar. The Courts would adopt best
practices in assisting the unrepresented with numerous
important legal issues and build on the public information
kiosk project being implemented in fiscal year 2003 and the
very limited pro bono services currently available.
--Investing to Ensure Accurate and Complete Trial Records.--The
Courts' fiscal year 2005 request includes $1,636,000 and 12
FTEs to improve the production of the court record. Maintaining
complete and accurate court records are central to the fair
administration of justice in a court system. Accurate and
complete records of court proceedings are critical to ensuring
a fair trial and to preserving a record for appeal. This
request includes funds to upgrade the Courts' digital recording
system that is installed in 80 courtrooms and has exceeded its
useful life, and funds to hire additional court reporters who
are essential for certain types of proceedings, such as felony
trials.
--Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.--To enhance and provide
more timely services to the public, the Courts' fiscal year
2005 request includes $2,198,000 and 15 FTEs to support
operating division initiatives in family, landlord and tenant,
probate, crime victim's compensation, the juror's office, court
interpreting services, and the Superior Court law library.
Included in the total is $1,000,000 to restore and preserve
Probate Division records that are required, by statute, to be
maintained forever and readily available to the public. This
funding will build on the Courts' recent accomplishments,
discussed above, and ensure that the highest quality services
are provided.
--Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.--To enhance
financial, materiel, and facilities management, $2,267,000 and
17 FTEs are requested. Included in the total are $623,000 and 8
FTEs to enhance financial and program management, including a
new internal audit team; $898,000 and 1 FTE for materiel
management, including warehouse space, equipment, and staff;
and $746,000 and 8 FTEs to enhance facilities management,
including building engineers and capital project management
staff.
--Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
and retain highly qualified employees and address the risks of
high retirement eligibility, $1,167,000 is requested for
succession planning, leadership development, tuition
assistance, enhanced benefits and specialized training for
court personnel. Currently, 27 percent of the Courts' non-
judicial employees, of whom 16 percent are in top management
positions, are eligible to retire in the next 5 years,
representing a potential for a tremendous loss of experience
and talent that the Courts must plan now to address.
--Strengthening Defender Services.--In recent years, the Courts have
devoted particular attention to improving the financial
management and reforming the administration of the Defender
Services programs. For example, the Courts have significantly
revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation
of indigent defendants and issued Administrative Orders to
ensure that CJA claims are accompanied by adequate
documentation and that only highly qualified attorneys
participate in the program. To enhance the financial management
of the CJA program, the Courts assumed responsibility for
issuing attorney claim vouchers from the Public Defender
Service (PDS). Consolidation of responsibility for all
financial management aspects of the Defender Services programs
will enable the Courts to estimate more accurately program
obligations throughout the voucher processing cycle. To build
on these initiatives and more comprehensively exert greater
management control over the Defender Services appropriation
from a programmatic, rather than a financial perspective, the
Courts request $91,000 and 1 FTE in the fiscal year 2005
operating budget.
In the Defender Services account, the fiscal year 2005 budget
request represents a net increase of $18,500,000 over the
fiscal year 2004 Enacted level of $32,000,000 to fund hourly
rate increases. Of the total request, $9,500,000 would provide
appropriated funding for the March 2002 rate increase for
Defender Services attorneys and investigators. This increase,
enacted in the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002, has been funded
to-date through a reserve in the account, which is now
depleted. Also included in the total request is $9,000,000 for
an increase in the hourly compensation rates for attorneys from
$65 to $90, to keep pace with the rate paid court-appointed
attorneys at the Federal courthouse across the street from the
D.C. Courts.
CONCLUSION
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, the
District of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed a national reputation for
excellence. We are proud of the Courts' record of administering justice
in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient manner. Adequate funding for
the Courts' fiscal year 2005 priorities is critical to our success,
both in the next year and as we implement plans to continue to provide
high quality service to the community in the future. We appreciate the
President's level of support for the Courts' funding needs in 2005, and
the support we have received from the Congress. We look forward to
working with you throughout the appropriations process, and we thank
you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request
of the Courts.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Judge Wagner. Thank you, sir.
Senator DeWine. Judge King.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING, III
Judge King. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Landrieu. It is a pleasure to be back here and primarily to
express my gratitude on behalf of the Superior Court, at any
rate, for your support for our budget in the past and the
President's support for our budget as we go forward with the
construction plan.
We are engaged in the execution of a complex master plan
that runs over 10 years. We have outlined that in our written
submission, which I trust will be included in the record.
Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record.
Judge King. I adopt Chief Judge Wagner's oral statement as
well, and I will just make a point or two.
Thus far, the construction in the Moultrie Building to
round out the first part of the Family Court renovations is on
time and in budget. My commitment is to try to keep it that
way. And to that end, my door is always open and my phone lines
are always open for any discussions that are needed to help
that process along.
The one point that I just want to put on the record,
because I know it is capable of getting lost in the shuffle is:
The President did not support our request for capital funding
for the aging infrastructure. Our building is 30 years old,
essentially. The systems, the HVAC and mechanical systems and
electrical and so on, are all at the end of their useful life.
I personally have had an occasion when the temperature in
my courtroom rose to above 90 degrees, because the air
conditioning had failed. We just had to adjourn for the day.
And that is very frustrating when you have a judge ready to go,
staff ready to go, marshals ready to go, and the lawyers are
prepared to try the case, and you just cannot try the case. So
that is an issue that is over the horizon.
There is a $15 million request for aging infrastructure,
renovation and maintenance that has not been addressed. And at
some point, it is going to need to be addressed.
But I am very grateful for the support for the capital
budget. And I will be glad to answer questions.
Senator DeWine. Good.
Judge King. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Could you all just, Judge, just hit--
would you just hit the highlights again of the--I know you have
given us the time frame in the documents here. But just review
for me on this plan that you have, when the Courts move into
what building, so that I could just get a sense of when the
Family Court will be in their new facility? What is the general
time line, if you have it handy? If you do not, I understand.
COURT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Judge Wagner. I do not have it handy, but I can--let me
see.
Judge King. I can give you most of the basic points. The
Family Court will be moved--all of the public functions of the
Family Court will be moved into the JM and first floor levels
of the Moultrie Courthouse as of July of this year, in about 5
months, 6 or 5 months.
I believe the move for the Court of Appeals is scheduled
for 2005. The actual occupancy is a little bit later, but the
construction starts in 2005. When that move is accomplished in
2007, we will then round out the relocation of various
functions to bring all of the office or administrative
functions of the Family Court into the JM and the first floors.
Senator Landrieu. So I am understanding that the Family
Court basically moves first into their renovated space. They
are moving first into their renovated space.
Judge King. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. Is that correct?
Judge King. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. And then the next piece is the----
Judge King. The C Street Expansion----
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Renovation.
Judge King [continuing]. Which will begin in 2006.
The C Street Expansion is finished in 2009. We are running
with design phases while we are doing the building of the Old
Courthouse and then----
Senator Landrieu. You all have--you are in the position to
have control of this schedule so that--because they are really
moving pieces. And those pieces have to move in a way that
really helps us to meet these time lines to get these Courts
functioning in the new spaces that we are trying to provide.
And you all know that any barriers to move people or the
authority to make the contractors even move faster or get out
of the way or the architects--I mean, do you all feel like you
have blue skies ahead, or do you need us to do anything that
helps you to make sure you stay on the schedule?
Judge King. The one thing that we have almost no control
over is the funding, and we are looking to you for that, and
you have been very supportive. But given the funding, we have
more barriers to----
Senator Landrieu. But if the funding, you know, is short,
then it puts a crimp in this particular formula.
Judge King. That is correct. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Judge King. If the funding is not there, then we have to
come up with alternatives.
Senator Landrieu. All right.
Judge Wagner. And the Courts' plans have to be approved by
the regulatory agencies during this process. While we do not
control that, we try to cooperate with them to get all of our
submissions in so that we cause no delays.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Let me invite our other panelists to come
up.
Craig Floyd is the Chairman and Executive Director of the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Patricia
Gallagher is the Executive Director of the National Capital
Planning Commission. And Frederick Lindstrom is the Assistant
Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts since 2001.
Ms. Gallagher, let us start with you. If you can--we have
everyone's written statement, which will become a part of the
record.
Ms. Gallagher, if you could make some comments, and then we
will move to Mr. Lindstrom, and Mr. Floyd.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTINE SAUM, SENIOR URBAN DESIGNER, NATIONAL CAPITAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Ms. Gallagher. Good morning, Senator. Is this on?
Senator DeWine. Yes, if you push it down, that is--yes.
Ms. Gallagher. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Landrieu, and members of the subcommittee. I am Patti
Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
Commission. On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
We understand from the Conference report language in the
Omnibus bill that there is concern that NCPC may be delaying
the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate the Old City
Hall at Judiciary Square, and we are here today to assure you
and the members of the subcommittee that NCPC has not delayed
this renovation.
NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in Spring 2003 during
the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
May 2003, the Courts gave an informational presentation on the
master plan to our Commission. And then in August 2003, the
Commission adopted this draft plan.
NCPC staff has been working closely with both parties to
ensure that the redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including
the Old City Hall renovation, meets the highest standards of
planning and urban design. This process is complicated in that
we are working to satisfy the requirements of two legislative
mandates, the National Law Enforcement Museum Act of 2000, and
the District of Columbia Family Courts Act of 2001.
Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C. Courts
that they have to reorganize and improve the Courts' services
and facilities.
In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, Congress
authorized the Memorial Fund to build its museum on Federal
land that partially abuts the Old District of Columbia City
Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum
underground and limit its aboveground construction to two
10,000-square-foot entrance pavilions.
In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-
foot-wide zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old
City Hall where no aboveground museum construction is
permitted. These areas are depicted on the map attached to my
written testimony.
Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying
with both mandates, while respecting each of the parties'
separate and distinct visions for the common plaza area. The
Courts and the Memorial Fund each consider the plaza to be a
key part of the entrances to their buildings, and they continue
to fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and
design control each party is permitted to have within the plaza
area.
The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003
submissions to review proposed memorial designs and museum
designs that would have interfered with the entrance to the
renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were clearly
in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions.
Subsequently, in July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft
Judiciary Square Master Plan. This master plan depicted the
plaza as an unobstructed open space extending from the
renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street, Northwest. The
Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the
basis that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the
plaza area.
As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City
Hall for re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project.
And delays in its construction could needlessly increase the
cost to taxpayers.
Our Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7,
2003 approved the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. And in an
effort to move both projects forward, our Commission departed
from its normal process of requiring an approved master plan,
and authorized the Courts and the Memorial Fund to proceed with
the design submissions for their individual projects.
A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both
projects to have unimpeded access to their respective
entrances. Therefore, our Commission asked the parties to
mutually agree on a design solution before requesting further
NCPC approval.
Although NCPC staff has been working with both sides since
last spring to facilitate an acceptable solution, we are unable
to report progress, that an agreement has been reached.
However, on February 13th, the Courts presented to the NCPC
staff for the first time an interim design that would maintain
the plaza as an open area, and one that would provide
sufficient space for the Memorial Fund to construct its
entrance pavilions while allowing both projects open access to
their respective entrances.
The Courts' proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape
solution that could be modified when the Memorial Fund
completes its fund raising and is prepared to proceed with
construction.
We understand that the Courts are prepared to move forward
with this interim design despite the inevitable disruption to
the plaza area and its entrances once the design of--once the
museum design construction begins.
Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it
appears to respect the design parameters set out in the
National Law Enforcement Museum Act. We feel that it is a
viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
Courts' construction project to move forward.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have spoken to both the Courts and the Memorial Fund to
encourage the use of this interim design as an acceptable
solution and have informed them that this design, if accepted
by both parties, would be eligible for immediate review by our
Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our utmost to
accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patti Gallagher
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Patti
Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). I would like to thank you on behalf of the
Commission for this opportunity to testify. We understand from the
Conference report language in the Omnibus bill that there is concern
NCPC may be delaying the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate
the Old City Hall at Judiciary Square. I would like to assure you and
the members of this Committee that NCPC has not delayed this
renovation.
NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund) in spring 2003
during the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
May 2003 the Courts gave an information presentation on the master plan
to our Commission, which adopted the draft plan in August 2003. NCPC
staff has been working closely with both parties to ensure that the
redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including the Old City Hall
renovation, meets the highest standards of planning and urban design.
This process is complicated in that we are working to satisfy the
requirements of two legislative mandates--the National Law Enforcement
Museum Act (Public Law 106-492) and the District of Columbia Family
Courts Act of 2001. Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C.
Courts that they reorganize and improve the Courts' services and
facilities. In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (the Act),
passed in November 2000, Congress authorized the Memorial Fund to build
its museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old District of
Columbia City Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum underground and
limit its aboveground construction to two 10,000-square-foot entrance
pavilions. In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-foot-wide
zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old City Hall where no
aboveground museum construction is permitted. These areas are depicted
on the attached map.
Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying with both
mandates, while respecting each of the parties' separate and distinct
visions for the common plaza area. The Courts and the Memorial Fund
each consider the plaza to be a key part of the entrances to their
buildings and they continue to fundamentally disagree on the level of
construction and design control each party is permitted to have within
the plaza area.
The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003 submissions
to review proposed museum designs that would have interfered with the
entrance to the renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were
clearly in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions. Subsequently, in
July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft Judiciary Square Master Plan.
This master plan depicted the plaza as an unobstructed open space
extending from the renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street NW.
The Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the basis
that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the plaza area.
As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City Hall for
re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project and delays in its
construction could needlessly increase the cost to taxpayers. Our
Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7, 2003 approved the
draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In an additional effort to move
both projects forward, our Commission departed from its normal process
of requiring an approved master plan, and authorized the Courts and the
Memorial Fund to proceed with design submissions for their individual
projects.
A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both projects to
have unimpeded access to their respective entrances. Therefore, our
Commission also asked the parties to mutually agree on a design
solution before requesting further NCPC approval. Although NCPC staff
has been working since August with both sides to facilitate an
acceptable solution, we are unable to report that an agreement has been
reached. Very recently however, on February 13, 2004 the Courts
presented to NCPC for the first time an interim design that would
maintain the plaza as an open area, and provide sufficient space for
the Memorial Fund to construct its entrance pavilions while allowing
both projects open access to their respective entrances. The Courts'
proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape solution that could be
modified when the Memorial Fund completes its fundraising and is
prepared to proceed with construction of the museum. We understand that
the Courts are prepared to move forward with this interim design
despite the inevitable disruption to the plaza area and its entrance
once the museum begins construction.
Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it appears
to respect the design parameters set out in the Act. We feel that it is
a viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
Courts' construction project to move forward. We have spoken with both
the Courts and the Memorial Fund to encourage the use of this interim
design as an acceptable solution and have informed them that this
design, if accepted by both parties, would be eligible for immediate
review by our Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our
utmost to accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review
as expeditiously as possible.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator DeWine. Mr. Lindstrom.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. LINDSTROM, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, U.S. COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
Mr. Lindstrom. Certainly. Good morning, my name is
Frederick Lindstrom, and I am the Assistant Secretary of the
Commission of Fine Arts. I am substituting today for our
Secretary, Charles Atherton, who could not be present today.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to join the
discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old City
Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the
new National Law Enforcement Museum. As you know, discussions
relating to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite
a few years, and the Commission has been supportive of the
building's reuse as an operating courthouse.
The existing configuration of the monumental entrance on
this important building does not allow for ADA accessibility;
nor will it allow for the addition of the required visitor
security screening facility on the south side of the building
without adversely affecting the structure's historic character.
Therefore, the Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public
entrance on the north side of the building, where one existed
up until the 1917 renovation.
With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
specified the location of the new museum, it has been our
expectation that both projects would be able to coexist in
Judiciary Square and that the sponsors and their architects
would fully coordinate and cooperate on developing the designs.
So far, the Commission has been disappointed by the lack of
coordination and cooperation and the inability to develop
complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
Judiciary Square.
The Commission believes that the new museum serves a very
worthy objective. However, access to the Courts building should
not be obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The
dignity of the public entrance to the courthouse must come
first.
We believe that other designs should be investigated to see
if the Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the
openness and accessibility that both projects desire and
deserve. With passage of Public Law 106-492, that has in a way,
since that was signed into law, has inhibited that exploration
of other possibilities, at least for the museum.
One possible way that we have suggested, the Commission has
suggested to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum
and the Courts, would be to locate the museum's main entrances
to the other side of E Street, at the southern edge of the
Memorial Plaza. And this is a realistic possibility considering
that the major portion of the underground museum has been
authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
And there may be other alternatives worth exploring as well.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. ATHERTON, SECRETARY, COMMISSION OF
FINE ARTS
From the very beginning of the review process, we have
emphasized the need for coordination of all the projects
currently slated for Judiciary Square, and there are quite a
few projects that are slated for the Square at this time. And
it is essential that all of these projects be fully coordinated
and work in a cooperative fashion for an acceptable design to
be achieved.
This concludes our written testimony, and I would be happy
to respond to any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeWine. Yes. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Atherton
Good Morning, my name is Charles Atherton and I am the Secretary of
the Commission of Fine Arts. The Commission appreciates the opportunity
to join your discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old
City Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the new
National Law Enforcement Museum. As you may know, discussions related
to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite a few years and
the Commission has been supportive of the building's reuse as an
operating courthouse. The existing configuration of the monumental
entrance on this important building does not allow for ADA
accessibility, nor will it allow for the addition of the required
visitor screening facility on this side of the building without
adversely affecting the structure's historic character. Therefore, the
Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public entrance to the north
side of the building, where one existed until the 1917 renovation.
With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
specified the location of the museum, it has been our expectation that
both projects would be able to coexist in Judiciary Square and that the
sponsors and their architects would fully coordinate and cooperate on
the designs. So far, the Commission of Fine Arts has been disappointed
by the lack of coordination and cooperation and the inability to
develop complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
Judiciary Square. The Commission believes that the new museum serves a
worthy objective, however; access to the court building should not be
obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The dignity of the
public entrance to a courthouse must come first.
We believe that other designs should be investigated to see if the
Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the openness and
accessibility that both projects desire and deserve. One possible way
to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum and the courts would
be to locate the museum's main entrance(s) to the other side of E
Street, at the southern edge of the memorial plaza. This is a realistic
possibility considering that a major portion of this underground museum
has been authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
There maybe other alternatives as well.
From the beginning of the review process we have emphasized the
need for coordination of all the projects currently slated for
Judiciary Square. It is essential if an acceptable design is to be
achieved.
This concludes our written testimony. I would be happy to respond
to any questions you might have.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Floyd.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. FLOYD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND
Mr. Floyd. Mr. Chairman, our organization is a major
stakeholder in Judiciary Square. In 1991, at the direction of
the United States Congress we built and now assist the National
Park Service in the maintenance and operation of the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square.
In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further
authorization to build a National Law Enforcement Museum right
across the street from the National Memorial. The National Law
Enforcement Museum Act was authored by a distinguished member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell.
Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to
build this museum. The site and precise boundaries of the
museum were spelled out in very clear terms, and a diagram
showing the museum's boundaries is displayed for your
convenience. Two above-ground pavilions, totaling approximately
10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the museum.
The rest of the museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
feet, will be located underground.
And I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this museum will
be funded exclusively through private donations. No taxpayer
dollars are going to be used at all.
The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law
were established after much discussion and many meetings with
the Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia
Courts, after they informed us of their plans to renovate and
expand the Old Courthouse building.
Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
proximity, the public review agencies have required that we
consult with the Courts in our design plans for the museum
plaza area, and mutually agree on an acceptable solution. We
are working in good faith toward a final resolution. However,
it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have some serious
differences with the Courts about the design of the museum
plaza area.
First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the
Memorial Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the
museum plaza area, just as the Courts should be allowed to
design, build and maintain the areas within their boundaries.
The Courts disagree and have included the museum plaza, the
space between this and surrounding the museum pavilions in
their design plans.
Not only is this in conflict with the authority that
Congress gave the Memorial Fund over that property, but their
plans have ignored a number of our stated needs and concerns.
The museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million
museum. There are many technical, aesthetic and practical
considerations when designing and maintaining the roof and
plaza area of our museum; air ventilation, visitor staging,
water leakage, and skylights to let natural light down into the
museum, to name just a few.
It should be noted that we are anticipating between 300,000
and 500,000 visitors annually. On peak days, visits may exceed
4,500 people. The museum is requiring security screening at the
pavilion level. The plaza design must take into account this
queuing requirement. For these important reasons, we cannot
cede control of the museum plaza area to the Courts or to
anyone else.
Further, Senator Campbell addressed this issue in very
strong terms in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of
Fine Arts in October of 2003. He said, in part, ``The public
law provides full use and control of the museum site,
aboveground and underground, to the Memorial Fund. Any
accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the
museum site, including the plaza area between the two entrance
pavilions, is and will be at the sole discretion of the
Memorial Fund.''
We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects.
While the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is
planned for 2005 to 2006, construction on the museum is not
expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually
granted us until 2010 to begin construction.
This means that no matter what the Courts decide on for the
final design for the courthouse, and any entry on the north
side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would
be irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and
build anything on the north side of the courthouse that would
have to be demolished when we begin construction on the museum.
Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed
to accommodating the future access and usage needs of the
Courts. Any final solution must work for both the Courts and
the Memorial Fund. However, we are not prepared to relinquish
control of the museum plaza area, as defined by the boundaries
in the Museum Authorization Act. And we are not prepared to
make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish the
National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
Judiciary Square.
And let me just make one final comment. This is the first I
have heard of the Commission of Fine Arts' suggestion that we
move our entrance to the Memorial side of E Street, the north
side. We explored that option. Judge Wagner and I together
looked at that very closely. I responded to the Judge's
concerns in that area. And two things prevented us from doing
that. One, the National Park Service strongly opposes the idea.
They own and control the National Law Enforcement Officer's
Memorial, and they do not think it should be disrupted in any
way. And secondly, any major entrance to the museum on that
site would cause a major disruption and really demolition of a
major portion of the National Law Enforcement Officer's
Memorial, including part of the memorial walls that include
more than 16,000 names of fallen officers.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And for those reasons, I have indicated to Judge Wagner
that that would not be an acceptable solution, but we did
explore it carefully.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig W. Floyd
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to testify
on the appropriations request by the District of Columbia Courts to
renovate and expand the Old Courthouse Building in Judiciary Square. I
am here today on behalf of our board of directors, which is comprised
of representatives from 15 national law enforcement organizations (copy
of board of directors and organizations they represent is attached).
Collectively, these organizations represent virtually every law
enforcement officer, family member and police survivor in the United
States.
Our organization, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Fund, is a major stakeholder in Judiciary Square and has great interest
in any construction and renovation plans in the area. In 1991, we built
and now assist the National Park Service in the maintenance and
operation of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in
Judiciary Square. Today, that Memorial stands proudly as a richly
deserved tribute to the more than 16,000 law enforcement officers who
have been killed in the line of duty and whose names are inscribed on
the Memorial's marble walls, including 698 from your home State of
Ohio, Mr. Chairman.
In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further authorization to
build a National Law Enforcement Museum in Judiciary Square, right
across the street from the National Memorial. The ``National Law
Enforcement Museum Act,'' Public Law 106-492 (copy attached), was
authored by a distinguished member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As a former deputy
sheriff, Sen. Campbell has a special understanding and appreciation of
the extraordinary level of service and sacrifice that our law
enforcement officers have given our Nation.
Sen. Campbell also knows that many other Americans lack that
understanding and appreciation, mainly because they are not familiar
with the dangers and importance of the job, or the proud history of the
law enforcement profession. The proposed museum will help to educate
Americans about the police profession's worth to our country by
properly commemorating law enforcement's outstanding record of service
and sacrifice.
Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to build this
Museum. The site and precise boundaries of the Museum were spelled out
in very clear terms. (A diagram showing the Museum's boundaries is
attached for your convenience.) Two above ground pavilions, totaling
approximately 10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the
Museum. The rest of the Museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
feet in size, will be located underground.
The authorizing law specifically states that the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ``shall own, operate, and maintain
the Museum after completion of construction.'' Congress also required
that ``The United States shall pay no expense incurred in the
establishment or construction of the Museum.'' All of the funding for
this Museum, just as it was for the Memorial, will come from private
funds. No taxpayer dollars will be used. Finally, Congress stipulated
that sufficient funds to complete construction of the Museum must be
available before we are allowed to commence construction. We were given
until November 2010 to begin construction of the Museum, or our
authority to build the Museum will terminate.
The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law were
established after much discussion and many meetings with the Joint
Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia Courts, which
has plans to renovate and expand the Old Courthouse building to the
south of the Museum site. We have been very sensitive to their needs
and interests throughout this process. In fact, we fully supported a
provision that was included in the Museum Act authorizing the Courts to
construct an underground parking structure to better meet their
security and parking needs.
We also agreed to a provision in the Museum authorizing law that
calls for us to ``consult with and coordinate with the Joint Committee
on Administration of the District of Columbia courts in the planning,
design, and construction of the Museum.'' I believe the record is clear
that the consultation and coordination called for in the legislation
has occurred, and it will certainly continue to occur until the Museum
is completed. (A chronology of that consultation and coordination is
attached.)
Let me say for the record that the renovation plans of the D.C.
Courts for the Old Courthouse building are certainly consistent with
our own efforts to appropriately restore the Judiciary Square precinct
to a condition equal to its historic significance. The establishment of
the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial as the centerpiece of
the Judiciary Square complex was a major step in this direction.
Completion of the National Law Enforcement Museum and the renovation of
the Old Courthouse building will fulfill this important vision.
Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
proximity, both the National Capital Planning Commission, and the
Commission of Fine Arts have required that we collaborate with the
Courts in the design plans for the Museum plaza area, and mutually
agree on an acceptable solution. We are working in good faith toward a
final resolution. However, it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have
some serious differences with the Courts about the design of the Museum
plaza area.
First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the Memorial
Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the Museum plaza
area. The Courts disagree and have included the Museum plaza in their
design plans, which simply do not take into consideration our needs and
concerns. For example, their plans do not provide the skylights we need
to allow natural light down into the underground Museum area. Their
plans call for the elimination of an important outdoor reception plaza
area, and their proposed water elements pose water leakage hazards that
would be out of our control and pose serious risks to our $15 million
worth of exhibits below. We believe that their proposed monumental
staircase and large glass entranceway would serve to overwhelm the
Museum pavilions and diminish the Museum's presence and importance.
The Museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million Museum.
There are many technical, aesthetic and practical considerations when
designing and maintaining the roof and plaza area of our Museum--air
ventilation, visitor staging, water leakage, and skylights to let
natural light down into the Museum, to name just a few. It should be
noted that we are anticipating between 300,000 and 500,000 visitors
annually. On peak days, visits may exceed 4,500 people. The Museum is
requiring security screening at the pavilion level. The plaza design
must take into account this queuing requirement. For these important
reasons, we cannot cede control of the Museum plaza area to the Courts
or anyone else.
Further, Sen. Campbell addressed this issue in very strong terms in
a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts dated October
14, 2003 (copy of letter attached). He said, in part:
``It was always my intent, and the authorizing law clearly states,
that the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc.
(``Memorial Fund'') shall be solely responsible for preparation of the
design and plans for the Museum, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, the CFA and the National Capital Planning
Commission. Further, the public law provides full use and control of
the Museum site (aboveground and underground) to the Memorial Fund. Any
accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the Museum
site, including the plaza area between the two entrance pavilions, is
and will be at the sole discretion of the Memorial Fund.''
We believe that our needs and interests in the plaza area, along
with the stated access needs of the Courts, can be successfully
addressed. We have been sharing ideas with the Courts on the Museum
plaza area for several months now, and the next meeting is scheduled
for this Friday, February 27. Our architects will be providing the
Courts with our latest design plans and I am confident that we are
getting close to a final resolution on this important issue.
We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects. While
the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is planned for 2005-
2006, construction on the National Law Enforcement Museum is not
expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually granted
us until 2010 to begin construction. Under even the most optimistic
schedule, the Museum would not be completed until at least 2009, and at
the outside, by 2012. This means that no matter what the Courts decide
on for the final design for the Courthouse, and any entry on the north
side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would be
irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and build
anything on the north side of the Courthouse that would have to be
demolished when we begin construction on the Museum. In fact, our
construction plans call for closing E Street for approximately 18-24
months, so access on the north side of the Courthouse will be severely
limited during that time.
Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed to
accommodating the access and usage needs of the Courts. While our
earlier plans were not successful in meeting those needs, we are
working aggressively toward a final resolution. Any final solution must
work for both the Courts and the Memorial Fund. However, we are not
prepared to relinquish control of the Museum plaza area, as defined by
the boundaries in the Museum Authorization Act. And, we are not
prepared to make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish
the National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
Judiciary Square. As Sen. Campbell said in his October letter to the
Commission of Fine Arts:
``This Museum should never be allowed to become a secondary
consideration. Our Nation's law enforcement officers, especially the
thousands of fallen heroes who are honored across the street at the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, deserve no less.''
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and the other Subcommittee members
share that opinion. We look forward to working with the Courts and with
this Subcommittee in ensuring that the rightfully grand vision we all
share for Judiciary Square is fully realized.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
LOCATION OF THE MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you
bringing this group together so that we can perhaps explore
some options that work well for the Courts and work well for
the museum.
And you will have to forgive me, because we are not
familiar with all of this, many of the details, but maybe a
little background would be helpful to me, Mr. Floyd, about how
the memorial got to Judiciary Square in the first place. And as
you and the organization that we want to be very respectful to
searched for spaces to put this museum, how did you come across
or settle on this particular space?
Mr. Floyd. Well, it was approximately 1988 when we toured
Washington to find an appropriate location for the National
Memorial. And with the help of the National Park Service and
the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning
Commission, we realized that there was strong linkage between
law enforcement and Judiciary Square. It is the seat of our
Nation's judicial branch of government and the seat of the
criminal justice in this Nation of ours.
And everyone involved felt that that would be the
appropriate location for a National Memorial honoring law
enforcement, so that is how we first arrived at Judiciary
Square in 1988. We built the memorial in 1991.
And then when we decided to build a museum to complement
the memorial and further our mission, we felt that it needed to
be located very close to where the memorial is. There needed to
be close proximity. We explored the area, and the Federal
property that now serves as the court parking lot across E
Street to the south we viewed as the prime location for that.
Congress agreed with us when we took that proposal to them,
and they unanimously approved the legislation authorizing that
site for our museum.
And I should point out and emphasize that Judge Wagner was
very helpful in negotiating that site for us. We spent many
months talking this through and defining the boundaries of our
museum so that it would not impact negatively on their
courthouse.
Senator Landrieu. Because both of these projects are so
important, and I am just wondering maybe, Ms. Gallagher or Mr.
Lindstrom, things that Congress does and can undo, things that
Congress does and can change--you know, it is not--anything is
not in stone. Even things that are built are torn down and
redone. So I want to not just--I want to explore all of the
options.
And you all have worked with the law enforcement folks. I
know that area is developed quite a bit and part of the
challenge is that there is so much being constructed and built
all along that area in the Mall. But is there any other space
of land other than this particular plaza that the museum could
be located near to the memorial, which is important for them,
or is this just the only spot that they can be in?
Mr. Lindstrom. Well, I--let me back up. With the--before
the public wall, I do not believe that they consulted with the
Commission of Fine Arts on the siting of the museum. And I know
that was before your time, Ms. Gallagher. So this law was
passed without a conference with our commissioners of the
appropriateness of actually locating it under E Street.
So once the law was passed, all those explorations were
sort of moot. There are, perhaps not, open spaces in Judiciary
Square, but there are other structures that could be
rehabilitated for the museum, just as the Courts is doing for
the Old City Hall, rehabilitating it for their new court.
The building that comes to mind is the building that is
immediately adjacent to the west side of Memorial Plaza.
Senator Landrieu. Could you explain it out with the map?
Because, Mr. Floyd, unless, you know, one possible solution--
and I realize the plaza is very important. We respect the law
enforcement across the country, and we want you all to have
something that, you know, we are all very proud of, and really
fulfills our mission.
But I am wondering if there were--if we could help you, if
there are other buildings that are very, you know, right on the
plaza, so, A, we are not going underground. Is there a
particular reason why you want to go underground as opposed to
being on top of the ground? And if you can be on top of the
ground just as easily as you can be under the ground, maybe we
can help you find a building and help you build it.
Mr. Floyd. I appreciate that, Senator. I would respond with
two things. One, there was a public hearing that the Senate
held on this issue when we were discussing the site for this
museum.
The Commission of Fine Arts and other agencies did testify.
And I believe there was fairly universal support for the
proposal. The National Park Service also testified. We did
explore other options, some of the existing buildings, court
buildings surrounding us, for example, and just found those
buildings unsuitable for a museum.
It is important to understand that a museum requires
certain space requirements and openness and so forth. We did
not find any of the buildings in the area suitable for that.
And Congress, after due deliberation I should point out, and
working with a number of the public review agencies and the
National Park Service, felt that the Court property, the Court
parking lot property that ended up being the site for the
museum was the best and most appropriate location.
Senator Landrieu. Well, and I realize that, and I know that
you all have worked a great deal on this, and I am not going to
reach any conclusion. I am just exploring our options, because
they are all very good public purposes that are being
discussed. And there are other buildings and other spaces and,
you know, there are a lot of demands on this little plot of
land called the District of Columbia, which is a district. And
there are lots of--you know, it is the City, it is also the
Nation's Capital, it is also the Park Service for recreation,
so we go through this all the time. This is not anything that
is unusual.
But I am just thinking for the extent of the renovations
the Court needs, and you want to do a good job with your--of
course, with your project. I mean, is it too late to, in your
opinion, to just explore other options or buildings, even if--
now, I am not sure if there are any buildings that could
actually be demolished and constructed new for you. I do not
know if we would be restricted in that, because maybe all of
these are historic buildings and cannot be.
Mr. Floyd. Senator, I can only say that we have already
spent over $3 million to----
Senator Landrieu. Oh, right.
Mr. Floyd [continuing]. Develop this site and to develop
the plans for the museum. The schematic design plans for the
building have already been completed. I think we have spent
over $600,000 to accomplish that. I think it would be a great
misuse of our donors' money to now revisit the idea of moving
elsewhere. And I will say, I appreciate the concern----
Senator Landrieu. That is a problem, because you have got
$3 million in private dollars----
Mr. Floyd. Yes.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Committed to this site.
Mr. Floyd. Yes. Well, we are totally committed. And Judge
Wagner and I, I think, need to get together. We have tried to
hand this off to our architects most recently, I am afraid
without great success, although they have another meeting
scheduled for Friday.
And I think we are getting closer. They came to us with a
plan early February that our architects are now going to be
responding to on Friday. I think once that occurs, Judge Wagner
and I can sit down and talk.
We are going to work this out. I really do not think we are
that far away. So the idea of, you know, can we both live on
that site? I think the answer is absolutely yes. I do not think
Judge Wagner would have agreed to the legislative solution that
we proposed back in 2000 if she did not agree with that.
Senator DeWine. Let me just say, if I could jump in here,
we need a deadline. We have got--this subcommittee provides 100
percent of the funds for the District for the Courts. We have
got a responsibility to make sure we do not have overruns, that
we do not waste money.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, before we--Eleanor, I just
wanted to recognize that you were here before you left. I just
want to recognize the Congresswoman from the District, as well
as our shadow Senator, Paul Strauss, but thank you all. We have
received your----
Ms. Norton. Thank you for holding the hearing. Thank you
very much.
Senator DeWine. It is good to see you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
SITE PLANS
Senator DeWine. We have got--you know, we have got an
obligation to move on.
Ms. Gallagher, you were--do you want to describe the
physical problem here? I saw your model back there. Not that we
are going to--not that Senator Landrieu and I are going to get
into this here. We are not. We cannot.
Ms. Gallagher. Well, there is a--what we interpret as an
obstruction in the Memorial Fund's design for the plaza.
Abovegrade construction that--that we perceive in the last----
Senator DeWine. I cannot see it.
Ms. Gallagher. I think, if I may with your permission, our
chief architect is here and she may be able to describe this.
Senator DeWine. Yes, just briefly.
Ms. Gallagher. Yes.
Senator DeWine. Just real briefly.
Ms. Saum. In a nutshell----
Senator DeWine. For the record, what is your name, ma'am?
Ms. Saum. My--I am sorry. My name is Christine Saum. I am a
senior urban designer at the National Capital Planning
Commission.
The last time we received additional plans for this
facility was last spring. But this model appears to me to be
pretty much the same, in that the drawings we received last
spring, the plaza location here on E Street between the museum
pavilions was approximately 8 feet lower than the plaza shown
here for the entrance to the courthouse.
Direct access between the two plazas is obstructed by a
water feature and a skylight that provides light to the
underside, to the lower levels of the museum. And access to the
courthouse would be required to pass behind the two museum
pavilions by their loading docks and service areas. And we
thought that was inappropriate for the entrance of the
courthouse and did not----
Senator DeWine. Why is it inappropriate?
Ms. Saum. Because we thought that to have the access to a--
to an important court, the Superior Court, you should not be
required to go around behind the loading dock, essentially. We
thought that they needed direct access.
And it was our interpretation of the Museum Act that when
it stated that there was a 100-foot-wide area to be maintained
where no aboveground construction was to be created, that the
purpose for us to provide direct access to the courthouse and
not merely to provide open views.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Judge King, Mr. Floyd said he thinks you all are getting
close. Of course, that has to satisfy Ms. Gallagher, Mr.
Lindstrom, and a lot of other folks----
Judge King. I will just respond briefly, and then I know--
--
Senator DeWine. Are you closer than not?
ENTRANCE TO THE OLD COURTHOUSE
Judge King [continuing]. Chief Judge Wagner will. The Act
is plain. It says there is a 100-foot corridor to get to the
courthouse, so that it is an entrance, a main entrance with the
security features and everything you need for the courthouse.
It says that. It is very clear in the Act. I do not think we
are close on that.
Since last fall, the Court has revised its effort, its
plan, to try to meet some of the concerns at CFA and NCPC. The
Memorial has not.
And the one other thing I do not want to let pass without
commenting on is: We are renting space, swing space, while we
do our renovations. We are depending on all of the buildings in
the area, most of which are historic court buildings, for the
ultimate filling out of our 10-year plan, so if we start giving
those buildings away, then we are going to have to pay for it
somewhere else. We are going to have to build space or lease
space or do something, and it will become much more disruptive
than any plan that we are talking about in terms of the Act as
it stands now.
Senator Landrieu. So you would prefer them to stay
underground where they are, as opposed to having to give up one
of the other buildings or use some comparable site. But the
problem is that underground design that they have is not
conducive to the functioning of the Courts building generally.
Judge King. Well, no. The law says they are to have an
underground building with two pavilions not to exceed 25 feet
in height, and outside a 100-foot corridor that goes from E
Street to the Courts buildings.
So, as we say in the courthouse, ``Follow the law.'' That
is all we need to do.
Senator DeWine. Judge Wagner.
Judge Wagner. May I say something? At the time the Act that
was passed, of course, it was not the first bill. It was
amended.
And if you look back at the legislative history, you will
see that after over 2 months of negotiations, the National Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund and the Courts reached an agreement
to clarify that the building of this museum will in no way
conflict with the Courts' expansion and renovation, which was
planned at that time. And so that is how the museum went
underground.
And if you have ever been down to the Smithsonian castle on
the Mall, the model was essentially that. There is no blockage
to the entranceway to the Castle imposed by the two underground
museums on the Mall. That was how we thought we could coexist
in this very small space.
Symbolically, and given the historic character of Judiciary
Square, we were concerned if the entranceway to the courthouse
gives the appearance that there is blockage that is imposed by
law enforcement. The separation is something that is required,
given our way of life and our system of government in this
country.
And so within those parameters, we are working to try to
accommodate our interests and the interests of the public in
having this historic building----
Senator DeWine. Well, let me----
Judge Wagner [continuing]. You know----
Senator DeWine. Yes. I do not think anyone is more
supportive of, you know, the National Law Enforcement Fund than
Senator Landrieu and I. You know, we want this to move forward
very, very, very, very much.
I guess the question is, Mr. Floyd, having heard these
comments, where do we go from here?
Mr. Floyd. I think the basic thing that the Courts want and
need and deserve is access to their courthouse on the northern
side, which they are planning to build as part of their plan.
And I am absolutely personally committed to making that happen.
I agree that the initial design that we developed with
aboveground skylights precluded that to--in their mind, because
they did not want to go around. They wanted to go straight up
the middle. So we are now coming back to them with a design
approach that gives us skylights, will allow natural light to
get down below, but will give them direct access to their north
entry of the courthouse, as their architects proposed to us
earlier this month.
It has only been a couple of weeks since we have had a
chance to look at their plans, and we are now prepared to
respond on Friday. And I think we are all in agreement that we
want to give them what they want, and we just want to have
control over that space so that we can maintain and deal with
water leakage issues and make sure that we have the staging
area for our visitors that we need. Those are our main
concerns.
And I do not see this as a major impasse. But their
architects and ours have got to work in cooperation.
SUBMISSION TO NCPC AND CFA
Senator DeWine. I understand. But with all due respect, you
know, there has been no agreement for a year. And that is what
this committee has to look at, and we have got a fiscal
responsibility to make sure something moves here. So, you know,
I want you to reach an agreement. I think it is imperative, you
know, that this agreement is reached.
So, you know, I am going to put everybody on notice that I
expect you to reach an agreement and submit your plans to the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on the
Fine Arts no later than March 3. If the Courts and the National
Law Enforcement Fund cannot reach an agreement by March 3, then
the Courts and the Law Enforcement Fund can submit their own
individual plans to the NCPC and the Commission.
Finally, I ask the National Capital Planning Commission and
the Commission on the Fine Arts to review these plans if they
are able, even though the submission deadline for them is
viewed as past. This project is time critical and a decision on
the design simply cannot slip another month. So that is what we
are going to have to do.
So, you know, hopefully we can reach this agreement. I hope
you all can get together and in the next couple of days and get
this thing ironed out. You know, we want both--you know, we are
for all of you. I mean, we really are. And we want, you know--
everybody has public policy objectives that I think everyone is
for. And there has not been anything said up here that we are
not for.
But you are the ones that have to mesh them. We cannot mesh
them for you. We are not architects, and we are not sitting in
your shoes, but you have got to get it worked out. And if you
cannot get it worked out, you are just going to have to submit
the plans, I guess, and let them deal with it. So that is where
we are.
Mary, anything else?
Senator Landrieu. I just--are the architects for Mr. Floyd
here?
Mr. Floyd. They are. Davis Buckley is.
Senator Landrieu. Will you stand please, so I can recognize
you?
And you are the representing the firm, representing the
architects?
Mr. Floyd. He is the principal, yes.
Senator Landrieu. All right. Well, we just hope--I want to
support the chairman. I think those deadlines are tight, but
there is a real need to work this out. And I am hoping that the
architects that are present for both of these projects
understand what is being said, and that these are both two
beautiful projects, and I am sure with a little bit of
understanding, it could be worked out. And if not, then it
could jeopardize them both, and that is just not necessary.
So I know money has been spent, but there is going to be
hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the final construction
of this, so, yes, $3 million has been spent. But if $3 million
could be spent up front a little bit better, then we can go
ahead and do this for everybody. If not, it can cause a lot of
problems.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. I mean, you know, we see this Memorial and
that tribute to law enforcement as something we want to see. We
want to see the magnificent courthouse restored. And they are
two good things we want to have, and let us just make sure it
gets done.
Anything else?
Senator Landrieu. No.
Senator DeWine. All right. Thank you all very much. Good
luck.
[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., Wednesday, February 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:37 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
PAUL BRENNAN, COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICER
REVEREND DONALD ISAAC, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST OF THE RIVER
CLERGY-POLICE-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. Today we are reviewing the
fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of Columbia's
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the District
of Columbia's Public Defender Service.
Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal Government is
required to finance both of these independent agencies. First,
we will hear from Paul Quander, Director of CSOSA. His agency
is responsible for supervising adults who are on pretrial
release, probation, and/or parole supervision in the District
of Columbia.
The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget request is $187.5
million for CSOSA, an increase of $19 million or 12 percent
over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. We would like to hear
how these additional resources would be used to further the
agency's mission and goals. Last year, this subcommittee
appropriated funds above and beyond the President's request to
enable CSOSA to reduce its caseload ratio for sex offenders
from 36 to 1 down to 25 to 1; for domestic violence offenders,
from 42 to 25 to 1; and for offenders with mental health
problems from 47 to 1 to 25 to 1.
Also, this subcommittee provided additional resources to
allow CSOSA to purchase GPS anklet monitoring equipment to
ensure that parolees are not going to places like schools,
libraries, where they are prohibited from frequenting. I am
concerned, however, that the fiscal year 2005 budget request
does not include the funds to continue these important efforts,
and this is something that this subcommittee will have to deal
with.
After Mr. Quander testifies, we will then be joined by the
Reverend Donald Isaac who will discuss the District's faith/
community partnership with CSOSA which aims to reconnect
offenders with their communities before returning home from
prison. I am interested to see how CSOSA is using video
conferences to allow families and mentors here in the District
to stay in touch with their loved ones who are incarcerated 5
hours away down in North Carolina.
Mr. Ronald Sullivan will then testify, during the second
panel, to present the Public Defender Service budget. PDS is an
independent Federal agency that provides legal representation
to indigent adults and children facing criminal charges in the
District. PDS also provides legal representation for people in
the mental health system, as well as the children in the
delinquency system, including those who have special education
needs due to learning disabilities. The President's budget
request for PDS is $29.8 million which is an increase of $3.7
million over fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
As usual, witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes, 5 minutes
for their oral remarks in order to leave time for questions and
answers. Copies of all the written statements will be placed in
the record in their entirety.
We would also like to recognize, of course, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, who is here. Eleanor is back there somewhere.
There she is. Thank you for joining us, again.
We always welcome her here.
Senator Landrieu, for an opening statement or comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
but I do want to make just a few comments and welcome to our
panelists that are here with us. And, Mr. Quander, it was very
nice meeting with you, even just briefly, yesterday.
But I wanted to just recommit myself to working as a
partner with Chairman DeWine. We have worked very well chairing
and serving as ranking member alternately over the years of
this committee as we work with the Mayor and the leadership to
strengthen the District of Columbia in any number of ways:
through improving our schools and education; through supporting
and revitalizing the family court and child welfare system; and
through working with leaders, like yourself, to bring more
public safety into strengthening our public securities system.
The Mayor, I think, is absolutely correct when he states
that the goal of this District, as well as many cities
throughout the Nation, is to stabilize and encourage people to
stay in the District or to move back to the District, and there
are many aspects that go into a person's decision or family's
decision to do that. Public safety is one of them. So we thank
you for the work and the progress that we are making in that
area.
The mission of the agency that you supervise is extremely
important to maintaining and improving public safety. There are
over 16,000 offenders and 8,000 defendants at any given time. I
understand, from your prepared statement, that more inmates are
transitioning directly from prison to the community with no
halfway house options, which is a real challenge and something
I hope we can address and speak about this morning.
In addition, I want to make note of the great progress made
during the course of the brief existence of this agency in
terms of the caseload reductions that our committee has helped
to work with you to make true. Also, the number of parolees
rearrested on new drug charges has dropped from 27 percent to
18 percent, which is, I think, a significant drop and a real
measure of some success in certain areas.
Although we do have, Mr. Chairman, some effective drug
testing programs, I think our resources are still scarce to
provide the kind of extensive and comprehensive drug treatment
that is necessary, not just in this District and City, but in
cities throughout the United States.
So, I just want to commend CSOSA for reducing the caseload.
I want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and make sure we can
continue to reduce that caseload. To try our very best to work
on strategies to reduce the turnover rate, which is very
important, to make sure that these cases are prosecuted and
processed in a timely manner just for the rights of the victim,
as well as for the rights of the accused. I have a more lengthy
statement, but that will suffice for the time being and I look
forward to the testimony and the questions. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS
Senator DeWine. Senator Strauss has submitted a statement
which will also be included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, and an attorney who practices in our local courts, I would
like to state for the record that I fully support the fiscal year 2005
Budget Request for the District of Columbia Court Services Offender
Supervision Agency and the Public Defender Services, I would like to
thank you for holding this hearing this morning. On behalf of my
constituents, I appreciate your consideration of the needs of the
people in the District of Columbia. It is vital that these two agencies
be fully funded in the amount asked for today. As the elected Senator
from the District of Columbia, I myself cannot vote on this
appropriation. Therefore, I am limited to merely asking you to support
the requests.
Due to our lack of self-determination, we are unable to provide or
fund certain government services on a local level. Consequently, the
Federal Government has sole discretion as to the funding levels for
these agencies. I do not intend to discuss the issue of self-
sufficiency and budget-autonomy here today. However, as long as
Congress continues to control these institutions, which should be
operated by the District, Congress has an obligation to fully fund the
budget requests of the agencies present.
The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused to
have ``. . . assistance of counsel for his defense.'' Public Defender
Services (PDS) satisfies this mandate by playing a vital role in our
system of due process. In order to uphold the Constitutional rights of
indigent Defendants, it is crucial that PDS's financial requirements
are met. The District of Columbia's Public Defender Services have
demonstrated an outstanding record of performance. In their 30 years of
existence, PDS has set a national standard of excellence with its
innovative approaches that are applied by some of the most talented
lawyers in the country. They are an agency that this Congress, this
subcommittee, and the citizens of the District of Columbia should be
proud of.
The other organization present here today also provides a necessary
service to the people of Washington, DC. The Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) encompasses multiple stages of the
legal process. Among them is the Pretrial services Agency (PSA), which
Supervises defendants pending trial and/or sentencing. Additionally,
the Community Supervision Program (CSP) manages the cases of offenders
on probation, parole, or supervised release. Overall, CSOSA has
developed a pragmatic approach to both administering the cases of the
accused, and in reintegrating past criminal offenders into society.
Furthermore, it offers valuable services to victims and provides
separate services for women, children, and those in need of
professional treatment. The Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC)
clinically treats both defendants and offenders who are afflicted with
drug addictions. With an 80 percent completion rate, and a decreased
arrest rate among graduates by 75 percent, AOC has an outstanding
record of success. However, without sufficient funding AOC may have to
revert to a ``single treatment approach'', which is known to be much
less effective than a multifaceted intervention. Furthermore CSOSA has
been in the process of expanding their operation by hiring additional
supervision officers, and enhancing their global Positioning System,
which monitors high-risk domestic violence and sex offenders. Moreover,
all of the programs of CSOSA ensure the safety and well being of the
citizens of the District of Columbia. It is therefore imperative that
their budget request is granted so that they can continue to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding
this important hearing. I ask that you approve the budget proposals
submitted today. I commend Senators DeWine and Landrieu for their
continued interest in the fate of our Nation's Capital. Their valuable
support has sustained the functioning of our vital institutions. I
would also like to applaud the witnesses from both agencies, who have
constructed compelling testimony in justifying their budget requests.
Finally, I would like to thank Regina Szymanska and Brian Rauer for
their help in preparing this statement. I look forward to further
hearings on this topic, and I'm happy to respond to any requests for
additional information.
Senator DeWine. Well, I think, this is going to be a very
interesting hearing.
Our first witness is the Honorable Paul Quander, Jr., who
is the Director of the Court Services and Offenders Supervision
Agency, who was nominated by President George Bush on October
18, 2001 and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to his appointment,
he served as Assistant United States Attorney in the District
of Columbia and as Deputy Director for the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections. We welcome him back.
And thank you very much, and you can proceed with a
statement and then we will go to the videotape, then.
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.
Mr. Quander. Thank you, and good morning.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today in support of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
As you know, CSOSA's budget request includes the Pretrial
Services Agency which, although a component of CSOSA, operates
independently with a separate budget. The District of Columbia
Public Defender Service also transmits its budget with CSOSA
but is not a part of CSOSA.
CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget request totals
$187,490,000, an increase of 12 percent over fiscal year 2004.
Of this, $118,343,000 is for the Community Supervision Program;
$39,314,000 for the Pretrial Services Agency; and $29,833,000
for the Public Defender Service.
At any given time, the Community Supervision Program
supervises approximately 14,000 offenders on probation, parole,
or supervised release. The Pretrial Services Agency supervises
approximately 7,000 defendants pending trial and/or sentencing.
The Community Supervision Program's proposed budget
represents a 13 percent increase over fiscal year 2004 funding.
Of the $14 million increase, approximately $8.9 million is
allocated to one new program initiative. This increase funds
staffing and operating expenses for the first year of
operations for our Reentry and Sanctions Center.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million in no-year
funds to renovate Karrick Hall, an eight-story building on the
grounds of D.C. General Hospital. This facility housed CSOSA's
21-bed Assessment and Orientation Center since 1996. The
Assessment and Orientation Center provides 30 days of intensive
clinical assessment, treatment readiness, and reintegration
programming to high-risk defendants and offenders with serious
drug abuse problems. Since its inception, over 80 percent of
participants have completed the program, and arrest rates among
program graduates decreased nearly 75 percent. Based on its
demonstrated effectiveness, CSOSA will expand this program as
the focal point of a Reentry and Sanctions Center.
At present, the Assessment and Orientation Center treats
approximately 250 individuals per year. The 108-bed Reentry and
Sanctions Center, once completed, will provide approximately
1,200 program slots annually.
This expansion will allow us to make the program available
to women, develop a dedicated mental health unit, and open
three additional men's units. In addition, the center will
provide short-term residential interventions as a sanction for
individuals who relapse.
CSOSA's program model emphasizes accountability. Our
flexible system of intermediate sanctions enables us to balance
our external controls with the offender's developing sense of
internal self-control. We know, however, that external
authority alone is not sufficient to increase the offender's
sense of responsibility to self, family, and community. For
that, he or she needs to establish permanent, personal
connections to positive individuals and institutions. These
connections are essential to long-term change.
Supervision occupies, at most, a few years of a person's
life. During that time, the offender must develop the personal
resources that will permanently support him or her.
In the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, faith
institutions are a permanent source of guidance, fellowship,
inspiration, and assistance. These institutions have long
histories of helping the less fortunate and encouraging
personal change. Therefore, faith institutions are a natural
point at which to connect returning offenders with their
communities.
In 2001, CSOSA and the City's clergy forged a partnership
to develop mechanisms through which faith institutions could
contribute to successful reentry. We chose mentoring as our
first initiative to emphasize the value of personal
relationships in this work. From the initial call to action in
January 2002, to last month's Reentry Worship events, we have
raised awareness and involved over 200 volunteers in our
mentoring program.
Last year, we expanded the mentoring program to reach
inmates at the Rivers Correctional Institution in North
Carolina, which is a Bureau of Prisons contract facility
housing over 1,000 D.C. offenders. Reverend Donald Isaac, the
Chairman of the CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership Advisory
Council will share the clergy's perspective on this initiative
with the subcommittee.
As the faith initiative matures, we hope to demonstrate the
public safety benefits of linking returning offenders with the
community's natural support systems. We are in the initial
stages of evaluating the program, but we have already seen the
difference this intervention can make in individual lives.
This has been a year of great promise for CSOSA. We have
continued to refine the tools we use to supervise offenders.
This spring, we will implement an expanded automated screening
instrument that combines risk scoring and needs assessment to
generate a prescriptive supervision plan for each offender. We
recently expanded our case management system to include
automated treatment tracking. With the additional fiscal year
2004 funding supported by the subcommittee, CSP, Community
Supervision Program, has begun hiring additional supervision
officers to lower high-risk offender caseloads and expand our
use of Global Positioning System monitoring on high-risk
domestic violence and sex offenders.
The Pretrial Services Agency has made significant progress
with implementation of a new program funded last year, the
Mental Health Supervision Unit. This new unit provides
comprehensive mental health assessments and links defendants
with a range of mental health services provided by the City's
Department of Mental Health.
During fiscal year 2003, Pretrial Services Agency also
provided strong support to the D.C. Superior Court's
implementation of its new East of the River Community Court.
The shift from a traditional case processing orientation to a
problem-solving system of supervision has been very labor-
intensive for PSA, and the agency continues to explore ways to
realign existing staff to lower general supervision caseloads.
Community supervision plays a vital role in keeping our
city safe. It is the bridge that offenders must cross to move
from bad choices to a better life. It is our job to make it
both difficult and undesirable for the offender to reverse
direction and travel backwards. Our supervision officers have
an equal responsibility to encourage progress and address non-
compliance and relapse.
Every time I visit one of our field units, I am reminded
how difficult their job is. But every time I hear that an
offender got a promotion at work or completed treatment, I am
reminded how rewarding it can be. As more partners join us in
this work, I believe our forward momentum will carry more and
more offenders to the long-term success of living as
productive, crime- and drug-free citizens.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We thank the subcommittee for its continued interest in,
and support of, our initiatives. I will be pleased to answer
any question you may have at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Quander, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today in support of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency's fiscal year 2005 budget request. As you
know, CSOSA's budget request includes the Pretrial Services Agency
(PSA), which, although a component of CSOSA, operates independently
with a separate budget. The District of Columbia Public Defender
Service also transmits its budget with CSOSA's but is not part of
CSOSA.
CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget request totals $187,490,000, an
increase of 12 percent over fiscal year 2004. Of this, $118,343,000 is
for the Community Supervision Program (CSP), $39,314,000 for PSA, and
$29,833,000 for the Public Defender Service.
At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 14,000 offenders on
probation, parole, or supervised release. PSA supervises approximately
7,000 defendants pending trial and/or sentencing.
CSP's proposed budget represents a 13 percent increase over fiscal
year 2004 funding. Of the $14 million increase, approximately $8.9
million is allocated to one new program initiative. The increase funds
staffing and operating expenses for the first year of operation for our
Reentry and Sanctions Center.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million in no-year funds to
renovate Karrick Hall, an eight-story building on the grounds of D.C.
General Hospital. The facility has housed CSOSA's 21-bed Assessment and
Orientation Center, or AOC, since 1996. The AOC provides 30 days of
intensive clinical assessment, treatment readiness, and reintegration
programming to high-risk defendants and offenders with serious drug
abuse problems. The program has been extremely successful. Since its
inception, over 80 percent of participants have completed the program,
and arrest rates among program graduates were found to be nearly 75
percent lower than among offenders who did not receive this
programming. Based on its demonstrated effectiveness, CSOSA decided to
make this program the focal point of a Reentry and Sanctions Center
that would serve a larger population. At present, the AOC treats
approximately 250 individuals per year; the 108-bed Reentry and
Sanctions Center will provide approximately 1,200 program slots
annually.
This expansion will allow us to make programming based on the AOC
model available to women, develop a dedicated unit for individuals with
serious mental health issues, and open three additional units for male
defendants and offenders. This type of intensive, structured,
sanctions-based treatment is clearly effective, and we are very pleased
that we will soon be able to expand its use.
We are also pleased that we will not need to interrupt the program
during the renovations. We have procured an interim facility in
Northwest Washington and are now completing the transfer of operations.
The new space also allows us to increase overall capacity to 27 beds
during the renovation period.
Developing the Reentry and Sanctions Center demonstrated the value
and effectiveness of our community partnerships. We worked closely with
the city during the Reservation 13 master planning process to identify
the best location for the Center at this site. Once the decision to
renovate Karrick Hall was finalized, we worked cooperatively with the
city and neighborhood associations on our short-term occupancy of the
interim facility. At each stage of the process, we kept our partners
and neighbors informed of our intentions. The community has continually
supported our presence and recognized our contribution to public
safety.
CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand the range of
program options available to our supervision officers. Most treatment
professionals believe that relapse is part of recovery. A single
treatment experience is rarely sufficient to enable long-term substance
abusers to overcome their addiction. Most often, the road to recovery
is fraught with obstacles and detours. The Reentry and Sanctions Center
will provide not only the initial 30-day preparatory program, which
increases the likelihood that subsequent treatment will be effective,
but also short-term residential sanctions for individuals who relapse.
CSOSA's program model emphasizes accountability. Our flexible
system of intermediate sanctions enables us to balance our external
controls with the offender's developing sense of internal
accountability. We know, however, that external authority alone is not
sufficient to increase the offender's sense of responsibility to self,
family, and community. For that, he or she needs to establish
permanent, personal connections to positive individuals and
institutions. These connections are essential to long-term change.
Supervision occupies at most a few years of a person's life. During
that time, the offender must develop the personal resources that will
support a changed lifestyle.
In the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, faith institutions are a
permanent source of guidance, fellowship, inspiration, and assistance.
These institutions have long histories of helping the less fortunate
and encouraging personal change. Therefore, faith institutions are a
natural point at which to nurture connection between returning
offenders and their communities.
In 2001, CSOSA and the city's clergy forged a partnership to raise
awareness of the offenders' needs and develop mechanisms through which
faith institutions could help to meet them. We chose mentoring as our
first initiative to emphasize the value of personal relationships in
this work. From the initial call to action in January 2002, to this
year's Reentry Worship events early last month, we have raised
awareness and involved over 200 volunteers in our mentoring program.
Rev. Donald Isaac, the Chairman of the CSOSA Faith/Community
Partnership Advisory Council, will share the clergy's perspective on
this initiative with the subcommittee.
Last year, we expanded the mentoring program to reach inmates at
the Rivers Correctional Institution in North Carolina, which is a
Bureau of Prisons contract facility housing over 1,000 D.C. offenders.
We will show a short video about the mentoring program and a clip of
our video conference mentoring with Rivers at the conclusion of Rev.
Isaac's statement.
As the faith initiative matures, we hope to demonstrate the public
safety benefits of linking returning offenders with the community's
natural support systems. We are in the initial stages of evaluating the
program, but we have already seen the difference this intervention can
make in individual lives. Mentors have helped their mentees get and
keep jobs, maintain abstinence, find housing, and heal family
relationships. A mentor cannot and should not replace the community
supervision officer, but the mentor can help the offender to establish
relationships that last far beyond the supervision term.
Beyond mentoring, the faith initiative makes available to offenders
the support services offered by many churches and mosques. These
services include job training programs, food and clothing banks,
counseling and support groups, and family services. Through referral to
faith-based services, CSOSA expands the range of support available to
offenders.
This has been a year of great promise for CSOSA. We have continued
to refine the tools we use to supervise offenders. This spring, we will
implement an expanded automated screening instrument that combines risk
scoring and needs assessment to generate a prescriptive supervision
plan for each offender. We recently expanded our case management system
to include automated treatment tracking. With the additional fiscal
year 2004 funding supported by the subcommittee, CSP has begun hiring
additional supervision officers to lower high-risk offender caseloads
and expand our use of Global Positioning System monitoring on high-risk
domestic violence and sex offenders. CSP and PSA also processed almost
4,000 treatment placements.
PSA has made significant progress with implementation of a new
program funded last year, the mental health supervision unit. This new
unit provides comprehensive mental health assessments and links
defendants with a range of mental health services provided by the
city's Department of Mental Health. We expect that this will greatly
improve our ability to supervise defendants who manifest significant
programmatic needs.
During fiscal year 2003, PSA also provided strong support to the
D.C. Superior Court's implementation of its new East of the River
Community Court. The shift from a traditional case processing
orientation to a problem-solving system of supervision has been very
labor-intensive for PSA, and the Agency continues to explore ways to
realign existing staff to lower general supervision caseloads.
Community supervision plays a vital role in keeping our city safe.
It is the bridge that offenders must cross to move from bad choices to
a better life. It is our job to make it both difficult and undesirable
for the offender to reverse direction and travel backwards. Our
supervision officers have an equal responsibility to encourage progress
and address non-compliance and relapse. Every time I visit one of our
field units, I am reminded how difficult their job is. But every time I
hear that an offender got a promotion or completed treatment, I am
reminded how rewarding it can be. As more partners join us in this
work, I believe our forward momentum will carry more and more offenders
to the long-term success of living as productive, crime- and drug-free
citizens.
We thank the subcommittee for its continued interest in, and
support of, our initiatives. I will be pleased to answer any questions
you may have at this time.
Senator DeWine. Great. Thank you very much.
You have--why don't we go to your presentation?
Mr. Quander. Thank you, and with the----
Senator DeWine. Then we will go to questions. You can, you
know, bring up Reverend Isaac, now, or----
Mr. Quander. Actually, if I may----
Senator DeWine. Or do you want----
Mr. Quander [continuing]. I would like to invite, with the
Committee's permission, Paul Brennan, who is a supervisory
community supervision officer and an individual who is
intimately responsible for actually implementing and actually
making sure that the Global Positioning System monitoring
system is working.
DEMONSTRATION OF GPS MONITORING
Paul supervises one of our sex offender units, and these
are the individuals who we want to make sure we have constant
control and monitoring. So Paul has been instrumental in
getting the system up and running, and he is the individual who
is most familiar, and I would like to invite him to come
forward and to just talk for a moment and explain what we have
done and how we have done it.
Paul.
STATEMENT OF PAUL BRENNAN
Mr. Brennan. Good morning. First, I would like to make sure
you have a handout that looks like this, to follow along.
Senator DeWine. We do not.
Mr. Brennan. Well, let us look here.
Senator DeWine. Yes. One. Okay. Very good. Okay.
Senator Landrieu. We have another one.
Senator DeWine. We are in business.
Mr. Brennan. Great. What I am going to show you is just a
brief clip of an offender--of a sex offender, high-risk sex
offender released from prison. It is going to show his
movements to a location that we later had to investigate----
Senator DeWine. All right.
Mr. Brennan [continuing]. And I will talk about the
findings of what we found out. What you will see on the screen
is the offender at a bus stop that we identified. The green
represents--the green dots represent the offender. The arrows
will represent movement of the offender.
As you can see, the offender is around this bus stop here.
Senator DeWine. Where does this show up, though, in the
real world? I mean, it does not show up here in the Capitol on
the screen. Where is it?
Mr. Brennan. It shows up on our computer screen that we can
pull up from our office.
Senator DeWine. And who monitors that?
Mr. Brennan. The supervising officers will monitor this on
a daily basis.
Senator DeWine. The officer for that particular individual
or is there just somebody who monitors it in general?
Mr. Brennan. Each officer will be monitoring their
offender's movements each day.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Brennan. They will be most intimately aware of what the
issues are to look for.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Brennan. With this particular offender, he's a child
molester and we want to keep him away from schools. He's not
allowed to use the internet and so forth.
You see his movements as he comes into the City. He stops
at this location. We lose GPS at this location. That typically
means an offender has gone inside of a building. We know that
this is G Street. We know that Martin Luther King Library is
down here.
We brought the offender in and investigated why he was in
this particular location, and from that investigation
determined that he was using the internet at Martin Luther King
Library which was a condition of his release that prohibited
him from doing such. So from that, we were able to sanction the
offender, put tighter restrictions on him.
I am going to show you another clip of the same offender
who is at the halfway house. He goes to the same bus stop. Down
at the bottom of the screen you can--in your handout you can
see it clearer, the time, the date, and he travels down to
Anacostia Metro Station. Now, he's on his way--he is permitted
to leave the halfway house to go to a job program. The job
program is not in this area.
So what caused us to be concerned is: Why is he going out
of his way to go to this particular stop? What we notice are
the red indicators here of schools. The time of day is between
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. So when kids are going to school, they
may be taking that particular subway station.
As I play the movements, you can see that the offender is
there for an extended--almost an hour, which is highly unusual,
and you can see him loitering around the location. And this,
right here, and that to us is suspicious. Why is he in that
location?
In a minute you'll see him now getting on public
transportation. We lose GPS. That means he is probably on a
bus, and then he ends up in this location. He gets off the bus,
and now he is walking to his program. You see a school here.
And there is his program, right here. And it sees him stop.
Now, here is the closest Metro. So, why was he at the Anacostia
station? We later determined that he had gone there repeatedly.
That was enough for us to take it back to the parole commission
and revoke his parole.
Do we have time for one more clip?
Mr. Quander. Let me just make a point. We would never have
known the travel pattern of this individual unless we had the
monitoring system. What happened was once he went to the
Anacostia station, the next morning when the supervising CSO
took a look at his screen, the information automatically was
there. So he could look at it, analyze it, and indicate--the
indications were right there, that there were three schools,
and we also saw that he was standing there for 1 hour.
And why does a sex offender get off at a subway stop which
is not the closest one to where he is going and which is in
close proximity to three schools? We were able to use this
information to confront him with it and get him to acknowledge,
No. 1, yes, he was there and, No. 2, he should not have been
there. And then we could take the appropriate action.
The other thing that this allows us to do is when we
present this to a releasing authority, whether it is the
Superior Court or the U.S. Parole Commission, it makes it very
difficult for people to explain away. There is no longer an
issue as to whether or not you were there. This technology
proves it. There is not much that you can say. It is
irrefutable, essentially, and allows us to keep control over a
population that we are most concerned about. Okay.
Senator DeWine. Good. No, that was great. Thank you, very
much.
Mr. Quander. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Brennan. The hardware is up here if you wanted to
examine it. Also, in the green packets, there is a description
of how it works and that is from the company. Feel free to
review that.
Senator DeWine. Sure. Go ahead.
Senator Landrieu. How expensive was this system to put in
place and what is the annual cost of maintaining it? And I am
not talking about the people that have to analyze it. I am just
talking about the software and the general maintenance.
Mr. Quander. We are--we have a vendor, a contract with a
vendor. Our costs are $6 a day per unit that we have available
to us. The committee appropriated $100,000 for us to get the
program up and operational. We would like to expand the use to
get as many as 200 individuals on to the GPS system.
Senator Landrieu. Let us talk about the cost if we could,
Mr. Chairman, for just a minute. This is the device that costs
$6 a day?
Mr. Quander. It is the whole system.
Senator Landrieu. It is the whole system?
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And for $6 a day you can monitor a
felon----
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. A person? And we have money
to monitor how many?
Mr. Quander. Right now, we can monitor 100 individuals.
Senator Landrieu. And how many do we have?
Mr. Quander. Right now, there are nine that are actually on
the program.
Senator Landrieu. No. How many offenders are we trying--
what is our goal of trying to monitor, how many?
Mr. Quander. I am--I have funding to monitor 100. I would
like to monitor 200.
Senator Landrieu. All right. How many----
Senator DeWine. But how many----
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Then would----
Senator DeWine. Excuse me. How many are we actually
monitoring right now?
Mr. Quander. Today, we have nine offenders on GPS.
Senator DeWine. Why are we only at nine?
Mr. Quander. Because we are still in the pilot phase of the
program----
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Quander [continuing]. And we are evaluating. The other
issues are: We have to train staff. Right now, most of the
offenders are in the sex offense unit, and so Mr. Brennan, who
supervises that unit, has received the training and the know
how. The other thing, it is intensive as far as analyzing the
material.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Quander. Once this information is provided, then the
CSO has to sit down, has to analyze it, know the patterns, and
then confront the individual and do the follow up. So, it is
labor intensive. So, we have to be in a caseload ratio.
So, right now, although the sex offense caseload is about
29 to 1 as of January, this past January, the closer we get it
down to those lower numbers, the more effective we can use
this, make this tool.
Senator Landrieu. Let me try to re-ask my question, and I
am very impressed with the technology and, believe me, I want
to help you, and I can see the benefits of it. I can also see
the--and understand the issue you just raised because we have
talked about it before. But as good as the technology is, it is
only as good as you can analyze it and have the people there to
sit at the screen and to do the appropriate calculations and
then take the time to follow up.
So I am clear, I am just trying to understand that this
pilot, although it is good, it seems to me to be very, very
small in the sense that we have, according to this, 500 sex
offenders that are released on the streets and we are
monitoring nine, nine people right now?
Mr. Brennan. We have actually hooked up over 50 in the
course of the pilot.
Senator Landrieu. So 50 out of 500 of the sex offenders.
And how many of the mental health--we have 666 mental health
individuals that are described as mental health. Are we
monitoring any of those?
Mr. Quander. None of the mental health population are on
the GPS.
Senator Landrieu. How about domestic violence?
Mr. Quander. Well----
Senator Landrieu. We have 1,122?
Mr. Quander. During the course of the pilot phase, there
have only been two, I believe, domestic violence individuals.
Senator Landrieu. This is a very small pilot, but it is
very promising.
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. But the problem is: The resources are
short and the staffing issues are substantial. But it seems
like, is it the, I guess--I am going to finish up here in a
minute.
But is it the code of consensus of the professionals that
do this that this is a pretty extraordinary system if it can be
funded and staffed appropriately? Because, as you said, I mean,
I am sure everything is--nothing is foolproof, but this seems
pretty convincing to me; that is, trying to monitor activities
of people and trying to catch them before another terrible
incident occurs. Is that your general sense?
Mr. Quander. It is, and----
Senator Landrieu. I am not trying to lead you to an answer.
I just want to know what your feeling is, yes or no.
Mr. Quander. It is, and let me try to respond this way.
Possibly 3 weeks ago we provided training to the Judges, the
Criminal Division Judges in Superior Court, for what is
involved in dealing with the sex offender, and a portion of
that training dealt with the Global Positioning System, and we
walked through it because we wanted to educate them so that
they knew it was available so that they could use it.
Once we did that demonstration, the phone calls have been
coming in. So there is a need. There is agreement in the
community, the criminal justice community, that this works,
that it is a tool that can better protect the public.
It is also a tool that helps us assist the offenders to be
successful in their period of supervision. The more individuals
that I can keep on the streets of the District of Columbia
successfully complying with the rules, the better we are as a
city, and the better their chances are for completing
supervision successfully in taking advantage of all the other
tools that we have available. This helps us to keep offenders
accountable, and if we have them accountable, then we can do
all the other things that we need to do to make that
transition.
Senator DeWine. The pilot program will run its course when?
Mr. Quander. Well, we have funding for this fiscal year,
and we have funding for 100 for next fiscal year, but as I
indicated, we are very interested in trying to expand, because
I want to make it available to the CSO's who have individuals
who are just on their regular caseload.
Senator DeWine. When do you think you will move from the
nine up to the next stage? I mean----
Mr. Quander. Actually, we are looking to do that by the end
of May. There is some training that has to take place with the
staff. There are some union issues that have to be overcome,
but I am not anticipating any problems, because we are talking
about a change in the way that we do business. So by the end of
May we should be close to having 50 and by the end of the
fiscal year, we will have a minimum of 100 people, I believe,
on the Global Positioning System.
Senator DeWine. What kind of union issues do you have?
Mr. Quander. Union issues are just that there is a change
in the way that we are going to do business. This is going to
require our staff to analyze material, to be familiar with
patterns, to do things just a little differently. I am not
anticipating any problems. In fact, I have a meeting with the
union scheduled next week. They know where we are going. The
staff is very receptive. They like it. It gives them an
opportunity to do the work that they really want to do, and
that is to make a change in individual's lives. The more tools
that we can give the staff, the easier it is for them to do
their job and the better the results.
Senator DeWine. Good. Okay. Very good. What else do you
have to show us here?
Mr. Quander. There is one additional slide if you would
like to, Paul.
Senator DeWine. Yes, I think we had better--I think we had
better move to Reverend Isaac at this point.
Mr. Quander. Reverend Isaac?
Senator DeWine. Reverend Isaac became the Director of the
East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership in 2001.
This partnership was created to address issues associated with
high-risk youth and the young adults who are at risk of being
in the criminal justice system. Reverend Isaac also serves as
the Chairman of CSOSA's Faith Advisory Committee, and is a
member of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, and has
served on the Board of Directors of the Thurgood Marshall
Charter School.
Reverend Isaac. Yes. Good morning.
Senator DeWine. Reverend, thank you for joining us.
Reverend Isaac. Thank you for having me.
Senator DeWine. We appreciate it very much.
Reverend Isaac. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND DONALD ISAAC
Reverend Isaac. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear today to represent the
partnership between the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency and the District of Columbia faith community.
I am Reverend Donald Isaac, Executive Director of the East
of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership and Associate
Pastor of the Southeast Tabernacle Church. I am also Chairman
of the CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership Advisory Council, and
it is in that context that I come before you today.
Over the past few years, government has begun to understand
and notice the extent to which the faith institutions
contribute to community stability, family strength, and public
safety. The executive order establishing the White House Office
of Faith-Based and Community Programs states that, ``Faith-
based and other community organizations are indispensable in
meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed
neighborhoods.'' As a minister in the District of Columbia, I
see the truth of that statement every day.
I have dedicated my ministry to reversing the trend of
escalating crime and violence amount our City's young people.
Therefore, I am very interested--I was very interested when
CSOSA issued the call in 2001 asking the City's clergy to
establish a faith/community partnership that uses the power and
resources of faith institutions to help offenders under
community supervision.
From the very beginning, several aspects of CSOSA's
approach to the faith/community partnership were encouraging.
First, CSOSA represents--respects the autonomy and authority of
faith institutions. Second, they acknowledge that our resources
are limited, and that a partnership is a two-way street. They
are willing to give something to get something. CSOSA put in
place and funded a structure to support offenders' access to
faith/community programs and services. And third, they value
and respect all creeds and denominations.
CSOSA supports the efforts of our Advisory Committee--or
Council to remain truly representative of the City's
congregations. Our Advisory Council currently has 19 members
drawn from the City's diverse Christian and Muslim
congregations.
The Faith/Community Partnership chose mentoring as its
first initiative because it allows individual volunteers and
returning offenders to connect in an immediate and personal
way. Relationships are the core of mentoring, but successful
mentoring involves much more than conversation. It involves
empathy and support. Mentors must be able to understand the
obstacles and temptations their mentees face, the obligations
of community supervision, and the opportunities they need to
find.
CSOSA has developed and delivered mentor training that
touches on most of these issues, but no classroom experience
can prepare an individual for how hard the work is.
The initial 100 matches between mentors and mentees have
yielded wonderful examples of that support. Shirley Hall was
released from prison in October 2002 at the age of 39. When she
joined us, she had a long history of drug use and
incarceration. In fact, she was referred to us after having her
parole revoked for drug use. She told us that she needed the
support of other women to stay out. We placed her with Upper
Room Baptist Church.
Reverend Catherine Bago, the associate pastor, has worked
for many years with substance abuse and runs a well-regarded
aftercare program. Shirley received a lot of support from the
women's group at Upper Room, as well as from Reverend Bago
personally. She has been drug-free since her release and is
pursuing a long-term career as a commercial driver. She has
managed to stay clean even though she has faced a lot of
stress. Both her parents have been ill, and she started a job
that did not work out. She may have relapsed, but she did not.
She stayed strong and credits that success in part to the
support she received from Upper Room.
Ms. Hall's case provides a good example, not just of the
personal support mentoring provides, but of faith-based support
services, as well. Ms. Hall's parole has had a special
condition requiring substance abuse aftercare. Attendance at
Reverend Bago's program has enabled her to satisfy that
condition in a way that reinforced her connection to the faith
community. Upper Room's program lasts as long as Ms. Hall wants
to attend it. Ms. Hall has had access to a supportive women's
group long after her parole has ended.
The District of Columbia faith institutions provide a wide
range of support services, including job training and
placement, family counseling, food and clothing banks, and
transitional housing. We at the East of the River Clergy-
Police-Community Partnership are proud of our recently
developed housing facility, which was dedicated as part of this
year's reentry activities.
ERCPCP is also pleased to have been selected as a pilot
program for the Ready4Work Program administered through the
Department of Labor. This program will enable us to greatly
expand our job readiness and placement activities over the next
3 years.
Another lead institution in the CSOSA Faith/Community
Partnership, New Commandment Baptist Church, has received funds
from the Department of Justice to expand its program, as well.
Our involvement with CSOSA has prepared us for the challenge of
administering broader initiatives and, in turn, the offenders
under CSOSA supervision will benefit from an increased range of
support programs.
The CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership has grown from a
dozen ministers at a conference table to a City-wide initiative
involving hundreds of individuals. We are beginning to attract
the additional resources needed to expand the services that are
essential to success. We have expanded mentoring to reach out
to prisoners, to prison inmates before they return home.
Because those early weeks are so critical, we want to make sure
the inmate knows where to find us as soon as he gets off the
bus.
All this adds up to a promising start. CSOSA is committed
to working with us, and we are committed to providing permanent
fellowship and support to any offender who wants it. We are in
this for the long haul, and we hope that the resources will be
available for us to make even more of our inspirations into
realities.
CSOAS--excuse me. CSOSA reached out to us because they
recognized the limitations of law enforcement. Community
supervision lasts only a short time, while the faith community
can be a source of permanent inspiration. Community supervision
is a consequence of past behavior, but faith institutions can
influence the course of future behavior. Community supervision
is about external accountability, but faith is about internal
change. As in any good marriage, the two partners in this
enterprise complement each other.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to continuing our work with CSOSA, and I
thank you again for this opportunity to tell you about it. I
will be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this
time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reverend Donald Isaac
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to represent the partnership between the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the District of
Columbia faith community. I am Rev. Donald Isaac, Executive Director of
the East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership and Associate
Pastor of Southeast Tabernacle Church. I am also the Chairman of the
CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership Advisory Council, and it is in that
capacity that I come before you today.
Over the past few years, government has begun to notice the extent
to which faith institutions contribute to community stability, family
strength, and public safety. The Executive Order establishing the White
House Office of Faith-Based and Community Programs states that
``[f]aith-based and other community organizations are indispensable in
meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed neighborhoods.'' \1\
As a minister in the District of Columbia, I see the truth of that
statement every day. I have dedicated my ministry to reversing the
trend of escalating crime and violence among our city's young people.
Therefore, I was very interested when CSOSA issued their call in 2001,
asking the city's clergy to establish a faith/community partnership
that uses the power and resources of faith institutions to help
offenders under community supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ White House Office of the Press Secretary, ``Executive Order:
Establishment of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,''
January 29, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning, several aspects of CSOSA's approach to faith/
community partnership were encouraging. First, CSOSA respects the
autonomy and authority of faith institutions. Second, they acknowledge
that our resources are limited, and that a partnership is a two-way
street. They are willing to give something to get something--CSOSA put
in place and funded a structure to support offenders' access to faith
community programs and services. And third, they value and respect all
creeds and denominations. CSOSA supports the efforts of our Advisory
Council to remain truly representative of the city's congregations. Our
Advisory Council currently has 19 members drawn from the city's diverse
Christian and Muslim congregations.
The Faith/Community Partnership chose mentoring as its first
initiative because it allows individual volunteers and returning
offenders to connect in an immediate, personal way. Relationships are
the core of mentoring, but successful mentoring involves much more than
conversation. It involves empathy and support. Mentors must be able to
understand the obstacles and temptations their mentees face, the
obligations of community supervision, and the opportunities they need
to find. CSOSA has developed and delivered mentor training that touches
on most of these issues, but no classroom experience can prepare an
individual for how hard the work is.
The initial 100 matches between mentors and mentees have yielded
some wonderful examples of that support. Shirley Hall was released from
prison in October 2002 at the age of 39. When she joined us, she had a
long history of drug use and incarceration; in fact, she was referred
to us after having her parole revoked for drug use. She told us that
she needed the support of other women to stay out. We placed her with
Upper Room Baptist Church. Rev. Catherine Bago, the associate pastor,
has worked for many years with substance abuse and runs a well-regarded
aftercare program. Shirley received a lot of support from the women's
groups at Upper Room, as well as from Rev. Bago personally. She has
been drug-free since her release and is pursuing a long-term career as
a commercial driver. She has managed to stay clean even though she has
faced a lot of stress--both her parents have been ill, and she started
a job that didn't work out. She might have relapsed. But she didn't.
She stayed strong, and she credits that success in part to the support
she received from Upper Room.
Ms. Hall's case provides a good example not just of the personal
support mentoring provides but of faith-based support services as well.
Ms. Hall's parole has a special condition requiring substance abuse
aftercare; attendance at Rev. Bago's program enabled her to satisfy
that condition in a way that reinforced her connection to the faith
community. Upper Room's program lasts as long as Ms. Hall wants to
attend it. Ms. Hall will have access to a supportive women's group long
after her parole is ended.
The District of Columbia's faith institutions provide a wide range
of support services, including job training and placement, family
counseling, food and clothing banks, and transitional housing. We at
East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership (ERCPCP) are very
proud of our recently developed housing facility, which was dedicated
as part of this year's Reentry Week activities. ERCPCP is also pleased
to be selected as a pilot site for the Ready4Work program administered
through the Department of Labor. This program will enable us to greatly
expand our job readiness and placement activities over the next 3
years. Another lead institution in the CSOSA/Faith Community
Partnership, New Commandment Baptist Church, has received funds from
the Department of Justice to expand its programs. Our involvement with
CSOSA has prepared us for the challenge of administering broader
initiatives, and in turn, the offenders under CSOSA supervision will
benefit from an increased range of support programs.
The CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership has grown from a dozen
ministers at a conference table to a citywide initiative involving
hundreds of individuals. We are beginning to attract the additional
resources needed to expand the services that are essential to success.
We have expanded mentoring to reach out to prison inmates before they
return home. Because those early weeks are so critical, we want to make
sure the inmate knows where to find us as soon as he gets off the bus.
All this adds up to a promising start. CSOSA is committed to
working with us, and we are committed to providing permanent fellowship
and support to any offender who wants it. We are in this for the long
haul, and we hope that the resources will be available for us to make
even more of our inspirations into realities. CSOSA reached out to us
because they recognized the limitations of law enforcement. Community
supervision lasts only a short time, while the faith community can be a
source of permanent inspiration. Community supervision is a consequence
of past behavior, but faith institutions can influence the course of
future behavior. Community supervision is about external
accountability, but faith is about internal change. As in any good
marriage, the two partners in this enterprise complement each other.
I look forward to continuing our work with CSOSA, and I thank you
again for this opportunity to tell you about it. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
Senator DeWine. Reverend, thank you very much.
Am I understanding that you have a video that shows some of
the teleconferencing that goes on with some of the inmates? Can
you show that for us?
Reverend Isaac. Yes.
That is it.
Senator DeWine. Good. That is very good. Now, who has the
availability to access that? I saw that was a mentor there, or
he was identified as. Family members have the ability to do
that, as well, or----
Mr. Quander. Actually, we do; we invite the family members
down, during certain portions of the video conferencing, so
that we can establish that connection. Some of the men--what we
are trying to emphasize are those pro-social values that the
faith institutions have, and a part of that is that
restructuring of that family or reconnection because some of
those family bridges have been burned and the mentors and the
faith community help us, oftentimes, reestablish and reconnect
with those men, and the more that we can do that the more
support that we have, the more assistance that the CSO has in
making sure that offenders are being held accountable, and at
the same time that those services and support mechanisms are in
place.
So the family members do come down, including the children,
so that they can reestablish those connections with their
fathers.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Let me pursue that line of questioning
about trying to keep convicted felons connected to their
families, restrengthening the families where possible.
With the women prisoners--I understand that we have quite a
challenge with all the prisoners, but particularly with women,
many of whom are mothers, as many of the men would be fathers.
But I understand that the majority of women are placed either
in West Virginia or Connecticut?
Mr. Quander. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. And how many miles away are those
facilities, Alderson and Danbury?
Mr. Quander. I am not sure, but I believe that Alderson is
within 500 miles of the District, but I also believe that it is
probably a 6- or 7-hour drive there. Danbury is going to be an
8-hour drive, I believe.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Mr. Quander. So it is a significant distance that families
often have to travel so that they can stay connected. One of
the things that we are working with, just as we have
established this video conference with Rivers in North
Carolina, we are working with the Bureau of Prisons and with
other organizations and the faith group to establish a similar
link either at Alderson or at Danbury. So that we can start the
same process and, hopefully, we can strengthen what we are
doing and strengthen those families through this
teleconferencing capability.
Senator Landrieu. And I am just focused on the number here.
I have about 12 percent of the population that we are talking
about is female, about 8,000 in jail. So, roughly, that would
be a little over 800, maybe 1,000 female individuals, if my
math is correct. Eight thousand in jail, 12 percent female,
does that match with what you all--approximately, 1,000?
Mr. Quander. I think it is going to be a little less than
1,000 female offenders----
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Eight hundred?
Mr. Quander [continuing]. Through a----
Senator Landrieu. Eight hundred, maybe? Somewhere--am I
right, between about 700 and 1,000? Is that safe?
Mr. Quander. I believe that would be accurate. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Mr. Quander. But the Bureau of Prisons would have the best
stats, the best information.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. If there is 700, Mr. Chairman, to
1,000, I am wondering what kind of other options there are for
the teleconferencing opportunities, whether they are, you know,
once a week, once a month, once a quarter, with family members,
or trying to get some of those inmates closer to the community.
I think there are a couple of components here.
I mean one is trying not to just reunite them with the
community, but reunite them with the families which is part of
the community which is important, trying to keep those bonds
from fraying in the first place, as well as, the professional
supervision, so it all works together in an integrated way.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think we have quite a challenge, A, to
try to keep these inmates closer, physically, but also use this
technology when the physical location is impossible to really
make that connection. Now, what is limiting us? Is it--again,
is it the cost of the software? Is it the--what are the
limitations so that this is not being available to all, let us
say, 700 or 800 women, now?
Mr. Quander. One of the issues is that the women are not
located in one facility. They are spread throughout the
country. Alderson, I believe, houses the largest number of
female offenders, D.C. co-defenders. And, I believe, that
number is going to be--actually that is, as I understand it,
there are 67 women in Alderson facility. There is, I believe, a
lesser number in the facility in Massachusetts--in Connecticut.
All total from the Bureau of Prisons, I understand, is
approximately less than 300 females that are housed in Bureau
of Prisons' facilities throughout the country, but they are
spread throughout the country. And so, thus, one of the
limitations is that we do not have them in one or two central
locations. Those two central locations are Alderson and
Danbury. And so that is why we are focusing on that.
We have actually had meetings with the Bureau of Prisons,
and the Bureau is receptive. They see the benefit. The wardens
and the support staff in those facilities see the benefit of
doing this. We are just in the process of trying to make it
happen. We are the agency that actually receives the
individuals once they have left the prison. What we want to do
is sort of extend our reach to get them before they have come
to us, because we think there are some services that we can
provide that will help them with that transition, and the faith
community has been very supportive, and we think we are there.
Senator Landrieu. Well, the final thing I will say on that,
I think the Chairman and I would be more than happy to help you
with the Bureau of Prisons to try and develop a stronger
partnership as people are getting close to their release time,
to move them closer to the community, physically, and then
connect them via as much, you know, using some of this new
technology as possible, not just for the women but for the men.
But, I think, particularly in terms of many of these women
who are the primary caretakers of the children, we want those
relationships to be maintained as much as possible. So that is
all I will say, Mr. Chairman. But any ideas you have, please
let us know and we will work with you on that.
Mr. Quander. Thank you. One of the things that we have
discussed with the Bureau is designating those two facilities
and the Rivers facility, essentially, as a feeder site; as
individuals get closer to their release date, using those
facilities so that we can have a critical mass, and if we have
a critical mass at these facilities, then we can continue to
use those services.
If the facility is Alderson or Danbury, that is fine. And
the Bureau has indicated its willingness to work with us to,
maybe, sort of, funnel individuals in that direction, so that
if we can get them there, then we can start establishing some
of the services that, I think, we can provide.
STATUS OF REENTRY AND SANCTIONS CENTER
Senator DeWine. Mr. Quander, I just have one question. In
your written statement and your oral statement, you talked
about the Reentry and Sanctions Center.
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator DeWine. I am unclear how far along that is as far
as capacity. You say, ``At present, the AOC treats
approximately 250 individuals per year. The 108-bed Reentry and
Sanctions Center will provide, approximately, 1,200 program
slots annually.'' So are you totally up and running or--I do
not quite understand that.
Mr. Quander. No. Where we are----
Senator DeWine. This and that.
Mr. Quander. Okay. Where we are, Senator, is that we have a
facility which is on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital,
Karrick Hall, which is--we have to renovate, essentially gut,
put new heating, air conditioning. I mean, we have to go in.
This committee appropriated $13 million----
Senator DeWine. In 2002, right? Which one----
Mr. Quander. Yes. But we had to negotiate with the city. We
had to bring the community in. There were a lot of issues that
needed to be resolved before we could actually enter into the
lease agreement, which took us a while to get.
Senator DeWine. So where is that construction? Where is
that?
Mr. Quander. Actually, all the paperwork is done. We had 21
men that were in the facility. They have been relocated to
swing space, which is in the community. Construction is
beginning. We are anticipating having the facility ready for
operation, hopefully, in May of 2005. We will be able to expand
that population in our facility so that we can house women
there, so that we can house a mental health unit and four units
for men, which will really increase our capacity to provide the
type of service that we need. And with this group, this is the
group of that core 30 percent of long-term substance abusers
with at least six prior contacts. These are the individuals
who, we believe, are doing most of the damage in our city. If
we can get their substance abuse problems under control----
Senator DeWine. So you will be rolling by May of next year,
then?
Mr. Quander. That is what we are anticipating, having the
facility and going in and rolling. Yes.
Senator DeWine. And what does that do then to your
operating budget when you hit that level?
Mr. Quander. Well, right now, we are funded--we have
partial year funding for that, that will take us through fiscal
year of 2005. And fiscal year 2006, there is going to be a
substantial increase that we are going to need to continue the
operation.
Senator DeWine. Are you covered in this proposed budget
then?
Mr. Quander. Yes, for 2005.
Senator DeWine. That would be a partial year, then?
Mr. Quander. A partial year, that is correct.
Senator DeWine. And you are covered in the President's
budget for that?
Mr. Quander. Yes, for the partial operations.
Senator DeWine. Because you are going to be substantially
up--I mean, once you move into that facility, it is like you
are moving into any new facility, your costs just kind of go
up, is that right?
Mr. Quander. That is correct. So for the partial year 2005,
I believe, we are covered. The issue will be in fiscal year
2006, when we go to full-year funding for the program.
Senator DeWine. Let me ask one last question and then we
will move to our next panel: This committee has worked with you
to take down the ratio when you are dealing with sex offenders
and other special population offenders, but from your budget
submission, it appears that your general population--you are at
a ratio of 1 to 125. That sounds high. How does that compare to
other jurisdictions?
Mr. Quander. No, actually, our general population--our
general supervision numbers are about 50 to 1. What you may be
referring to----
Senator DeWine. Maybe I misread that.
PRETRIAL CASELOADS
Mr. Quander. But I would like to speak to that just for one
moment, because that is the ratio of the general supervision in
the pretrial services area for those individuals who have not
been adjudicated or convicted.
Senator DeWine. Pretrial?
Mr. Quander. Pretrial.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mr. Quander. That ratio is extremely high, as you noted. It
is about 127 to 1. I believe----
Senator DeWine. How does that compare to other
jurisdictions, pretrial service----
Mr. Quander. In the----
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Comparing apples to apples,
then?
Mr. Quander. It is difficult to compare because the
District is unique. If you look at Federal pretrial in
surrounding jurisdictions, Northern Virginia and in Maryland,
those numbers are in the range of about 60 to 1. What we have
requested is an area that will get us down to 80 to 1. It is--
--
Senator DeWine. How about State pretrial?
Mr. Quander. State pretrial, there are not any standard
numbers that we have been able to really pull together, but we
do know that 127 to 1 is--that does not allow us to do anything
but just to process the paperwork. If we are going to do the
type of supervision that we need, our numbers in that area have
to come down, and they have to come down dramatically.
Senator DeWine. So these--just so I understand, these would
be the felons, misdemeanors, what are they? Who are they?
Mr. Quander. On the pretrial side?
Senator DeWine. Yes, right, that is what we are talking
about.
Mr. Quander. It would be felons and misdemeanors----
Senator DeWine. Mostly a----
Mr. Quander [continuing]. But mostly felons.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Mixed group.
Mr. Quander. Yes, but mainly felons that are in there and
then----
Senator DeWine. Mainly felons?
Mr. Quander. That is correct.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Pretrial, mainly felons, 125 to 1.
Yes, that does sound high.
Mr. Quander. It is.
Senator DeWine. We all agree it is high, right?
Mr. Quander. Yes, we do.
Senator DeWine. We agree it is a problem?
Mr. Quander. We believe it is a potential problem. Yes.
Senator DeWine. So, really--I mean, we are using nice words
here, but we are not doing much.
Mr. Quander. We are only----
Senator DeWine. We are watching them on paper?
Mr. Quander. We are processing----
Senator DeWine. Processing paper, but that is about all we
are doing, is it not?
Mr. Quander. I like to go out, and I like to talk to the
people that are really do the work, and I went out recently and
spoke with a pretrial services officer and she said, ``Mr.
Quander, all I am doing is processing paper.''
Senator DeWine. Well, if they mess up, we know it maybe.
Mr. Quander. Exactly. And she indicated that she----
Senator DeWine. If the police pick them up again, we know
it, but that is about it.
Mr. Quander. And she said she wants to do more, but she
cannot with the caseload with the way that it is.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator DeWine. I see it. Okay. So we have got a problem.
Okay. All right. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Quander. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine
community supervision program
Question. What are the key performance goals and measures used to
manage CSOSA's offender supervision program?
Answer. CSOSA's Community Supervision Program (CSP) has adopted
improvement in public safety as its most important outcome. While many
factors influence public safety, CSP can contribute to it by reducing
recidivism among the population under supervision. Both new convictions
and revocations that result in loss of liberty contribute to the
overall recidivism rate.
The achievement of this long-term outcome depends on CSP's success
in changing the offender's behavior and assisting him or her in
establishing a stable, crime-free lifestyle. It is necessary to
confront the problems most often at the root of criminal behavior as
well as to enforce conditions of release. CSP targets five key
intermediate outcome areas for its offender population that must first
be addressed to improve public safety:
--Decrease Rearrest.--The rate of rearrest is one indicator of
potential criminal activity among the supervised population.
Effective supervision and sanctions should result in a
decreased rearrest rate among the offenders under supervision.
--Decrease Technical Violations.--Offenders violate the conditions of
their release by using drugs, changing residence or traveling
without permission, failing to complete treatment, and other
behaviors. Such ``technical'' violations often precede more
serious criminal behavior. CSP has therefore targeted a
reduction in the percentage of offenders who accumulate
multiple technical violations as an important measure of
whether its sanctions-based supervision model is effective.
--Decrease Drug Use.--Substance abusers must make progress toward
reducing their drug use. CSP tracks changes in substance abuse
using drug testing. The measurement of drug use (as measured by
positive test results) will reflect the effectiveness of the
Agency's testing policy and sanctions for positive tests.
Positive drug test results among offenders who have received
treatment will be the primary method for assessing the
effectiveness of treatment interventions.
--Increase Job Retention.--CSP works with its partners in the
community to develop employment opportunities for offenders
under supervision. Because of data availability concerns,
initial targets focused on the rate of employment among its
offenders. However, with the deployment of a new information
system, CSP has modified the measure to focus on the offender's
ability to maintain employment. This new measure allows for job
change and periods of training but not for long periods of
unemployment.
--Increase Education Levels.--An offender's chances of success
improve markedly if he or she functions at a higher educational
level. CSP has implemented a system of learning labs to provide
educational programming. The objective is to enroll offenders
needing assistance in a GED or adult literacy program and to
measure progress throughout participation.
Progress toward the intermediate outcomes is directly related to
achievement of the long-term outcome of increasing public safety in the
District of Columbia. If offenders are held accountable for their
actions and improve the factors that contribute to personal and
economic success, they are less likely to recidivate. In that way,
achievement of the intermediate outcomes results in the long-term
outcome of reduced recidivism.
Critical Success Factors (CSF's)
CSOSA established the following four Critical Success Factors
(CSF's) as our primary operational strategies. The CSF's define the
core day-to-day activities within community supervision. Without
successful performance of these activities, it would be impossible to
make progress toward the Agency's intermediate- and long-term outcomes.
--Risk and Needs Assessment.--Establish and implement (a) an
effective risk and needs assessment and case management
process, including regular drug testing, to help officials
determine whom it is appropriate to release and at what level
of supervision, including identification of required treatment
and support services, and (b) an ongoing evaluation process
that assesses an offender's compliance with release conditions
and progress in reforming behavior so that further
interventions can be implemented if needed;
--Close Supervision.--Provide close supervision of offenders,
including immediate graduated sanctions for violations of
release conditions and incentives for compliance;
--Treatment and Support Services.--Provide appropriate treatment and
support services, as determined by the needs assessment, to
assist offenders in reintegrating into the community; and
--Partnerships.--Establish partnerships with other criminal justice
agencies, faith institutions, and community organizations in
order to facilitate close supervision of the offender in the
community and to leverage the diverse resources of local law
enforcement, human service agencies, and other local community
groups.
The CSF's define interdependent processes that, taken as a whole,
determine long-term outcomes. Risk and needs assessment continually
inform how offenders are supervised and which services they receive.
Through partnerships with the community and other criminal justice
agencies, CSP develops service capacity and improves its supervision
practices.
CSP has also put in place a system of output-oriented performance
measures to track specific oeprational activities related to each CSF.
Most of these activities are defined within Agency policies. Therefore,
the specific performance measures track whether we are in fact
implementing our program model.
Question. How does CSP classify offenders to enable close
supervision of those offenders who are high risk for committing serious
or violent crimes?
Answer. To classify offenders into an appropriate level of
supervision, CSP uses a screening instrument that is automated and
fully integrated within its information system, SMART (Supervision and
Management Automated Records Tracking). The screener is administered by
the Community Supervision Officer (CSO) and reviewed by the Supervisory
Community Supervision Officer (SCSO). Based on answers provided in the
screener, a score is calculated for the offender's risk. The score, in
combination with the SCSO's and CSO's assessment, is used to recommend
the offender's classification to an appropriate supervision level
(Intensive, Maximum, Medium, or Minimum). Although the recommendation
is generated automatically, it can be overridden by the CSO with
supervisory approval. Close supervision is provided to offenders who
are in an Intensive or Maximum level of supervision.
The current version of the screener focuses primarily on risk level
and does not incorporate other factors which, when addressed through
programmatic interventions, can affect recidivism (see Andrews, Bonta,
& Hoge, 1990; and Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen,
1990). ``Principles of Effective Intervention,'' developed by several
prominent Canadian researchers (also known as the Canadian Model),
recommends the use of a comprehensive risk and needs assessment to
determine the offender's risk of recidivism. This comprehensive
assessment includes factors such as:
--Criminal associates;
--Criminal attitudes;
--Antisocial personality patterns;
--Family functioning;
--School/work;
--Substance abuse; and
--Use of leisure time.
CSP has redesigned and broadened its screener instrument to
incorporate the Canadian Model. This new assessment instrument will
also be fully automated within SMART and will not only recommend a
level of supervision but also will generate a recommended prescriptive
supervision plan. This plan will present realistic goals and objectives
for the offender, define appropriate intervention strategies, and track
the offender's progress. The new screener will enhance and standardize
the case planning process and will ensure that all offenders are
appropriately classified, supervised, and placed in programming. It is
expected that the new screener will become operational by the early
summer of 2004.
SUPERVISION STRATEGIES
Question. What techniques are used to monitor the offenders,
particularly those who are high risk?
Answer. CSP's supervision strategy emphasizes both risk management
(minimizing the likelihood of reoffense) and cost avoidance (minimizing
the circumstances in which reincarceration is necessary to contain the
offender's non-compliant behavior). Both strategies are achieved
through appropriate classification and programmatic placements, as well
as the use of graduated sanctions to address non-compliance.
Several practices have been implemented to closely monitor high
risk offenders. These practices include the use of:
--electronic monitoring;
--supervisory reprimands;
--increased office reporting;
--accountability tours;
--halfway house placements;
--halfway back; and
--GPS monitoring (pilot) for high risk offenders.
These practices are employed within the context of the offender's
individual case plan and Agency operating policies. There is no
effective ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to community supervision. Each
offender is a unique individual requiring a unique set of programmatic
interventions and behavioral controls. The Agency has developed a
comprehensive array of tools that the Community Supervision Officer can
deploy in the formulation and execution of the case plan.
Although the Agency has made impressive strides in the full
implementation of its supervision strategy, not all elements are fully
operational. For example, the revised auto screener is being tested
prior to full implementation, and the planned Reentry and Sanctions
Center will increase the range of intermediate sanctions available to
CSO's. The GPS monitoring program will also be expanded to become a
permanent option for supervising high-risk offenders. With the full
implementation of the remaining elements of the Agency's strategy,
baseline data will be captured from which the Agency will be able to
set strategic benchmarks and initiate longitudinal studies to access
the strategy's effectiveness.
Question. How many offenders entered CSOSA supervision in fiscal
year 2003? How many departed after successfully completing terms of
community supervision? How many offenders did CSOSA supervise over the
course of a year?
Answer. CSOSA provided supervision to 21,603 individuals in fiscal
year 2003. The flow of intakes and case closures is summarized in the
following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satisfactory Closures\1\
Type of Case Intakes -------------------------------
Expiration Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probation....................................................... 6,025 1,728 438
Parole.......................................................... 1,943 394 14
Supervised Release.............................................. 55 19 ..............
Civil Protection Order.......................................... 440 174 7
Deferred Sentence Agreement..................................... 287 74 4
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 8,750 2,389 762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A case may be closed satisfactorily either through expiration of the supervision term, or early termination
due to the releasing authority's decision to discontinue supervision (generally as a result of the offender's
exceptional compliance).
Question. What is the average length of supervision for
probationers and parolees?
Answer. The average length of probation is 20 months, and of
parole, 5 years (60 months).
Question. Describe CSOSA's use of intermediate sanctions on
offenders.
Answer. Intermediate sanctions represent forms of punishment, less
restrictive than incarceration, that are intended to provide a range of
correctional options that vary in severity, according to the offenders'
non-compliant behavior, and are related to the offender's level of risk
and needs. Intermediate sanctions are designed to both hold offenders
accountable for their actions and to deter them from engaging in
criminal activity. These sanctions are best supported when integrated
with treatment and intervention programs focused on the offender's
needs, such as substance abuse, employment, and other issues that may
contribute to the likelihood of reoffense. By using intermediate
sanctions, CSOSA tries to change the offender's maladaptive, non-
compliant behavior and to increase the likelihood that the offender
will achieve successful reintegration into the community.
Successful use of intermediate sanctions requires close
supervision, good documentation, well-informed collaboration,
sufficient resources, and a clear understanding between CSOSA staff and
the offender. The most notable tool CSOSA uses to impose intermediate
sanctions is the offender accountability contract, which reflects
widely accepted ``best practices'' in offender supervision.
A critical factor in CSOSA's strategy to reduce crime and the rate
of recidivism is its ability to introduce an accountability structure
into the supervision process and to provide swift responses to non-
compliant behavior. According to CSOSA policy, offenders under
community supervision must enter into an accountability contract within
25 working days of the case assignment. By signing this document, the
offender acknowledges his or her responsibilities under probation,
parole or supervised releases as granted by the D.C. Superior Court or
the United States Parole Commission. The accountability contract
clearly informs the offender of the consequences of non-compliance with
the rules and regulations of community supervision. The offender
acknowledges that he/she understands which behaviors will lead to
intermediate sanctions and which behaviors will result in the request
of a hearing before the releasing authority and possible
reincarceration.
According to Agency policy, there are substance abuse violations
and other non-criminal ``technical violations'' that warrant the
imposition of different intermediate sanctions. If the CSO has reason
to believe the offender is in violation of the general or special
conditions of the offender's release, intermediate sanctions are
imposed to address the non-compliant behavior. Sanctions available for
the CSO to use include:
--Daily check-in with the supervision officer for a specified period
of time;
--Attendance at a group activity for a specified period of time;
--Increased drug testing;
--Increased face-to-face appointments with the supervision officer;
--Electronic monitoring for a specified period of time;
--Community service for a specified number of hours;
--Placement in a residential sanctions facility or residential
treatment facility for a specified period of time; and/or
--Travel restrictions.
The use of these intermediate sanctions not only serves to hold
offenders accountable and assist in changing their non-compliant
behaviors, but also assists the Agency in achieving its mission of
increasing public safety and reducing recidivism.
Question. Describe CSOSA's experience in reporting offender
violations to the releasing authorities.
Answer. On a regular and consistent basis, CSS staff meet with
administrative staff of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and
the Administrative Judges of the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia to discuss issues of mutual concern. With regards to the USPC,
agreements have been reached on the types of cases that will require
the immediate issuance of a retake warrant by the USPC (i.e.,
subsequent offender felony arrest involving a victim). For all cases in
which the Agency has deemed the offender to be an imminent danger to
public safety, the USPC has agreed to the faxing of violation reports
to their office. These emergency violation reports receive the highest
priority for review and consideration by the USPC staff for
presentation to a Commissioner. Our experience generally has been that
the USPC is very responsive to the Agency with both the request for an
emergency warrant and the violation reports that are processed on a
non-emergency basis.
With regards to the Judiciary, staff must request in the violation
report that a show cause (violation) hearing be scheduled. Our
experience is that the Judiciary usually does not issue bench warrants
based solely on the request of staff. Once a violation report is
submitted, a violation hearing is scheduled based on the Judge's
calendar (schedule) and can take from 30 to 60 days to be held. Once a
violation hearing is scheduled, the Court notifies the offender and
his/her attorney by mail of the scheduled date for the violation
hearing. If the offender fails to report to the violation hearing on
the scheduled date, the Judge will immediately issue a bench warrant
for the offender's arrest. In cases where CSOSA staff are concerned
that the offender poses a significant public safety risk, staff can
request an expedited violation hearing from the Judiciary. On rare
occasions, the Judge may issue a bench warrant, prior to a hearing, if
the risk is deemed imminent. In instances of an expedited violation
hearing, the hearing is usually set within a two-week timeframe. It has
been our experience that the Judiciary honors CSOSA staff's request for
a show cause hearing.
Question. What is the rearrest rate for offenders under CSOSA
supervision? How has that rate changed in the past year?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the overall rearrest rate was 15
percent (13 percent for probationers and 17 percent for parolees). The
fiscal year 2002 arrest rate was 18 percent (21 percent for
probationers and 13 percent for parolees).
REENTRY STRATEGY
Question. CSOSA has been working with various stakeholders to craft
a Citywide Offender Reentry Strategy. Please describe the process and
the status of implementation.
Answer. Between December 2001 and April 2002, a group of community
advocates, community-based service providers, and government agency
representatives worked together to craft a comprehensive reentry
strategy for adult offenders returning from incarceration to the
District of Columbia. The primary participants in this process
included:
--Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA),
--Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ),
--Office of the Corrections Trustee,
--D.C. Prisoners Legal Services Project,
--D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC),
--D.C. Department of Mental Health (DMH), and
--Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
The goal of the ``Comprehensive Reentry Strategy for Adults in the
District of Columbia'', which was completed in June 2003, is to provide
a detailed, long-range plan for an effective continuum of reentry
services for D.C. offenders during incarceration, transition from
incarceration to the community, and life in the community during and
after supervision. In addition, the strategy proposes an agenda for
reentry service provider quality assurance, community education about
the relationship between public safety and effective reentry, and
legislative priorities.
The core of the strategy is the development of an assessment-driven
reentry plan tailored to each offender's needs, strengths, and
aspirations. The plan should remain with an offender through the three
phases of reentry: institutionally based programs, transitional
services, and community reintegration.
In September 2003, five workgroups led by respected leaders from
criminal justice system agencies and community-based organizations
completed an Action Plan that sets an implementation timeline for the
strategy. The strategy establishes ambitious goals for all parties
involved, emphasizing that reentry services should be available to all
offenders returning from some form of incarceration (jail or prison) to
the community.
Implementation requires coordination among Federal agencies
involved in the local criminal justice system, local agencies, and
community-based organizations. Improved pre-release planning provides
represents the cornerstone process to build an effective, integrate
reentry system. Pre-release planning begins with the functional
assessment of the risk factors that define the intensity supervision if
the offender leaves incarceration to parole or supervised release. The
functional assessment also identifies needs that require intervention
if an individual's risk factors are to be reduced in order to promote
improved public safety.
Implementation of the strategy involves broad participation by
local, Federal, and non-profit agencies. The city will take a major
step toward implementation this spring by opening the One Stop Reentry
Service Center, which will provide subsidized job training and wrap-
around support services to an initial cohort of 165 adult offenders and
40 juvenile offenders. Initial funding for the pilot year of the
Service Center's operations will be provided through a Department of
Justice grant. The Mayor plans to include in his fiscal year 2006
budget a request for operating funds to sustain and expand the center.
Question. What are the most critical needs of offenders under
supervision? How are those needs being addressed, both by CSOSA and by
the District of Columbia?
Answer. Most offenders enter supervision with needs in the areas of
employment/education and substance abuse. Over 50 percent of the
offender population is unemployed, and about 60 percent tested positive
for drug use at least once during fiscal year 2003. Approximately 4,100
offenders tested positive two or more times for PCP, heroin, or cocaine
in fiscal year 2003. Mental health issues may accompany and exacerbate
these problems.
Housing is also a critical need for many offenders. Often, the
combination of unemployment and substance abuse leads to residential
instability. The offender may leave prison with nowhere to go or may
lose his or her residence due to drug use or financial issues.
Underlying all these issues is the offender's need to develop healthy
social relationships and to learn how to manage his or her time.
The following table summarizes CSOSA's activities in each area of
need and the District of Columbia agency responsible for each type of
need. The table is adapted from the ``Citywide Reentry Strategy''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility of
Area of Need CSOSA Activity City Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSTANCE USE/HISTORY........... Assess offender's Addiction
addiction Prevention and
severity. Recovery
Place offender in Administration--(
the appropriate service capacity
substance abuse needs to expand
treatment program to address the
(current remaining needs
appropriation of the offender
allows for CSOSA population).
to meet 16
percent of the
population's
addition
treatment need).
Place offender in
drug testing
requirements.
Enforce violations
of behavioral
contract.
EDUCATION/LEARNING DISABILITIES. Conduct a Test of State Education
Adult Basic Office in
Education to collaboration
assess the with the
educational University of
functioning level District of
of individual Columbia (service
offenders. capacity needs to
Provide adult expand to address
basic education the remaining
programming at needs of the
one of four offender
learning labs population).
staffed by CSOSA
learning lab
specialists.
EMPLOYMENT...................... Conduct a Test of D.C. Department of
Adult Basic Employment
Education. Services--Plans
Assess offender's are in place to
vocational utilize Serious
aptitude and job and Violent
skills. Offender Reentry
Assist offender in Initiative funds
job search if he to provide Life
or she has Skills, Job
employment Training, and
history, an 8th Placement
grade reading services to
level or better, approximately 150-
and marketable 200 offenders
job skills. (additional
Provide or make employment
referrals to city training and
agencies for placement service
adult basic capacity is
education needed).
services or
referrals.
HOUSING......................... Counsel offender (Service capacity
to seek a healthy needs to expand
residential to address the
environment; remaining needs
encourage of the offender
offender to move, population).
if necessary.
Maintain listings
of transitional
housing options
available through
non-profit and
faith community
and refer as
necessary.
MENTAL HEALTH................... Refer offender to Mental Health
CSOSA contract Psychological
psychologist for Evaluation--D.C.
mental health Department of
screening to Mental Health.
determine need Counseling,
for more in-depth community-based
psychological support services
evaluation and for offenders
treatment. with diagnosed
Place offenders mental health
with diagnosed disorders--D.C.
mental health Department of
disorder or Mental Health.
Offender conforms
to the norms of
daily
functioning,
dress, appearance
and behavior.
PHYSICAL HEALTH/DISABILITY...... Refer to D.C. D.C. Department of
Department of Health--Primary
Health. Healthcare at
neighborhood
health clinics
operated by the
D.C. Health and
Hospital Public
Benefit
Corporation.
LEISURE TIME/SOCIAL Counsel offender (Service capacity
RELATIONSHIPS. to develop pro- needs to expand
social hobbies to address the
and interests. remaining needs
If eligible, refer of the offender
for Faith population).
Community
Partnership
services,
including
mentoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Supply the Committee with a description of CSOSA's faith-
based initiative, including the number of offenders who have
participated in the initiative and any accomplishments to date. Are
faith-based institutions also providing services to meet offenders'
needs?
Answer. CSOSA's faith-based initiative is a collaboration between
the Agency and the District of Columbia's faith institutions. The
initiative focuses on developing mechanisms through which offenders on
supervision can establish permanent connections with the community's
positive, pro-social institutions. Crime is inextricably linked to the
individual's alienation from mainstream values. By overcoming that
alienation, the faith community can help the offender replace negative
associations and attitudes with positive contact and messages.
Furthermore, the faith institution can address issues of personal
accountability and change that are beyond the scope of community
supervision. The church or temple cannot (and should not) replace law
enforcement, but it can provide a permanent source of positive contact
and moral guidance. The Community Supervision Officer represents
external accountability by enforcing release conditions; the faith
institution represents internal accountability by stressing spiritual
growth. In addition, CSOSA recognized from the initiative's inception
that the District's faith institutions provide many practical support
services, such as tutoring, job training, food and clothing banks,
personal and family counseling, and substance abuse aftercare. CSOSA
wanted to ``tap into'' this important source of community-based
programming in order to expand the range of support services available
to offenders.
The faith initiative's governing body is the CSOSA/Faith Community
Partnership Advisory Council. Established in 2001, the Advisory Council
membership represents a range of denominations; efforts are currently
underway to broaden both the membership of the Council and its
representational diversity.
Late in 2001, CSOSA and the Advisory Council chose mentoring as the
initial focus of the initiative to connect faith institution volunteers
with offenders returning to the community from prison. A successful
outreach event was held in January 2002, in which faith institutions
across the city addressed the issue of reentry and issued a call for
volunteers. Over 400 people attended our initial mentor information
meeting in February 2002. Since then, the ``Reentry Worship'' event has
become an annual citywide occurrence.
CSOSA and the Advisory Council then established a structure through
which the mentor program could be coordinated and faith institutions
could provide services to offenders. The city was divided into three
clusters, and CSOSA issued a Request for Proposals to establish a
contractual relationship with a lead institution in each cluster. The
lead institutions are: Cluster A (Wards 7 and 8)--East of the River
Clergy/Police/Community Partnership; Cluster B (Wards 5 and 6)--Pilgrim
Baptist Church; Cluster C (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4)--New Commandment Baptist
Church.
Each institution employs a Cluster Coordinator, who coordinates
mentor and other service referrals and performs outreach to increase
the involvement of faith institutions in the cluster.
CSOSA also developed and implemented training programs for both
mentors and the program coordinators at each faith institution. The
training familiarizes prospective mentors with the structure and
requirements of community supervision, the offender profile, and the
program's administrative and reporting requirements, as well as
providing role-playing exercise in which mentors encounter the
challenges of mentoring. To date, approximately 200 mentors and
coordinators from more than 40 institutions have been trained.
The initial cohort of 24 returning offenders was ``matched'' with
mentors in August 2002. Since then, the number of offenders in the
program has grown to over 100. In 2003, CSOSA expanded the program to
include inmates at the Bureau of Prisons' Rivers Correctional
Institution in North Carolina. Rivers houses over 1,000 District of
Columbia inmates. Thirty-three Rivers inmates were placed with mentors,
who attended biweekly mentoring sessions conducted through video
conference technology. All but four of the inmates have been released
as of February 23, 2004.
Mentoring remains just one facet of CSOSA's faith initiative.
Through the cluster coordinators and site visits by CSOSA staff,
outreach ministries and services have been identified. In addition,
faith institutions have been directed to Federal, local, and
philanthropic resources to upgrade their capacity for service. For
example, CSOSA has verified the capacities and availability of the
following outreach services:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution Outreach Ministry Available Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP Shaw United Methodist........ Anger Management.. 7 program slots.
Grace Apostolic................. GED classes....... Varies.
Paramount Baptist............... Food and Clothing. 10-12 referrals
weekly.
SE Tabernacle................... Job Services 30 referrals/
Referrals. month.
Weekly support Maximum 15 per
group for Ex- week.
offenders.
Redemption Ministry............. Job Training/ 35 referrals per
Placement. class cycle.
Substance Abuse Ongoing capacity
Counseling. for 15 clients.
Family Assistance Varies according
(housing, to need.
transportation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice,
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS), one of CSOSA lead faith
institutions, New Commandment Baptist Church, is now able to facilitate
and expand its ability to intercede, with CSOSA and other faith
institutions, to improve the likelihood that participating parolees
will have lower rates of recidivism. CSOSA's network of
interdenominational faith-based participants will contribute to the
success of this effort. Collaborating with the District of Columbia
Jobs Partnership, New Commandment Baptist and other faith institutions
are able to enroll returning offenders in job readiness training
programs, educational and vocational training, interviewing skills and
job placement.
Another participating faith institution, East of the River Clergy/
Police/Community Partnership, has recently received a grant award from
the U.S. Department of Labor to facilitate and place returning
offenders into jobs which offer career opportunities. It is projected
that the availability of this resource will substantially build the
capacity of the District of Columbia to better serve the returning
offenders and their families.
From the enthusiasm of a core group of concerned citizens, the
CSOSA faith initiative has grown to a citywide effort involving
hundreds of individuals in a wide range of activities to support
returning offenders. We look forward to the initiative's continued
growth as a sustainable long-term resource that offenders can access
both during and after their term of supervision.
Question. Does CSP have specific programs to meet the needs of
female offenders?
Answer. Currently, CSP has several gender-specific programs to
address the needs of female offenders. CSP contracts for residential
placements in gender-specific residential programs, such as Demeter
House, which treats chemically-addicted mothers, who may be accompanied
by their children while in the program. The Substance Abuse and
Treatment Branch also provides weekly in-house group sessions for
women. In addition, the Transitional Intervention for Parole
Supervision (TIPS) program has a community supervision officer on-site
at the Fairview Community Corrections Center to assist women with
reentry issues. The Fairview CCC also may be used for public law
placements and as an intermediate sanction for high risk/needs women
offenders.
CSP is working to expand gender-specific programs. The expanded
Reentry and Sanctions Center will contain a unit for female offenders.
Additionally, a team of managers received training at the National
Institute of Corrections Academy last year on implementing effective
agency-wide programs for female offenders. The members of this team now
are leading a work group to implement these strategies around such
issues as victimization and trauma, mental health and medical problems,
family and child rearing, and economic self-sufficiency. The Agency is
working to:
--Implement additional, in-house gender-specific group counseling
programs and training group facilitators;
--Develop a comprehensive training curriculum that provides
information/tools for line staff and administrators to
effectively manage female offenders;
--Compile a resource guide to ensure that Community Supervision
Officers are aware of, and have access to, available in-house,
community and government programs;
--Work with our faith-based partners to female women offenders are
linked to mentors;
--Strengthen partnerships with the many community organizations and
government agencies that provide services to this population;
and
--Arrange child-care opportunities with our community partners to
allow female offenders to engage in programming and supervision
activities.
Question. CSP last requested an increase in drug treatment funds in
fiscal year 2002. Is this funding sufficient to meet the demand for
treatment? What measures are in place to ensure that these resources
are used most effectively? Is there any evidence that CSOSA drug
treatment reduces drug use, rearrest, and recidivism in the District of
Columbia?
Answer. During fiscal year 2003, CSOSA's Office of Research and
Evaluation estimated that there were over 4,100 chronic substance-
abusing offenders in need of treatment intervention. This estimate is
based on the number of offenders who tested positive for cocaine,
heroin or PCP two or more times. (Offenders testing positive for
marijuana and/or alcohol are generally given intermediate sanctions and
referred to in-house services.)
Each offender, on average, requires three placements to satisfy
treatment-programming requirements. For example, offenders with chronic
substance abuse histories are most often referred to detoxification
followed by residential and outpatient services. For the chronic drug-
using population, CSOSA would require the ability to make a minimum of
12,300 substance abuse placements per year (4,100 offenders 3
treatment placements).
The fiscal year 2003 appropriation (approximately $8.6 million)
enabled CSP to make 2,021 treatment placements. This addressed 16
percent of the estimated requirement. To ensure that limited treatment
funds are being used efficiently our treatment specialist staff
performs a battery of assessments to determine the appropriate
treatment recommendation for each offender.
In fiscal year 2003, a data management system was introduced, which
allowed automated tracking of the agency's treatment related data.
Fiscal year 2003 was the pilot year for use of the automated tracking
system and the system was modified and adjusted as required during the
year. It is anticipated that data on the effectiveness of interventions
will be available from the automated treatment tracking system within
the next 6 to 9 months.
Question. Does CSOSA contract for drug treatment services? How do
you ensure that vendors are providing quality services?
Answer. CSOSA currently contracts with 11 drug treatment vendors
throughout the Washington metropolitan area. Quality Assurance
Specialists routinely monitor each vendor to ensure that all treatment
services are provided in accordance with national and local standards.
Vendor monitoring occurs through compliance reviews and unannounced
site visits. The compliance reviews are performed on an annual basis
based on standards for treatment services. The areas subject to review
include staffing, documentation, physical plant and administrative
operations. Upon completion of the review, the vendors are provided
with a time sensitive plan to correct any deficiencies. Subsequently,
this plan is monitored through unannounced site visits to ensure
compliance.
In an effort to continue improving the quality of interventions
provided by our drug treatment vendors, CSOSA also provides ongoing
technical assistance.
Question. What management strategies are employed for inmates on
Special Supervision?
Answer. Special Supervision is the rendering of comprehensive,
treatment-oriented services, combined with intensive supervision, for
those offenders assessed as ``special needs'' offenders. Special needs
offenders include offenders convicted of sex crimes and crimes of
domestic violence, those diagnosed with a mental illness, and those
assessed with a substance abuse addiction. Programmatic improvements
for special supervision populations continue to evolve. However, the
increasing number of offenders presenting with co-ocurring disorders,
combined with limited staff resources, continues to present challenges
in providing comprehensive services for these populations.
SPECIAL SUPERVISION
Question. What do you do differently for Special Supervision
Offenders than the General Supervision population?
Answer. Special supervision offenders are high risk offenders.
Immediately upon release to the community, ``special needs'' offenders
are placed on an intensive or maximum level of supervision for the
first 90 to 180 days, with weekly community and office contact,
including urinalysis surveillance for illegal drug use. To closely
manage these special supervision offenders, CSO's working with these
caseloads have much smaller caseloads ratios than CSO's managing
general supervision offenders. The Agency's target caseload supervision
ratio for the ``Special Supervision'' teams is 25 offenders per CSO,
versus 50 offenders per CSO for general supervision. This smaller ratio
allows the special supervision CSO to provide close offender
accountability, intensive counseling, treatment referrals, and tracking
activities. The Agency is approaching the targeted caseload ratio,
which will improve public safety.
To ensure that all ``special needs'' offenders receive required
services, a comprehensive referral, placement and assessment tracking
system has been implemented for all sex offender, mental health, and
substance abuse cases. These offenders are carefully screened to match
appropriate treatment services with their needs. CSO's refer offenders
to treatment groups on-site, as well as makes referrals to vendor-
provided treatment services, such as residential substance abuse
treatment and sex offender treatment services. Also, sex offenders,
depending on their classification level, are required to register with
the Sex Offender Registry, every 90 days or once a year, for life, as
determined by their conviction and the law. In fiscal year 2003, 185
sex offender assessments and 42 polygraph examinations were conducted.
Offenders convicted of a domestic violence offense participate in
CSOSA-provided Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) or Family
Violence Intervention Program (FVIP), if the offender is unable to
afford private domestic violence counseling services. These group
sessions also can include family members and, if appropriate, the
victim of the offense and/or other interested community support
persons. In addition, CSOSA offers individual counseling as needed.
Those offenders who can afford to pay for private domestic violence
treatment are closely monitored to ensure attendance and progress in
treatment.
Question. This committee included funds in CSOSA's fiscal year 2004
appropriation for 27 new positions to provide for increased supervision
of high-risk sex offenders, mental health cases, and domestic violence
cases, as well as to expand the use of global positioning system (GPS)-
based electronic monitoring. GPS electronic monitoring employs state of
the art technology to offender supervision and hold great promise for
solving crimes and detecting offender movements or patterns that would
enable CSOSA to take action before he or she commits more crime. This
technology would appear to be a valuable tool for supervising all high-
risk offenders, and in particular, sex offenders and domestic violence
offenders in which offenders are supposed to avoid certain locations,
such as schools or specific residences.
What is the status of implementing the special supervision
initiative? When will the new officers be hired? When filled, what will
the new caseload ratios be?
Answer. Two new Special Supervision Teams start CSP's 6-week
training academy on March 22, 2004. After these staff complete training
and enter supervision duties, CSP caseload ratios for sex offender,
mental health and domestic violence supervision will be reduced to
approximately 29:1 (based on January 2004 cases). CSP is unable to hire
additional staff from the fiscal year 2004 supervision initiative due
to inadequate funding for these positions in our fiscal year 2005
budget request. Simply, CSOSA cannot support all 27 staff in fiscal
year 2005 with the resources contained in our fiscal year 2005 budget.
If all staff from the fiscal year 2004 special supervision initiative
were hired, these high-risk caseload ratios would decrease to 25:1.
Question. What is the status of implementing the GPS system? What
criteria do CSOSA use to determine which offenders are placed under
electronic or GPS monitoring? Using these criteria, how many offenders
would be placed on GPS at any given time? How many offenders are
currently under GPS monitoring?
Answer. CSOSA currently is piloting Global Positioning System (GPS)
electronic monitoring technology to monitor movement of the highest
risk offenders in the community. Primarily used as a tool to monitor
sex offenders, CSOSA also utilizes GPS to monitor high risk domestic
violence offenders. These populations generally have stay away orders
from people or places within the community, and GPS has shown promise
to be a useful tool to monitor compliance with these conditions. GPS
allows CSOSA to place strict curfews on offenders, as well as to
establish ``exclusion zones,'' which are areas or addresses the
offender is prohibited from entering. Offenders who are placed on this
type of electronic monitoring generally have violated conditions of
their supervision, and the GPS is used when other intermediate
sanctions have been exhausted. Additionally, offenders whom CSOSA deems
particularly high risk, due to their originating offense or suspicion
that the offender may be re-offending, also may be placed on GPS
monitoring. Offenders who are under parole or supervised release
supervision may be placed on GPS electronic monitoring at CSOSA's
discretion. In probation cases, CSOSA must obtain a court order,
modifying the offender's supervision conditions, in order to place the
offender on GPS monitoring.
Since April 8, 2004, 51 offenders have been placed in the GPS pilot
at a cost of $6.00 per day, per offender. Currently, 9 offenders are
under GPS. Using CSOSA's criteria, above, for placing sex offenders,
domestic violence offenders, and other high risk offenders under GPS,
the Agency estimates that the following number of offenders could be
placed under GPS in fiscal year 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Offenders
Fiscal Year 2004 Under GPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October-December, 2003................................ 0
January-March, 2004................................... 12
April-June, 2004...................................... 30
July-September, 2004.................................. 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system currently piloted by CSOSA is a passive one, which means
CSOSA is notified of violations by e-mail the next business day
following the violation. Some violations also may be reported to our
sex offender supervision staff by cell phone. At any time, our staff
also may link to the GPS system and track real-time the offenders who
are in the program. However, CSOSA is not a 24-hour law enforcement
Agency and does not have the resources available to respond immediately
to each violation.
Through future collaborations with the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD), it is CSOSA's goal to provide MPD with the ability to
respond immediately to GPS electronic monitoring violations of CSOSA
offenders as the violations occur. Additionally, the GPS data can be
linked to MPD crime data to assist law enforcement to determine if
offenders on GPS tracking were at or near reported crime sites.
Currently, CSOSA contracts for GPS services with Veridian, which is
a component of General Dynamics. The hardware used for monitoring is
provided by PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc. CSOSA uses Veridian, instead of
direct contracting with PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc., because Veridian
offers several advantages that PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc. does not
currently offer, such as:
--Web based access to the data;
--Linkage with police crime data; and
--The ability to change hardware if a new, more advanced, efficient,
or cost-effective product enters the market with another
company, other than Pro Tech.
Question. Is the GPS technology being used for defendants?
Answer. No. However, if resources become available, the Pretrial
Services Agency would pilot this type of monitoring for high-risk
defendants with court orders to stay away from particular persons or
places.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Question. What is the status of CSP's offender case management
system, for which funding was provided in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. Initially deployed in January 2002, the Supervision and
Management Automated Records Tracking System (SMART) replaced an
unreliable and outdated legacy system. SMART has provided the Agency
with an efficient and accurate method for tracking supervision
activities, improving supervision management and reporting, and
enhancing management of the treatment process for offenders.
Since the supervision module's initial release, many features and
modules have been added to SMART. A treatment module has been
implemented to track each offender's progress, as well as a related
module that allows treatment vendors to verify attendance at scheduled
outpatient sessions. This integrated treatment module not only
encompasses the tracking of offender treatment activities, but also
manages all treatment-related financial transactions. In addition,
CSOSA now has the capability to electronically transmit Pre-Sentence
Investigation (PSI) reports directly to the Superior Court and the
Assistant United States Attorney's Office. Current modules under
development will provide automatic notification when the Metropolitan
Police Department arrests an offender under supervision, as well as the
revised screener and the prescriptive supervision plan.
In order to continue the significant improvements in offender
supervision, CSOSA needs to continue enhancing SMART's capabilities.
The current intake procedure involves the manual process of entering
sentencing information from both the Courts and the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP). The proposed Intake Module would streamline this function by
automating the transfer of sentencing information directly from the
Courts and the Bureau of Prisons, as well as electronic Notices of
Actions from the U.S. Parole Commission. Automatic transmission of
sentencing information would ensure that CSOSA receives the sentencing
information for each offender. Additional proposed enhancements also
include:
--Wireless mobile computing to provide officers with access to the
SMART application while performing supervision in the
community;
--Biometrics to provide a fail-proof method for identifying offenders
reporting for drug testing or drug treatment programs;
--Archiving and expunging case records in accordance with Federal
regulations;
--Additional interagency data sharing with both local and Federal law
enforcement agencies; and
--Improved management and operational reporting using Business
Objects to ensure the effective supervision and allocation of
resources to attain the Agency's critical success factors.
Without these technological enhancements, it will be very difficult
for CSOSA to continue its forward momentum in improving public safety
through close supervision.
Question. Are CSOSA information systems integrated with other law
enforcement systems? Are CSOSA systems secure from hackers?
Answer. CSOSA has aggressively implemented internal process
automation, remote connectivity to external criminal justice data
repositories, and justice data exchange. The information collected and
managed by SMART is requested by local and national law enforcement
agencies. The Agency has established data exchange agreements with
several local and Federal law enforcement agencies. Criminal justice
data is currently being exchanged with the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Pretrial Services Agency, the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections, the United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the
U.S. Parole Commission, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigations. The fulfillment of the Agency's mission is
contingent on obtaining timely and accurate information from law
enforcement agencies. Interagency data exchange provides the necessary
criminal data for preparation of Pre-Sentence Investigation reports
(PSI), Alleged Violation Reports (AVR), Warrants, and Notices of Action
(NOA's) to improve offender supervision, and ways to control crime and
improve the safety of the public.
While CSOSA facilitated some initial electronic data exchange
agreements with other agencies, it is crucial to establish additional
exchange processes with the other law enforcement entities, such as the
Courts. SMART is capable of receiving data from other entities, yet
other agencies systems are not always postured to participate in the
data exchange process.
The successful deployment of SMART, and the initial data exchange
communication with other agencies, has moved the Agency closer to
accomplishing our strategic goals. As we increase our data exchange
capability with other law enforcement agencies, the need to enhance
security measure increases. To continue this forward movement, it is
imperative that CSOSA systems, data and infrastructure be secure. CSOSA
continues to make strides in addressing IT security. We have developed
an IT Security Master Plan, established an Incident Response Team, IT
Security and Patch Management Working Groups, however more work must be
accomplished to ensure a secure information technology environment.
SMART is a critical Agency system that must be secure. As the
sophistication of hackers advance, CSOSA must enhance the capability to
protect Agency resources to ensure that measures can be taken to fend
off attacks and exploits. The challenge of managing new exploits and
adherence to emergent Federal regulations (FISMA, A-130 etc.) requires
a vigilant IT Security Program. CSOSA must implement an IT Security
tool set to include enhanced WEB scanners, network intrusion software,
and e-authentication devices. Also, the implementation of the IT
Security Master Plan is necessary to comply with FISMA and/or
regulatory requirements. The successful implementation of an Agency IT
Security Program is dependent on identifying adequate resources to
secure the Agency's information technology resources and comply with
regulatory requirements.
Question. CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 appropriation included
$13,015,000 in no-year funds to renovate Karrick Hall or some other
facility for use as CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions Center. What is the
status of the renovations?
Answer. In September 2002, CSOSA signed a long-term lease with the
District of Columbia for the use of Karrick Hall as CSOSA's Re-entry
and Sanctions Center. Also, in September 2002, the city government was
developing a Master Plan for the D.C. General Hospital Campus,
including negotiating a transfer of control of the land from the
Federal Government to the D.C. Government. CSOSA worked closely with
the D.C. Government and the community throughout these planning
processes. In July 2003, we reached agreement with the city to proceed
with the renovation of Karrick Hall. A contract for Architectural and
Engineering Design and Construction Management was signed in September
2003.
Karrick Hall is an eight-story, 60,000 square foot building and
since 1996, has been the home of the Assessment and Orientation Center.
The AOC program is a model program CSOSA now operates in partnership
with the Washington Baltimore High Intensity Drug Task Force program,
also known as HIDTA. When Karrick Hall is complete, the AOC will become
CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions program.
On February 27, 2004, the AOC vacated Karrick Hall and moved into a
temporary location at 1301 Clifton Street, NW. The AOC will be at 1301
Clifton until the renovation is complete, in the spring of 2005. While
at 1301 Clifton, the AOC will expand its program from 18 beds to 27.
Karrick Hall is a 60,000 square foot eight-story building
constructed on the grounds of the D.C. General campus circa 1961. The
renovations include:
--Replacing the building's infrastructure (installing all new
plumbing, electrical, windows and exterior architectural
features as well as new heating and air condition systems and
fire systems);
--Installing two new elevators in place of the existing units; and
--Installing new restrooms and ensuring all new systems meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
handicap accessibility requirements.
When complete, the Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand to 108
beds, which will service 1,200 offenders and defendants annually. The
program will include 4 male units, one unit dedicated to females and
one unit for the dually diagnosed.
We are very excited about this initiative because the AOC program
has a proven track record of success. A study conducted by the
University of Maryland in May 2002 found there was a 74 percent
reduction in re-arrests 1 year following completion of the AOC program.
Expanding the capacity of this program has obvious positive impacts on
public safety and quality of life.
REENTRY AND SANCTIONS CENTER
Question. Does CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget include funding for
the expanded operation of Reentry and Sanctions Center?
Answer. CSOSA's budget request includes only partial-year funding
for fiscal year 2005 because the building renovation will not be
complete until spring 2005. Fiscal year 2006 will be the first full
fiscal year that all six units at Karrick Hall will be fully
operational. The full-year operating cost in fiscal year 2006 will be
approximately $18 million. To fund complete, annual operations would
require an increase in fiscal year 2006 of approximately $5.5 million.
Question. Does CSOSA perform independent audits of its budget and
finances? What are the results of such audit, including audit findings
and status of corrective actions?
Answer. Although not required by the Chief Financial Officers Act
or other Federal law or regulation, since inception CSOSA's Funds
Control policy required an annual audit of our budgetary financial
statement (Statement of Budgetary Resources). The auditing firm of
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) LLP has conducted four independent audits
of CSOSA's Statement of Budgetary Resources since Agency inception. In
each audit, no material weaknesses were identified and CSOSA received
unqualified opinions. The audit of CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 Statement
of Budgetary Resources successfully concluded in September 2003. Thus
far, the only finding raised has been concerns about our ability to
fulfill new and much more stringent standards resulting from
legislation enacted in 2002.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Question. Please elaborate on the new legislation and standards
affecting CSOSA's financial management.
Answer. The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-289) establishes new requirements in the area of financial
management for all small agencies. These are the same financial and
audit requirements which the larger cabinet level agency have been
subject to for the past several years. The Act requires all executive
agencies, regardless of size, to prepare and audit six financial
statements versus the one Statement of Budgetary Resources currently
prepared and audited by CSOSA. This will increase the scope of audit
coverage and will require CSOSA to implement additional policies,
systems and procedures in many areas. The changes are all positive
steps in improving stewardship of taxpayer dollars, but CSOSA is
struggling to put the proper infrastructure in place. It will take time
and additional resources.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2005 budget include the request for
financial resources to comply with the new laws affecting financial
management, and if not, what is the cost and how will you deal with the
problem?
Answer. We estimate the Agency-wide cost (including the Pretrial
Services Agency) to be $980,000 and we will no choice but to divert
funding from programs such as supervision, treatment or employee
training.
Question. Within the past 2 weeks, the Washington Post reported on
the arrest of a repeat sex offender who is suspected of several rapes,
as well as molesting a 12-year-old girl. The Post also reported that
Superior Court had sentenced the man to probation several months prior
to the recent assaults but procedural errors resulted in this sex
offender being unsupervised by CSOSA. Do you understand the full extent
of the problems that caused this to happen? Please describe how such
errors could have been avoided, or could be prevented in the future,
including any resources that may be necessary.
Answer. CSOSA has closely examined this case. The exchange of data
between Superior Court and CSOSA needs to be improved by increasing
automation. These automated changes may require the Clerk's office to
modify its existing business processes. CSOSA also needs to institute
some operational changes within our Offender Intake program. We have
short-term fixes in place in our attempt to ensure that we receive
probation grants from the Court and input all intake data into SMART.
However, we recognize the need for permanent solutions in terms of both
automation and the enhancement of our Offender Intake operation. We
recently completed a comprehensive review of the Offender Intake
operation. The review defined organizational and procedural changes
that would enhance the operation's efficiency. The review very clearly
stated the need for additional resources, but more analysis is needed
to accurately quantify the impact. Funding for these improvements has
not been requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
Question. Provide the number of D.C. inmates in each Federal Bureau
of Prisons facility by gender.
Answer.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INMATES IN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (AS OF
FEBRUARY 25, 2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility State
State Facility Males Females Total Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTalladega FCI 19 ....... 19 19
ARForrest City FCI 1 ....... 1 1
AZPhoenix FCI 2 ....... 2 2
CAAtwater USP 19 ....... 19 .......
CADublin FCI 0 6 6 .......
CATerminal Island FCI 1 ....... 1 .......
CAVictorville Med FCI 2 ....... 2 28
COFlorence ADMAX USP 28 ....... 28 .......
COFlorence FCI 4 ....... 4 .......
COFlorence High USP 29 ....... 29 .......
CODenver CCM 1 ....... 1 62
CTDanbury FCI 0 84 84 84
DCD.C. Community Corrections 199 20 219 219
FLColeman Med 24 1 25 .......
FLColeman USP 182 ....... 182 .......
FLMarianna FCI 9 ....... 9 .......
FLMiami FCI 1 ....... 1 .......
FLPetersburg FCI 48 ....... 48 .......
FLTallahassee FCI 1 16 17 282
GAAtlanta USP 354 ....... 354 .......
GAJesup FCI 19 ....... 19 373
ILGreenville FCI 13 ....... 13 .......
ILMarion USP 28 ....... 28 .......
ILPekin FCI 4 ....... 4 45
INTerre Haute USP 193 ....... 193 193
KSLeavenworth USP 218 ....... 218 218
KYAshland FCI 6 ....... 6 .......
KYLexington FMC 20 10 30 .......
KYManchester FCI 32 ....... 32 68
LAOakdale FCI 1 ....... 1 .......
LAOakdale FDC 3 ....... 3 .......
LANew Orleans CCM 1 ....... 1 5
MADevens FMC 38 ....... 38 .......
MABoston CCM 1 ....... 1 39
MDCumberland FCI 214 ....... 214 .......
MDBaltimore Community 26 2 28 242
Corrections
MIMilan FCI 3 ....... 3 .......
MIDetroit CCM 1 ....... 1 4
MNRochester FMC 18 ....... 18 .......
MNSandstone FCI 1 ....... 1 .......
MNMinneapolis CCM 3 ....... 3 22
MOSpringfield USMCFP 61 ....... 61 61
MSYazoo City FCI 2 ....... 2 2
NCButner FMC 65 ....... 65 .......
NCButner Low 17 ....... 17 .......
NCButner Med 48 ....... 48 .......
NCSeymour Johnson FPC 11 ....... 11 .......
NCMcRae CI 18 ....... 18 .......
NCRivers CI 1,119 ....... 1,119 .......
NCRaleigh CCM 2 ....... 2 1,280
NJFairton FCI 109 ....... 109 .......
NJFort Dix FCI 44 ....... 44 153
NYBrooklyn MDC 5 ....... 5 .......
NYOtisville FCI 63 ....... 63 .......
NYRay Brook FCI 39 ....... 39 107
OHElkton FCI 9 ....... 9 9
OKEl Reno FCI 3 ....... 3 .......
OKOklahoma City FTC 30 ....... 30 33
ORSheridan FCI 2 ....... 2 2
PAAllenwood Low 10 ....... 10 .......
PAAllenwood Medium 95 ....... 95 .......
PAAllenwood USP 259 ....... 259 .......
PALewisburg USP 258 ....... 258 .......
PALoretto FCI 3 ....... 3 .......
PAMcKean FCI 85 ....... 85 .......
PAPhiladelphia FDC 21 9 30 .......
PASchuylkill FCI 145 ....... 145 .......
PAPhiladelphia CCM 2 1 3 888
SCEdgefield FCI 125 ....... 125 .......
SCEstill FCI 49 ....... 49 174
TNMemphis FCI 31 ....... 31 .......
TNNashville CCM 1 ....... 1 32
TXBeaumont Low 3 ....... 3 .......
TXBeaumont USP 46 ....... 46 .......
TXCarswell FMC 0 16 16 .......
TXFort Worth FMC 7 ....... 7 .......
TXTexarkana FCI 1 ....... 1 .......
TXThree Rivers FCI 1 ....... 1 74
VALee USP 409 ....... 409 .......
VAPetersburg Med FCI 281 ....... 281 690
WIOxford FCI 4 ....... 4 4
WVAlderson 0 67 67 .......
WVBeckley FI 161 ....... 161 .......
WVBig Sandy USP 147 ....... 147 .......
WVGilmer FCI 235 ....... 235 .......
WVMorgantown FCI 87 ....... 87 697
--------------------------------------
TOTAL 5,880 232 6,112 6,112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY
Question. According to the fiscal year 2005 Pretrial Services
Agency budget submission, the current caseload for defendants who are
``extensively supervised'' is 127:1. What types of charges are included
in ``extensively supervised'' cases, what type of supervision is
provided, and what, if any, implications does this have for public
safety? If this is not the appropriate caseload ratio, what is? What,
if any, resources are needed to achieve public safety goals? What
changes to supervision practices would be expected if caseloads were
reduced?
Answer. Within the General Supervision program, defendants who pose
a higher level of risk to community safety or of not returning to Court
are classified as in need of ``extensive supervision.'' Defendants who
fall into this category have been charged with a wide range of
offenses--from misdemeanors to dangerous and violent felonies. Many of
the felony defendants are eligible for pretrial detention based on
their charge (i.e., robbery, burglary, possession with intent to
distribute), but the Court has determined that placement in the
community under extensively supervised release conditions should
initially be ordered. The Court's expectation is that, in order to
ameliorate the risk to public safety while on pretrial release,
conditions such as drug testing and regular reporting will be closely
supervised by PSA.
With the current high caseload ratios, PSA is not able to provide
the supervision expected by the Court or required by PSA's internal
policies and procedures. In fiscal year 2002, General Supervision
Pretrial Service Officers (PSO's) were unable to respond to over half
of defendants' condition violations, such as noncompliance with drug
testing and contact requirements. Currently, PSO's often cannot respond
quickly to violations of release conditions and, in many instances,
defendants are testing positive for illegal drugs for many months until
they have a court date where the PSO is finally able to respond. This
is particularly troubling with high risk felonies pending indictment,
where the first court date after the preliminary hearing is often many
months after the defendant has been released to PSA. During that time,
because the PSO's are ``managing'' their caseloads on the basis of
court dates rather than providing extensive supervision, warrant checks
and criminal records checks are not regularly done to see if defendants
have been arrested again in a neighboring jurisdiction while on
release. Curfew conditions are not monitored by visits to defendants'
homes. Treatment or employment opportunities are not pursued. In short,
these higher risk defendants are not being appropriately supervised, at
considerable risk to public safety.
Information provided by two neighboring Federal pretrial districts
under the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicates that their
caseloads average between 42:1 and 64:1 (Eastern District of Virginia
42:1, District of Maryland 64:1). If PSA were to reduce extensive
supervision caseloads to 60:1, it would require the following
resources:
PSO'S REQUIRED FOR CASELOADS AT 60:1 (AVERAGE MARCH-JUNE 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Additional
Extensive Supervision Cases PSO's Required PSO Total
(121:1) \1\ for 60:1 60:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony...................................................... 1,346 11 11 22
Violent Misdemeanor......................................... 412 3 4 7
Domestic Violence........................................... 547 5 4 9
Nonviolent Misdemeanor...................................... 1,338 11 11 22
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 3,643 30 30 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caseloads fluctuate over the year depending on whether the Court orders ``extensively supervised'' or
monitored conditions. This depends on the risk level of the particular defendant. The Extensive Supervision
breakdown reflects an average from March through June, 2003 when the ratio was 121:1. The 127:1 ratio
addressed in the question represents the period from March through September, 2003.
With additional resources, pretrial services officers would be able
to initiate case management of defendants with extensive supervision
conditions. Supervision plans would be established that would include
the following:
--provide orientation with defendants so that they are advised about
supervision/program requirements;
--assess defendant's needs and risks by reviewing the bail report/
risk assessment and by completing a social services needs
screener;
--conduct regular warrants and criminal history checks to ensure
there has not been a rearrest in a neighboring jurisdiction
while on release;
--assess and refer defendants for substance abuse, mental health
needs, or social services where appropriate and resources
permit;
--execute contracts for sanctions-based substance abuse treatment
where appropriate and resources permit;
--monitor conditions of release throughout the case so that non-
compliance can be reported expeditiously to the court instead
of only on court dates;
--respond expeditiously to non-compliance with release conditions
through sanctions or referral to appropriate resources such as
treatment or a request for judicial action;
--respond to non-compliance with drug testing after three drug
testing infractions within 30 days rather than only on court
dates;
--report to the court and investigate loss of contact with the
defendant; and
--administer and recommend incentives where appropriate.
Question. Many Federal agencies have not received full funding for
pay raises in the last several years. What impact does this have on the
Pretrial Services Agency's ability to meet program goals?
Answer. Pretrial Services Agency's ability to accomplish our
program goals relating to Risk and Needs Assessment, Close Supervision,
Treatment and Services, and Partnerships is directly tied to our
ability to hire our authorized 325 FTE. Since our certification as an
independent entity within CSOSA in August of 2000, PSA has experienced
significant but mission-essential program growth in the areas of staff
and contract treatment. During this short period of time, PSA has been
very successful in incrementally establishing the necessary
infrastructure to support our growing FTE level; and now we need to
maintain this FTE level to successfully provide front-line services to
defendants and accomplish our mission.
By fiscal year 2005, the cumulative impact of the unfunded pay
raise increment, the difference between the President's Budget and
Congress's enacted authorization, could well be over 5 percent of
payroll, or over $1 million. As a small agency where approximately 72
percent of our fiscal year 2005 funding goes into salaries and
benefits, there are few options to address this increment beyond
reducing staffing or reducing treatment dollars, which directly impacts
the achievement of program goals. For example, with the option utilized
this fiscal year, fiscal year 2004, approximately 16 positions were not
filled until February to help address the fiscal year 2004 pay raise
increment of 2.1 percent, or $565,000 (difference between 2.0 percent
in the budget and the 4.10 percent actual).
Conversely, reducing available FTE will incrementally increase
supervision caseload ratios. Higher caseload ratios, particularly in an
area such as General Supervision, where the ratios are already too
high, can only cause increased concern for public safety. For fiscal
year 2005, to address the potential unfunded pay raise increment of
approximately 1.8 percent, or $486,000.00 (difference between the 1.5
percent in the budget and the possible parity pay with DOD at 3.5
percent), PSA will be confronted with not being able to fill vacancies
and/or a reduction in contract treatment funding.
COMMUNITY COURT
Question. What is the role of PSA with the D.C. Superior Court's
Community Court? Does PSA have resources that are adequate to support
this initiative?
Answer. The District of Columbia Superior Court launched the East
of the River Community Court (ERCC) in September 2002, and it was
expanded in the fall of 2003. The ERCC shifted case management from a
traditional case processing orientation to a problem-solving system of
supervision. The general philosophy of the Court is grounded in a
therapeutic and restorative justice model, incorporating an active
connection with the community. Problem-solving is achieved by assessing
individual needs and tailoring meaningful solutions through drug
testing, substance abuse treatment, job training, other social services
and community service. PSA assessment and supervision practices have
been modified to respond swiftly and frequently to assist the Court in
making informed decisions about release conditions intended to problem-
solve individual need and to assure appearance in court and public
safety. Accountability is enforced by PSA to improve the defendant's
sense of value to the community, as well as to prevent the defendant
from becoming involved in further criminal behavior. Today, a few PSO's
within the General Supervision program are supervising 482 defendants
released through the ERCC, and 433 of those defendants have a drug
testing condition.
Managing individual needs of defendants processed through the ERCC
involves a labor-intensive effort by PSO's. Defendants who opt for
trial or agree to diversion are released with a variety of release
conditions intended to support problem-solving. PSO's spend added time
with defendants attempting to instill a desire for self-improvement and
community awareness while maintaining the system's requirements of
assuring defendants' return for court dates and safety of the
community. In some instances, PSA supervises dual sets of release
requirements for an individual defendant. Diversion agreements with the
prosecutor and court-ordered release conditions are simultaneously
imposed and fashioned to promote personal change. The PSOs'
productivity levels are increased by the two sets of release
requirements and the types of conditions imposed. Defendants need time
to modify negative behaviors or to make retribution to the community
through community service. As a result, the supervision period is
lengthened. Non-compliance with problem-solving strategies prolongs the
length of a case as PSO's attempt to work with defendants for
successful outcomes. When defendants succeed at diversion, prosecutors
prefer to keep their cases open for an extended period to ensure
continuing compliance. Defendants who fail diversion opportunities and
request a trial automatically extend the pretrial supervision period.
PSA resources are not adequate to effectively continue under the
community court model. Although the Court would like to expand the
reach of the community court to other districts beyond 6D and 7D, PSA
does not have sufficient staff or treatment dollars to support such an
expansion. Misdemeanor cases that usually average 170 days can end up
on the court docket for longer periods, sustaining the need for PSA
oversight and treatment funds. Resources are stretched thin to cover
the variety of release requirements, to manage the high-maintenance
nature of problem-solving, and to prolong supervision to promote
successful outcomes or to support a second period of supervision.
DRUG TREATMENT
Question. PSA last received an increase in contract drug treatment
funding in fiscal year 2002 to address the defendant population. How
many defendants have drug use problems? To what extent is this funding
sufficient to meet the demand for treatment? What controls are in place
to ensure that these resources are used most efficiently and
effectively?
Answer. PSA cannot currently meet the entire substance abuse
treatment need in its supervision population. Although defendants
frequently are not under pretrial supervision for the period of time
necessary to complete an entire treatment regime (placement in
detoxification, residential and outpatient treatment sometimes followed
by transitional housing), it can reasonably be expected that the
typical defendant in need of treatment would receive up to two
placements while under PSA supervision.
During fiscal year 2003, there were approximately 3,700 defendants
who had at least three drug testing violations while under pretrial
supervision. Defendants are referred for comprehensive substance abuse
assessments after three positive drug tests, and approximately 96
percent of those assessments reflect a need for treatment. PSA drug-
using defendants in fiscal year 2003 needed approximately 7,104
substance abuse treatment placements (3,700 defendants 2 treatment
placements each @ 96 percent). In-house and contract treatment
placements totaled 1,958 in fiscal year 2003, and 215 additional
substance abuse placements were made with externally funded community-
based providers, a total of approximately 31 percent of the potential
need. These placements served approximately 1,200 defendants.
PSA has established and implemented significant best practice
controls consisting of both manual and automated processes to ensure
that the application of contract drug treatment funding is efficiently
and effectively optimized.
PSA has an active contract treatment services quality control
program in place, and quality assurance of the services is written into
the contracts by the incorporation of the D.C. Department of Health
standards for drug treatment facilities. Quality is a major evaluation
factor in awarding the treatment services contracts. Each offeror is
required to submit a quality assurance plan for providing services to
PSA. The treatment facilities must be certified under the D.C.
standards for a treatment facility, and evidence of that certification
is required for award of the contracts. The treatment services
contracts are closely monitored by the Treatment Branch, Contract
Treatment Services Unit, Contracting Officer Technical Representatives
(COTR's). The COTR's make scheduled and unscheduled site visits to the
treatment facilities, inspecting the services provided and utilizing a
quality assurance plan and checklist to ensure compliance with the
contract terms and conditions. Issues, or potential issues, resulting
from site visits are immediately coordinated with a PSA Contract
Officer and addressed with the respective vendors.
Initial treatment placements are made by the COTR's utilizing an
automated Task Order writing subsystem, which is an on-line, real-time
application integrated with PSA's case management system for defendants
and the internal funds control system, producing timely, reliable, and
accurate information. Treatment vendor invoices are received by PSA's
Accounting Section and reconciled with the automated Task Order writing
subsystem. This process allows for continuous maximum use of available
funds. For defendants who are placed on probation, the COTR's
coordinate with CSOSA to transfer the defendants into the CSP offender
supervision program without interruption of treatment services or
creating duplicate obligations.
Question. How many defendants did the Pretrial Services Agency
supervise over the course of fiscal year 2003? What was the rate of
rearrest for pretrial defendants while under the supervision of the
agency? What is the rearrest rate for drug users in contrast to non-
drug users?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Pretrial Services Agency
supervised a total of 20,948 defendants. These defendants represent
26,589 cases, meaning that some defendants have multiple cases and have
been placed on pretrial release and supervised more than once. This may
occur when a defendant is on release in one case and is rearrested on a
different case, either during the period of pretrial supervision, or
after the defendant's period of supervision is over.
Twelve percent of PSA's defendant population was rearrested at
least once during the period of pretrial supervision. As would be
expected from the research documenting the links between drug use and
crime, drug-using defendants (defined as those with at least one
positive drug test) have higher rearrest rates than non-drug using
defendants. In fiscal year 2003, 17 percent of drug-using defendants
were rearrested as compared to only 2 percent of non-drug using
defendants.
The fiscal year 2003 rearrest rate is marginally lower than the
rates from the previous 2 years. In fiscal year 2001, the rearrest rate
for all defendants was over 13 percent, with 19 percent of drug-using
defendants rearrested, and a little over 6 percent of non-drug using
defendants rearrested. In fiscal year 2002, the overall rearrest rate
was over 14 percent, with over 20 percent of drug-using defendants
rearrested, and 7 percent of non-drug using defendants rearrested.
Question. What is the status of PSA's defendant case management
system?
Answer. Version 1.0 of PRISM, Pretrial's case management system,
was deployed in March, 2002. This release supported all aspects of
defendant supervision, case management, drug test results, and
substance abuse treatment. Version 1.5 was deployed in January, 2003,
and added automated case assignment and task management functions.
Version 2.0 development effort will be completed during the 4th quarter
of fiscal year 2004. Staff training will begin in fiscal year 2004 with
deployment slated for 1st quarter, fiscal year 2005. Version 2.0 will
incorporate criminal history, arrest processing, and bail reports to
court, and will replace the Agency's legacy ABA DABA (Automated Bail
Agency Database) and DTMS (Drug Test Management System) information
systems.
In future versions, we hope to automate the release order process
and create an electronic release order. The release order is the
initial document that places a defendant under Pretrial Services
supervision. Currently, the release order is a multi-part paper form,
which is prepared manually by PSA and court staff in the courtroom and
signed by the judge. PSA staff manually enters information on the
release order into PSA's case management system.
Over 30 courtrooms in D.C. Superior Court prepare and forward
release orders to PSA throughout the week. Incomplete or illegible
release orders or orders not received by PSA are common problems.
Breakdowns in the manual process of transmitting release orders
ultimately result in defendants not being supervised. Timeliness in
posting new release conditions or any bond changes is paramount to
effective supervision. Accuracy of on-the-record release conditions is
also essential to ensuring the appropriate release conditions are
imposed and supervised.
Automation of this process would create an electronic release
order, which could be generated in the courtroom, with printed copies
available immediately for all relevant parties. Information could be
posted real-time to both Pretrial Services' and D.C. Superior Court's
information systems, assuring that both systems had reliable, timely,
and accurate information.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
RE-ENTRY AND SANCTION CENTER
Question. Please provide the schedule for renovation of Karrick
Hall and how long the agency intends to remain in this facility, as
part of the Reservation 13 master plan.
Answer. In September 2002, CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the
District of Columbia for the use of Karrick Hall as CSOSA's Re-entry
and Sanctions Center. From September 2002 to June 2003, CSOSA, the D.C.
government, and several stakeholders worked to resolve planning issues,
including the transfer of control of the land from the Federal
Government to the DC government and the siting of the CSOSA facility
within the framework of the Reservation 13 Master Plan. In June 2003,
CSOSA reached agreement with the City to proceed with the renovation of
Karrick Hall. A contract for Architectural and Engineering Design and
Construction Management was signed in September 2003 and complete
renovations are scheduled to be complete in Spring 2005. CSOSA plans to
continue full operations at Karrick Hall at least throughout the term
of the existing lease.
Karrick Hall is a 60,000 square foot 8-story building constructed
on the grounds of the D.C. General campus circa 1961. Since 1996,
Karrick Hall has been the home of the Assessment and Orientation
Center. The AOC program is a model program CSOSA now operates in
partnership with the Washington Baltimore High Intensity Drug Task
Force program, also known as HIDTA. When Karrick Hall is complete, the
AOC will become CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions program.
On February 27, 2004, the AOC vacated Karrick Hall and moved into a
temporary location at 1301 Clifton Street, NW. The AOC will be at 1301
Clifton until the renovation is complete, in the spring of 2005.
The renovations include:
--Replacing the building's infrastructure (installing all new
plumbing, electrical, windows and exterior architectural
features as well as a new heating and air condition systems and
fire systems);
--Installing two new elevators in place of the existing units;
--Installing new restrooms and ensuring all new systems meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
handicap accessibility requirements.
When renovations are completed in Spring 2005, the Reentry and
Sanctions Center will expand to 108 beds, which will service 1,200
offenders and defendants annually. The program will include four male
units, one unit dedicated to females and one unit for the dually
diagnosed. CSOSA's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget request contains funding for
partial-year operations of all six units in fiscal year 2005.
We are very excited about this initiative because the AOC program
has a proven track record of success. A study conducted by the
University of Maryland in May 2002 found there was a 74 percent
reduction in re-arrests 1 year following completion of the AOC program.
Expanding the capacity of this program has obvious positive impacts on
public safety and quality of life.
SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT
Question. What role does drug treatment play in reducing
recidivism?
Answer. Research supports the conclusion that effective drug
treatment plays a significant role in reducing recidivism. Nationally,
it is estimated that drug treatment results in a 45 percent reduction
in criminal behavior in the 2 years following successful completion of
treatment. A similar trend is seen in research conducted on
participants of the Baltimore/Washington High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) treatment continuum, the system on which
CSOSA's substance abuse treatment continuum is based. The HIDTA
program, which is grant-funded through the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, targets geographic areas identified as having high
concentrations of drug-related criminal activity, such as the
Baltimore/Washington area. The evaluation of the Baltimore/Washington
HIDTA treatment program was conducted by the University of Maryland and
showed that the overall arrest rate for HIDTA treatment participants
dropped 51 percent, and the arrest rate for participants of the HIDTA
Assessment and Orientation Center, which is operated by CSOSA, dropped
74 percent in the 12 months following successful completion of the
program.
Within CSOSA, we are currently developing a system to evaluate the
impact of treatment on recidivism. The integration of an automated
treatment tracking module with our SMART case management system during
fiscal year 2003 allows us for the first time to analyze the impact of
treatment on criminal behavior. During fiscal year 2003, drug related
violations accounted for 58 percent of all technical violations
reported for the year. We anticipate that our outcome analysis will
mirror the findings of both the national and HIDTA outcome studies and
will show a reduction in recidivism and technical violations amongst
offenders who were referred to and successfully completed a continuum
of treatment services during fiscal year 2003.
Question. How many offenders and defendants are served by drug
treatment, compared with the population identified as in need of
treatment?
Answer. CSOSA estimates that approximately 4,100 chronic substance-
abusing offenders required treatment interventions in fiscal year 2003,
based on the number of offenders who tested positive for cocaine,
heroin or PCP two or more times. It is important to note that CSOSA
also supervises offenders who test positive fewer than two times that
are also in need of treatment services. For purposes of this analysis
4,100 offenders will be used as a low-end estimate.
Each offender, on average, requires 3 placements to satisfy
treatment-programming requirements. For example, offenders with chronic
substance abuse histories are most often referred to detoxification
followed by residential and outpatient services.
Using the estimates described above, CSOSA requires the ability to
make a minimum of 12,300 substance abuse placements per year (4,100
offenders 3 treatment placements) to meet the population's need. The
fiscal year 2003 appropriation enabled CSOSA to make 2,021 treatment
placements, or just 16 percent of the total estimated need.
Approximately 40 percent of offenders needing treatment are
supervised at the Intensive or Maximum level, indicating a relatively
high level of risk to public safety. CSOSA has focused treatment
resources on this population to meet a higher percentage of need among
the highest-risk offenders.
Question. What kinds of programs are people placed in? Residential
or out-patient? How do you determine which service providers offenders
are referred to?
Answer. CSOSA currently provides the following substance abuse
services:
--7-Day Medically Monitored Detoxification,
--28-Day Intensive Residential Treatment,
--120-Day Residential Treatment,
--120-Day Residential Treatment and Transitional Housing for Women
with Children,
--180-Day Residential Treatment for Dually-Diagnosed Substance
Abusers,
--90-Day Supervised Transitional Housing,
--Intensive Outpatient and Outpatient Treatment,
--Traffic Alcohol Education Services.
In addition to the services above, CSOSA also provides the
following in-house interventions:
--Substance Abuse Education Groups,
--Assessment/Orientation Groups (Pre-treatment services),
--Anger Management Groups,
--Sanction Groups.
The level of treatment recommended for each offender is determined
by an evaluation conducted by CSOSA staff. The evaluation considers a
variety of factors including pattern of drug use; amenability to
treatment; prior treatment history; risk to public safety; and
employment/living status.
Question. How does CSOSA coordinate supervised release with drug
treatment and counseling if those services are not provided at the
halfway house?
Answer. CSOSA does not provide treatment services to offenders
residing in the halfway house on ``inmate'' status. For those
individuals, the Bureau of Prisons provides contract treatment
services. When the individual is released, the individual continues
treatment under CSOSA's contract with the same vendor.
CSOSA staff assess offenders who reside in the halfway house on
``released'' status (parolee, supervised releasee or probationer under
a Public Law placement) to identify their specific treatment needs. The
offenders are permitted to leave the halfway house to attend substance
abuse treatment sessions at the identified treatment program. Upon
leaving the halfway house, the offender's treatment continues and, if
needed, the offender is referred to the next level of care.
Offenders who enter supervision with no prior halfway house stay
are assessed for treatment needs as part of CSOSA's intake and case
planning process. If the offender has a release condition requiring
treatment, placement is initiated at that time.
Once the individual is under CSOSA supervision, the Community
Supervision Officer (CSO) is responsible for ensuring that the offender
is in full compliance with the treatment plan, sanctioning the offender
for any behavioral non-compliant acts, meeting with the treatment
professional to facilitate offender compliance, monitoring the offender
until successful completion of treatment, or referring the offender
back to the releasing authority if continued non-compliance with
treatment results in removal from treatment or unsatisfactory
compliance.
SUCCESS RATE OF WOMEN OFFENDERS RE-ENTERING THE COMMUNITY
Question. What specific steps or initiatives are underway to enable
successful re-entry of women?
Answer. Currently, CSOSA's Community Supervision Program (CSP) has
several gender-specific programs to address the needs of female
offenders. CSP contracts for residential placements in gender-specific
residential programs, such as Demeter House, which treats chemically-
addicted mothers, who may be accompanied by their children while in the
program. The Substance Abuse and Treatment Branch also provides weekly
in-house group sessions for women. In addition, the Transitional
Intervention for Parole Supervision (TIPS) program has a community
supervision officer on-site at the Fairview Community Corrections
Center to assist women with reentry issues. The Fairview CCC also may
be used for public law placements and as an intermediate sanction for
high risk/needs women offenders.
CSP is working to expand gender-specific programs. The expanded
Reentry and Sanctions Center will contain a unit for female offenders.
Additionally, a team of managers received training at the National
Institute of Corrections Academy last year on implementing effective
agency-wide programs for female offenders. The members of this team now
are leading a work group to implement these strategies around such
issues as victimization and trauma, mental health and medical problems,
family and child rearing, and economic self-sufficiency. The Agency is
working to:
--Implement additional, in-house gender-specific group counseling
programs and training group facilitators;
--Develop a comprehensive training curriculum that provides
information/tools for line staff and administrators to
effectively manage female offenders;
--Compile a resource guide to ensure that Community Supervision
Officers are aware of, and have access to, available in-house,
community and government programs;
--Work with our faith-based partners to female women offenders are
linked to mentors;
--Strengthen partnerships with the many community organizations and
government agencies that provide services to this population;
and
--Arrange child-care opportunities with our community partners to
allow female offenders to engage in programming and supervision
activities.
Question. Does CSOSA coordinate with the Child and Family Services
Agency (CFSA) or D.C. Public Schools to follow-up on women re-entering
family life?
Answer. CSOSA makes every effort to connect returning offenders
with programs and services that can help them achieve successful
reintegration in the community. While there is no agency policy
requiring coordination, Community Supervision Officers (CSO's)
informally confer and collaborate with the city's social services
agencies on cases in which there is a common interest. The CSO may need
to be aware of services the offender or her children receive from CFSA,
or the CSO may initiate referral for such services. Typically, if the
offender needs educational programming, s/he will be referred to a
Learning Lab for assessment. The Learning Lab may refer the offender to
D.C. Public Schools evening programs if appropriate.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL
Question. Is the CJCC well-equipped in its current status to
continue to aide in the creation of seamless criminal justice services
that enhance public safety and maximize resources?
Answer. Over the course of 2003-2004, the CJCC has been able to
strengthen its position within the criminal justice community as a
resource tool and a catalyst for system reform, institutional
modification and program analysis. In January of 2003, the member
agencies of the CJCC made a commitment to address a variety of issues
by completing a multi-year strategic plan. These issues are being
addressed through committees and workgroups using a process of careful
investigation and recommendations. CJCC provides support to these
workgroups through research, data collection and tracking. The CJCC is
now in the process of completing its second, annual report for fiscal
year 2003.
There is a general improvement in the trust and solicitation of
multiagency approaches to problem solving which can only make the city
services stronger and more efficient. Through the CJCC there has been
the successful establishment of an infrastructure to support these
multiagency efforts, report on progress and measure success. The
support of the Mayor, D.C. Council, OMB and Congress has provided a
strong foundation for the development of the CJCC.
RE-ARREST RATE AND PAROLE REVOCATION
Question. Would you please submit to the committee a comparison of
the re-arrest rates and parole revocation hearings in the District to
other jurisdictions of similar size? (Please coordinate response with
PDS).
Answer. The percentage of offenders arrested while under CSOSA
supervision was 18 percent in fiscal year 2002 and 15 percent in fiscal
year 2003. Although comparable neighboring jurisdictions (i.e.,
Baltimore and Richmond) do not report their rearrest data in a similar
fashion, we will soon move to a more comparable reporting format--
recidivism rates measured over a 24- to 36-month period for entry and
exit cohort offender populations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In January 2003, the Virginia Department of Corrections
released a 3-year recidivism study indicating that nearly 30 percent of
roughly 9,000 offenders returned to incarceration. Of those who
returned, the greatest share returned within the first year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accomplish the above reporting objective, CSOSA is exploring a
data sharing agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This
particular agreement will enable the agency to implement its recidivism
studies by verifying and tracking all known and reported rearrests
contained in the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Once
in place, ORE will collect and verify all known arrests for stratified
random samples of entry and exit cohorts. We hope to begin reporting
our 24- and 36-month rearrest rates beginning in the summer of 2005 and
on a regular basis thereafter.
Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, the United States
Parole Commission reported 768, 1,072, and 1,240 revocation hearings
for D.C. offenders respectively. These hearings fall into three
categories--institutional, expedited, and local. Only local revocation
hearings require the presence of CSOSA's CSO's for introduction of
facts.\2\ A large share of these revocations resulted from hearings
that were requested following an offender's persistent drug use and/or
technical violations regardless of rearrest or prosecutorial decision
to present charges to the judiciary.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USPC [actual] local revocation hearings were 481 in fiscal year
2001, 660 in fiscal year 2002, and 562 in fiscal year 2003.
\3\ The Virginia study also indicated that nearly of third of
recidivists were revoked to incarceration following technical violation
and the remaining following arrests for a new charge.
Public Defender Service
STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR
Senator DeWine. Let me invite our second panel up, which is
one witness. Mr. Ronald Sullivan, Jr. is Director of the Public
Defender Service in the District of Columbia. He was appointed
Director in June 2002. Mr. Sullivan was in private practice
here in the District and was a visiting attorney for the Law
Society of Kenya. He sat on the committee charged with drafting
a new constitution of that country.
Mr. Sullivan is leaving the Public Defender Service this
summer to take a professorship at Yale. We welcome him.
Mr. Sullivan, thank you for being here today.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Would you like to make a statement? And
then we will have some questions.
Mr. Sullivan. Indeed, I would.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.
INTRODUCTION
I come before you today in support of the fiscal year 2005
budget request on behalf of the Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia, or PDS as we are commonly known as in the
criminal justice system.
Throughout its history, PDS has maintained its reputation
as the best public defender service in the country, local or
Federal. PDS is a legal services provider that this Congress,
this subcommittee, and this City can be proud of.
Our track record, both historically and recently, speaks
for itself. Indeed, just this past summer the United States
Supreme Court appointed one of our attorneys to a case of
national importance. The case regarded the construction and
application of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which forbids State
officials from depriving individuals of their Constitutional
rights under color of State law.
The exquisitely graceful brief produced by our attorney on
behalf of a prison inmate proved convincing. Last Thursday, the
Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 opinion, adopting PDS's position.
I ask you, when was the last time you recall this Supreme Court
agreeing 9-0 on anything?
PDS'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
With this backdrop, I move to PDS's fiscal year 2005
request. PDS requests $29.8 million and 227.5 FTE in direct
budget authority. This request includes $2.3 million as our
first ever capital investment in information technology.
The investment will provide for development of our case
data management systems. It will enhance our security over
privileged attorney/client information, and it will reduce our
risk of losing client information in the event of a local
disaster.
Indeed, recently, the Cook County defender office in
Chicago was virtually destroyed by fire. This sort of disaster
can occur, and if the institutional defender service is not
prepared, we risk grinding the criminal justice system to a
halt.
Coupled with this technology investment, we are targeting
to improve PDS's operational efficiencies in the areas of
program planning and development, administration, human
resources, and financial management. There is far more detail
in my written submission, but suffice it to say PDS's skeletal
professional support staff is woefully inadequate to support an
agency of this size and scope.
PDS'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Now, briefly to fiscal year 2004 accomplishments: As this
subcommittee knows from recent press accounts, PDS, in its
class action litigation against the District, recently filed a
motion to place the D.C. Youth Services Administration in
receivership as a consequence of its nearly two-decade long
neglect of the District's most needy children. The District's
lack of compliance with dozens of court orders to date is not
acceptable.
In addition to its class action litigation, PDS represents
individual citizens one at a time when they are faced with
criminal charges.
One example illustrates how PDS affects the lives of D.C.
citizens. Recently we represented a 70-year-old man. Let me
call him John, so as not to further the injustice brought upon
him. John was charged with felony gun possession. He had never
been in trouble before. He worked part-time as a special police
officer and was licensed to carry a handgun while on duty and
to and from his home to work.
One day after work, he stopped at the headquarters--the
headquarters of the special police officer's department--to
pick up some work related paperwork. He forgot to remove his
handgun before walking into the building, since, technically
speaking, he did not work at the headquarters.
As a result of this mistake, John was arrested and faced
the possibility of a felony conviction with a 5-year prison
sentence. The conviction would have cost him his job, his means
to supplement his retirement, and his spotless reputation,
which he had built over 70 years.
Fortunately, John was represented by a well-trained public
defender. The result--it took John's jury 10 minutes to elect a
foreperson and render a verdict of not guilty.
PDS seeks fairness in every case it handles, and this is
but one example of how PDS affects the lives of concrete people
and the administration of justice in our Nation's capital.
PDS's mission to represent indigent citizens in the District
with diligence and zeal is clear and well defined. We do it
responsibly. We do it efficiently. We do it cost effectively,
but most importantly we do it well.
The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
has been and continues to be this country's model defender
agency. With your support, we will continue in this proud
tradition.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I see the yellow light is on, which indicates that my time
is nearly expired. I thank you for your time and attention. I
would be happy to answer any questions that this subcommittee
may have.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.
Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., and I am the Director of the Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you
today to provide testimony in support of PDS's fiscal year 2005 budget
request. We thank you for your support of our programs in previous
years.
The Public Defender Service, unique among local public defender
offices in that it is federally funded,\1\ has continued to maintain
its strong reputation in the area of providing quality criminal defense
representation in the District of Columbia. Just last week, the United
States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 opinion, ruled for a PDS client in a
case briefed and argued by a PDS attorney at the request of the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ``Revitalization Act''), PDS
was established as a federally funded, independent District of Columbia
organization. In accordance with the Revitalization Act, PDS transmits
its budget and receives its appropriation as a transfer through the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This case is just the latest successful example of PDS's long
history of providing quality defense representation. PDS has always
been committed to its mission of providing and promoting
constitutionally mandated legal representation to adults and children
facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia who cannot afford
a lawyer, and we have had numerous significant accomplishments in
pursuit of that mission. However, before PDS became a federally funded
entity, we did not always have sufficient funding to allow us to
achieve as high a level of proficiency in our administrative
functioning as we are known for in our legal representation. PDS's
relatively new status as a federally funded entity \2\ has created the
opportunity for us to focus more on enhancing our administrative
functions: in the past 7 years, PDS has established a human resources
office, an information technology office, and a budget and finance
office where none previously existed. To continue this ``administrative
maturation,'' PDS has a need for a more sophisticated structure that
will permit not only the integration of these functions with each other
and with PDS's program functions, but will permit the organization to
better monitor performance and to achieve even greater results. In
furtherance of these goals, PDS has already adopted Federal best
practices in a number of support areas, and we are preparing to adopt
additional Federal best practices in even more areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is for these reasons that PDS seeks funding for our sole fiscal
year 2005 requested initiative, the Program Management and Performance
Integration Initiative. For fiscal year 2005, PDS requests $29,833,000
and 227.5 FTE in direct budget authority, which includes a request for
8.5 new FTE and $3,714,000 to support this new initiative. This
proposed increase in personnel resources and funding--PDS's first ever
Federal capital funding request--is consistent with the President's
emphasis on achieving measurable results and improving operational
efficiency.
BACKGROUND
Since undertaking in 1970 its intended role as a model public
defender, PDS has developed and maintained a reputation as the best
public defender office in the country--local or Federal. It has become
the national standard bearer and the benchmark by which other public
defense organizations often measure themselves. In a first ever
employee survey conducted just 6 weeks ago, 99 percent of responding
staff reported being proud of working at PDS. The independent firm that
conducted the survey informed us that PDS received one of the highest
overall scores the firm had ever observed in assessing staff commitment
to an organization's mission. Congress and the District of Columbia can
also be proud of this local defender office for our Nation's capital.
In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of Columbia
Courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally mandated
legal representation to people who cannot pay for their own attorney.
Under the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Act (CJA), the
District of Columbia Courts appoint PDS generally to the more serious,
more complex, resource-intensive, and time-consuming criminal cases.
The Courts assign the remaining, less serious cases and the majority of
the misdemeanor and traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350 pre-
selected private attorneys (``CJA attorneys''). Approximately 100
lawyers on staff at PDS are appointed to represent:
--a significant percentage of people facing the most serious felony
charges;
--a substantial percentage of individuals litigating criminal
appeals;
--the majority of the juveniles facing serious delinquency charges;
--nearly 100 percent of all people facing parole revocation; and
--the majority of people in the mental health system who are facing
involuntary civil commitment.
While much of our work is devoted to ensuring that no innocent
person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
representation to children in the delinquency system who have learning
disabilities and require special educational accommodations under the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act,\3\ people with mental
illness who are facing involuntary civil commitment, and recovering
substance abusers participating in the highly successful Drug Court
treatment program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDS has also provided training for other District of Columbia
defense attorneys and investigators who represent those who cannot
afford an attorney, and provided support to the District of Columbia
Courts. In addition, PDS has developed innovative approaches to
representation, from instituting measures to address the problems of
clients returning to the community who have been incarcerated to
creating a one-of-a-kind electronic case tracking system. Other public
defender offices across the country have sought counsel from PDS as
they have used our work as a pattern for theirs. As Federal best
practices continue to spread to the State and local level, PDS is
ideally situated to become a model for how a public defender office can
be operated most effectively in the 21st century.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST
Program Management and Performance Integration Initiative
For fiscal year 2005, PDS requests $29.8 million and 227.5 FTE in
total direct budget authority. This request includes $2.3 million as
our first capital investment in information technology. The investment
will allow us to expand our case and data management systems to provide
more efficient attorney services. Software development and deployment,
and associated hardware and licensing will enhance security of
privileged attorney-client information and reduce our risk of loss of
client information in the event of a local disaster.
Recent experience in Chicago drives home the importance to the
smooth operation of the criminal justice system of ensuring that the
defender organization can continue to operate even if its offices are
damaged or its computer systems are destroyed. Last fall, the building
housing the Cook County defender's main offices was virtually destroyed
in a fire. Had the Cook County defender lacked the capacity to retrieve
data from backup sources and create sufficient off site work terminals,
the criminal justice system would have stalled, and representation
would have been rendered ineffective.
PDS is also working to improve its operational efficiencies. PDS
seeks $1.4 million as the resources needed to reach a level of
sophistication in program planning and evaluation, administration,
human resources, and financial management that corresponds to PDS's
reputation for quality defense representation. As explained in detail
in our fiscal year 2005 Congressional Budget Justification, the $1.4
million in requested support would be used for:
--program data collection and analysis;
--data system integration;
--performance planning;
--performance measurement;
--compliance with Federal standards for systems, accounting, and
reporting; and
--coordination of electronic financial, personnel, and performance
records.
Historically, PDS has maintained skeletal support in these critical
administrative areas; however, increased performance assessment and
accountability demands require that we improve our capacity in those
areas. This need was also reflected in the results of the PDS employee
survey; our scores were slightly lower on questions related to the
quality of our administrative operations. Additional support for PDS
programs and PDS attorneys will increase the potential for greater
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out PDS's mission. One of
PDS's goals is to maximize the time that attorneys, investigators, and
social workers spend doing that for which they are best suited--
developing creative and effective ways to pursue justice in the
District of Columbia.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During fiscal year 2004, in addition to handling a variety of
criminal, juvenile, parole, mental health, and other legal matters, PDS
has been very successful in instituting changes to improve the overall
quality of the District of Columbia justice system.
Fiscal Year 2004 Initiative: Appellate Response Initiative
In fiscal year 2004, Congress and the President provided a program
increase for PDS totaling .5 FTE, and $100,000 in support of one new
initiative--PDS's Appellate Response Initiative. PDS used the funding
to hire a new attorney in the Appellate Division, where the workload
has increased by approximately 50 percent since the passage of the 1997
Revitalization Act without any corresponding increase in staff levels.
The newest Appellate Division attorney began working just over 2 weeks
ago; her work will contribute toward reducing the backlog of unfiled
appellate briefs. This backlog is due to the staffing shortage and to
the substantially shorter briefing schedules now being imposed
generally in appellate cases by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.
This additional resource will enhance the ability of attorneys in
the Appellate Division to meet their obligations, which include
providing constitutionally mandated appellate legal representation to
individuals who cannot afford an attorney, responding to requests from
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court for
amicus curiae (``friend of the court'') briefs on complex or unusual
issues in criminal cases, and devoting a significant amount of time to
training both PDS and non-PDS lawyers.
GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Criminal Justice System Reforms
PDS has remained vigilant in protecting the rights of the indigent
in the District of Columbia criminal justice system in old cases and in
new ones.
Well-being of Children
Throughout fiscal year 2003 and continuing in fiscal year 2004, PDS
has drawn renewed attention to the conditions under which children live
who have been committed to the care of the District of Columbia through
the juvenile justice system. All experts agree that proper intervention
in the lives of these children at this juncture is key to breaking the
cycle of involvement in the system. Current conditions for committed
children not only fail to advance the cause of reducing recidivism;
current conditions actually promote recidivism among these children.
As a result of PDS's tireless 18-year effort in a case known as
Jerry M., the plight of committed children has been the object of
intense examination in the media, in the political arena, and just last
week in hearings before Superior Court Judge Dixon. In these hearings,
PDS and co-counsel are seeking to have the District's Youth Services
Administration put into receivership to finally produce the concrete
changes necessary to save these children and protect the community.
Whatever the outcome of this litigation, the plight of these most
vulnerable children will improve because this case has put YSA on
notice that the city and the public are watching. Through this lawsuit,
juvenile justice experts have had an opportunity to examine the
children's living conditions and recommend concrete actions that YSA or
a receiver will be able to take to immediately improve the well being
of committed children.
PDS has carried out this litigation while simultaneously providing
services that address every aspect of a child's involvement with the
court system in innumerable individual cases and in innumerable ways.
Among the most important have been: (1) developing qualified attorneys
to represent children by generating hours of training for court-
appointed counsel who practice in the new Family Court; (2) increasing
the services to children with educational disabilities through
litigation handled by PDS lawyers with expertise in special education
advocacy; and (3) working collaboratively with a wide variety of
organizations to help children transition back to the community. This
last effort is a direct result of a fiscal year 2002 initiative
establishing our Community Re-entry Project, which carries on to this
day.
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, PDS approached Catholic University
about providing services to girls committed to the care of the District
of Columbia. With PDS's experience and expertise, a proposal has been
developed for creating a group home for girls on the university's
campus, serviced by the university's graduate programs. The proposal
includes long-term involvement by the university in the lives of these
girls, or what experts refer to as ``after-care.'' The proposal calls
for providing school services, health care, mental health services,
family services, and mentorship not only while the girls reside on
campus but also after the girls leave the group home and transition
back into our community. Such a wrap-around approach to caring for
committed children could be developed at every university in this city.
The potential of such programs for saving the lives of District of
Columbia is enormous.
PDS is committed to staying on the forefront of looking for ways to
improve the treatment of children involved in our court system.
Fairness in the Criminal Justice System
A logical outcome of PDS's vigorous pursuit of its mission is the
attention PDS devotes to identifying and addressing questions related
to fairness in the criminal justice system. PDS champions this cause in
every single case it handles. Because these are too numerous to
describe, we focus on three cases and one project that are
illustrative.
Special police officer.--Recently in the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia, our client, a 70-year-old former sergeant in the
Marine Corps, was charged with felony gun possession. Our client had
never been in trouble before. He operated his own security business and
worked as a part time special police officer. He was licensed to carry
a handgun while on duty and while traveling between his home and his
work. One day on his way to work, he stopped at a District government
office to drop off a form to renew his business license, forgetting
that he was wearing his gun in its holster. As a result of this
innocent mistake, he was arrested and charged. He faced the possibility
of a felony conviction and 5-year prison sentence. The conviction would
have cost him his business--his means to supplement his retirement
income. Fortunately, he was represented by a well-trained and dedicated
public defender. The result--it only took his jury 10 minutes to elect
a foreperson and render a verdict--not guilty.
Detention order reversed.--Another example involved appellate and
trial representation. Recently, PDS represented a young man charged
with murder in an appeal from the trial court's decision to hold him in
jail until his trial. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge's
ruling that there was sufficient reliable evidence to justify holding
our client in jail until his trial. What the trial court, the Court of
Appeals, and PDS did not know at the time this appeal was argued was
that the prosecutor had failed to reveal all the relevant facts during
the hearing before the trial judge. Through tenacious litigation and a
persistent search for the truth, PDS uncovered evidence making it clear
that the government's eyewitness was very suspect: the government's
eyewitness was not simply a bystander as the trial court had been led
to believe, but, rather, the witness had participated in shooting the
victim and had only implicated PDS's client as part of an effort to
secure a deal with the government. Once PDS uncovered the truth, PDS
undertook consultations at the highest levels with the United States
Attorney's Office, resulting in a very unusual joint motion to vacate
the Court of Appeals opinion, an opinion that was rendered on a
compromised set of facts. The result--the opinion was vacated, the
integrity of the court was preserved, and truth--and thus justice--
prevailed. Later, the United States Attorney's Office, after weighing
the merits of the murder case itself, dismissed the charges against the
PDS client altogether.
Erroneous eyewitness identification.--Finally, PDS has been
advancing the position for several years that eyewitness
identifications can be inaccurate. Recent studies of cases where DNA
has exonerated individuals have demonstrated that in the vast majority,
eyewitnesses were mistaken in their identifications. Indeed, we know
that defendants in the District of Columbia have been wrongfully
convicted as the result of erroneous eyewitness identifications: more
than a decade ago, a Superior Court jury convicted a former PDS client
of multiple felonies in large part because of mistaken eyewitness
testimony. After spending a year in prison, our client was exonerated
by DNA evidence. Cases like these undermine public confidence in our
criminal justice system. And yet, every single day, District of
Columbia courts are allowing juries to evaluate eyewitness testimony
without accurate information about its limitations.
Over the past 30 years, social scientists have identified many of
the specific reasons that eyewitnesses make mistakes. For example,
studies have shown that a witness's subjective confidence in the
strength of her identification has virtually no correlation with the
accuracy of the identification. Unfortunately, the lay public,
uninformed that social science and empirical evidence undermine
reliance on such evidence, routinely misjudges what weight to give
eyewitness testimony. Introduction of accurate social science evidence
into the courtroom, and the use of jury instructions that accurately
reflect this science, would go a long way toward preventing these kinds
of errors.
PDS has already begun to lay the groundwork to update this sort of
ungrounded legal thinking so that criminal cases will be decided on the
basis of reliable science. PDS has developed model instructions,
identified experts, and most recently conducted a jury survey to
demonstrate conclusively to jurists in the District of Columbia that
the average juror is not familiar with current scientific research
regarding eyewitness identification and that jurors can benefit from
the testimony of experts when evaluating eyewitness evidence. Bringing
the law in the District of Columbia in line with more than 16 States,
including Alabama, Arizona, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas;
multiple Federal circuits; and the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals is yet another example of PDS's ongoing efforts to provide
quality representation.
These are but a small sample of how PDS positively affects people's
lives and the administration of justice here in the Nation's capital.
OTHER PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS engaged in a number of activities during fiscal year 2004 that
improved the overall administration of justice or that had significant
implications for individual clients.
Appellate Division
The Appellate Division's appellate litigation has impact throughout
the District's criminal justice system as decisions in their cases
often establish or clarify the standards trial court judges and
litigants must follow in criminal and juvenile cases. The complex and
novel legal issues the Division is called upon to address therefore are
best handled by experienced and talented attorneys--which the Division
has no lack of. As previously noted, in fiscal year 2003, even the
highest court in the land looked to the Appellate Division for
assistance.
Supreme Court litigation.--The Supreme Court of the United States
appointed an attorney from the Division to represent an incarcerated
man where the Federal courts of appeals had issued conflicting opinions
on the applicability of a rule to lawsuits challenging the conditions
of confinement, but not implicating the fact or duration of
confinement, i.e., matters lying at the core of habeas corpus
jurisprudence. The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously in favor of
the arguments advanced by the PDS attorney.
Failure to disclose bias.--In a case in which for 10 years the
Appellate Division challenged the United States Attorney's Office's
refusal to comply with its obligation to provide exculpatory
information, the trial court issued an order granting a new trial for a
client whose trial on a murder charge was marred by secret payments
from the government to the sole eyewitness and by a prosecutor who
incorrectly argued to the jury that the government had done nothing to
benefit the witness. The Appellate Division obtained two reversals of
trial court post-conviction rulings before the trial court ultimately
decided that PDS's post-conviction pleadings warranted a new trial.
Prosecutorial misconduct.--In another lengthy case involving
exculpatory evidence, the Appellate Division advanced First Amendment
claims to convince the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to unseal the post-conviction proceedings in a Federal court
conspiracy case. The court documents in that case included, among other
things, a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
report concluding that a prosecutor had committed misconduct by
misusing government funds to pay government witnesses and their
families and friends. The District Court ultimately ruled in PDS's
favor in November, after Appellate Division lawyers had been litigating
for almost 2 years to allow the light of public scrutiny to shine on
court proceedings.
The Appellate Division has been seeking a new trial on behalf of
that same client as a result of gross misconduct by the same former
Assistant United States Attorney whose malfeasance is detailed in the
now-unsealed OPR report. Among other claims, our motion shows that the
prosecutor misused a fund for the payment of court witnesses to provide
secret payments to witnesses at the trial of our client. This
misconduct parallels some of the misconduct that the Justice
Department's own internal investigation uncovered in the Federal court
case.
Government admissions.--In still another case involving the
government's duty of fairness, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals ruled that certain statements in a search warrant affidavit
endorsed by an Assistant United States Attorney constituted government
admissions and could be introduced by a PDS client at his trial. This
ruling is important because it meant that the government would pay an
evidentiary price for taking opposite positions on critical factual
questions in two different proceedings. The case is also important
because it is one of the most developed decisions on the question of
when government submissions in court constitute admissions.
Attorney-client privilege.--In In re PDS, the Court of Appeals
wrote an opinion that may be one of the most extensive discussions of
an issue of national importance--namely the scope of the crime fraud
exception to the attorney-client privilege. In this case, a trial judge
had held PDS in civil contempt (but stayed execution of any penalty
upon PDS's representation that it would comply with the court ruling if
affirmed on appeal) for refusing to disclose information it believed to
be protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court of Appeals
concluded that PDS was acting within the highest standards of the bar
in investigating the case as it had, and that the information held by
the PDS lawyer was protected by the attorney-client privilege because
the elements of the crime fraud exception had not been shown.
Habeas corpus litigation.--In a series of cases involving Appellate
and Special Litigation Division attorneys, we have been litigating the
question of whether District of Columbia judges have habeas corpus
jurisdiction over cases involving clients with District of Columbia law
issues, but who are incarcerated outside the District. We have
litigated this question in both the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. The question is now pending before the United States
Supreme Court in a separate case. The question is immensely important
to our clients and to District of Columbia citizens, because in the
wake of the Revitalization Act, District of Columbia prisoners were
moved from the now closed Lorton facility to non-District facilities.
Because these prisoners were sentenced in the District's courts for
violations of local District of Columbia laws, and because their parole
is governed by laws unique to the District of Columbia and generally
involves facts that occurred in the District of Columbia, the most
logical forum for hearing District prisoner claims is the District of
Columbia courts where the bench and bar have substantial expertise in
addressing District law questions. In fact, the District of Columbia
government has supported PDS's position--not the Federal Government's--
in this litigation.
Special Litigation Division
The Special Litigation Division's focus on systemic issues in the
District of Columbia justice system leads it to litigate those issues
before every court in the District of Columbia--the Superior Court and
Court of Appeals in the local system, and the District Court, the Court
of Appeals, and the Supreme Court in the Federal system. These are some
of the highlights of our litigation:
Conviction of the innocent.--With the advent of DNA testing, we now
have evidence that the American criminal justice system sometimes
produces demonstrably wrong results--innocent people are convicted, and
the real culprit goes free. DNA testing is a powerful tool for catching
these mistakes, but its scope is limited to the few cases in which
biological evidence is available, can be tested, and is connected to
the crime. For every DNA exoneration, there are countless cases where
testing cannot help because no DNA was left at the scene, the
biological evidence was too degraded to obtain a conclusive result, or
the evidence that was once there has been lost or destroyed.
In order to effectively address the recurring, institutional
problems that contribute to the conviction of the innocent, PDS's
Special Litigation Division has focused on two major problems revealed
by the DNA exonerations: common misperceptions about the reliability of
eyewitness identification evidence, as described above, and juror
misunderstanding of the demonstrated phenomenon of ``false
confessions''--situations in which someone who did not commit the crime
admits to it anyway. PDS's Special Litigation Division has marshaled a
variety of resources on these subjects, including social science
research, testifying experts, surveys of potential jurors to determine
the reason for their failures to properly understand these subjects,
and information about the causes of wrongful convictions around the
country, in order to help the courts begin to address these problems
systematically. The focus of these projects is to allow the defense to
point out potential flaws in the reliability of seemingly solid
evidence, so that the adversarial system will work more efficiently and
not continue to produce wrongful convictions at such an alarming rate.
Unfair delay in release from jail.--Another recurring problem in
the District of Columbia's criminal justice system is its failure to
release people who have been found not guilty after trial or whose
charges have been dismissed. While local corrections officials have
asserted some need to ``check''--often for several days--to ensure that
the right person is being released and that the case really was
dismissed, other systems around the country have managed to do this
before the charges are dismissed so that people can be released
directly from the courtroom. Los Angeles, for example, has developed a
model procedure that ensures that people with no pending charges are
not held in jail unnecessarily.
The Special Litigation Division has contacted local corrections
officials and attempted to educate them on the extreme unfairness and
likely illegality of the current system, and has prepared model
pleadings for lawyers at PDS to use to attempt to secure speedy release
for clients who are no longer facing criminal charges. Because local
officials have proven unreceptive, however, PDS also has been
cooperating with the lawyers litigating a class action lawsuit against
the District to address this issue.
Special education services for youth at the D.C. Jail.--The Federal
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act \4\ was enacted to ensure
``that all children with disabilities have available a free appropriate
public education that emphasizes special and related services designed
to meet their unique needs.'' The youth housed at the District's jail
are clearly entitled to these services--and need them most
desperately--but are not receiving anything close to what the law
requires because the District's public school system and the D.C.
Department of Corrections do not have any comprehensive system in place
for identifying those youth who are entitled to special education
services at the jail, and for providing those services to them. PDS's
Special Litigation Division is currently seeking to compel the
District's school system and Department of Corrections to provide these
important services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Legal Services Unit
Special education services for children in delinquency cases.--PDS
continues to meet the need of children in the delinquency system for
special education advocacy. The Unit's attorneys specialize in advocacy
under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which
mandates special accommodations in public schools for children who
cannot be adequately educated in a traditional classroom setting due to
a learning disability or other challenge. The Unit's attorneys ensure
that children receive an appropriate diagnostic assessment and work
with the school system to secure alternative educational programs. This
past year, the Unit doubled the number of PDS juvenile clients who are
receiving appropriate special education services and treatment in
community schools and non-correctional facilities as an alternative to
detention and commitment.
Offender Rehabilitation Division
Our Offender Rehabilitation Division offers clients access to
resources they often could not find on their own. The benefits to the
clients come in many areas, including employment, education, and
housing.
Employment.--Over many years, a former star athlete on a
professional team lost everything--his job, his family, his home, his
friends, and his pride--to cocaine. He began selling drugs, he was
arrested, and he wouldn't accept anyone's help before he was referred
to ORD. At the time our staff became involved, he didn't even have
enough money for a $10 ID card. Through ORD's intervention, he gained
the courage to interview for a job at a local trade association where
he began an intensive job training and parenthood program. The result--
he graduated from the program and has gone on to be a successful
fundraiser for the association. He has not only gone from being
involved in the criminal justice system to being a productive member of
our community--he has gone even further and is giving back.
Education.--A young woman who had been in the neglect system
virtually all of her life later was charged with a juvenile offense and
sent to the District's juvenile detention facility in Laurel. The
Division assisted her in moving into a therapeutic group home, and now
she is enrolled as a freshman at a local university where scholarship
programs are paying for her education.
Public benefits.--Some of our most challenging clients are severely
mentally ill persons who are arrested on less serious charges, but
incarcerated pending trial, and who are without support systems. Their
incarceration results in the cancellation of all their benefits (SSI,
SSDI, Medicaid). Without their benefits, our clients lose access to
affordable housing and some essential services. Because of the
collaborations that the Offender Rehabilitation Division staff is
developing with a number of agencies and with individual contract
providers of mental health services, this situation is improving. More
and more of our severely mentally ill clients are now able to obtain
financial benefits, housing, intensive outpatient mental health
services, and in the last year, we have had tremendous success helping
these clients re-enter the community without re-offending.
Training
Forensic science conference.--In addition to PDS's usual training
efforts (e.g., annual Criminal Practice Institute and CPI Practice
Manual, courses for court-appointed CJA attorneys and investigators),
PDS coordinated and presented its first forensic science conference
last summer using funds from a Department of Justice grant program.
This free training program for defense attorneys included as presenters
a number of nationally known forensic science experts. The success of
this conference led the grantor to award funding to PDS for a similar
conference to be held in May of this year.
Investigator certification.--After adopting an investigator
training proposal from PDS, the Superior Court implemented a
requirement that all CJA criminal investigators be certified, receive
initial training, pass a background check, and maintain their
certification by attending PDS training. Senior PDS investigators and
PDS staff attorneys prepare the training materials and coordinate
training sessions on all aspects of criminal investigation to allow CJA
investigators to maintain their certification. Over the past 2 years,
PDS has held nine 20-hour training sessions and has certified 188 CJA
investigators. PDS has scheduled two additional sessions in July and
November 2004. This program is designed to ensure that now, and in the
future, there are sufficient qualified investigators to assist CJA
attorneys.
Special education.--PDS's special education attorneys provided
training in the fall to new Superior Court judges on special education
issues relevant to children involved in the delinquency and neglect
systems.
Administrative Accomplishments
PDS has been able to institute additional improvements in its
operational functions. Particularly now that PDS is a federally funded
entity, we seek to reach a corresponding level of sophistication in the
administration and execution of our responsibilities. Recent
improvements made by PDS provide the necessary infrastructure to
support our programs and our program staff and increase the potential
for greater efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out PDS's mission.
Case management system.--PDS has expanded internal access to its
self-designed case tracking software. The program, ``Atticus,''
provides comprehensive case management functionality for PDS attorneys,
staff, and management. Atticus now links the Trial, Investigations, and
the Offender Rehabilitation Divisions to streamline referrals and
processing for criminal and juvenile cases. Attorneys, investigators,
and program developers can now report and track case events in a
central electronic location, reducing or eliminating staff's reliance
on less efficient means of communication, and ensuring that all staff
who share responsibility for an individual case are kept fully informed
on all case developments as needed.
Strategic planning.--PDS has developed an Office of Management and
Budget-approved 5-year strategic plan similar to the plans required of
Federal executive agencies under the Government Performance and Results
Act. PDS has also prepared a draft annual performance plan that has
received preliminary approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
PDS has begun to establish the baseline measures described in its plans
in preparation for implementing the strategic plan in fiscal year 2005.
PDS continues to make progress toward establishing the administrative
infrastructure necessary to support the development of a performance-
based budget request.
Appellate brief bank.--PDS has completed the establishment of an
appellate brief bank that consists of briefs filed in the Appellate
Division's cases over the past 25 years. This searchable, comprehensive
brief bank now provides far easier, more effective access to previously
completed research, enabling attorneys to avoid unnecessary duplication
of effort.
Each of the above reforms, cases, or projects has contributed to a
better, more efficient criminal justice system, or has improved the
quality of services provided to people who cannot afford an attorney in
the District of Columbia justice system. These activities are all
consistent with PDS's goal of efficiently providing representation by
qualified attorneys to those PDS is dedicated to serve.
CONCLUSION
PDS's current increased focus on enhancing its administrative
functions represents a further step toward better serving clients and
toward better serving as a model defender organization. The right to a
qualified attorney for people who cannot afford one can be read to
include an expectation that representation will be provided to clients
not only effectively, but also efficiently. As PDS has been in the
forefront in meeting and exceeding the standards defining what it means
to satisfy the requirements of the right to counsel, it can also be on
the forefront in modeling excellent financial and management practices
in support of that right.
I respectfully request your support of this initiative, and I would
like to thank the members of the subcommittee for your time and
attention to these matters and for your support of our work to date. I
would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee members may
have.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
PDS DIRECTOR SULLIVAN'S DEPARTURE
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Sullivan, I want to say that we
greeted the news of your leaving to go to Yale with very mixed
emotions, because you have, you know, done an outstanding job,
and your leadership has been really extraordinary, and your
commitment very inspiring, but we wish you the best at Yale.
I am hoping, though, that before you leave that you will--
and I am certain you will--give some indication of some others
that could follow in the leadership that you have outlined
because this is truly a very important agency for the District
and for the Nation. And while we have made great progress,
there is still some tremendous challenges, as you are aware.
So I, for one, would be interested in your, you know,
private comments along those lines. And as you leave, what
three to four focuses should we give special attention to?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I thank you very much for your kind
words first of all. It is bittersweet for me, as well. I was,
in a sense, born and raised in this agency. I started as a
staff attorney in this agency, and I bleed the colors of PDS.
So it is with mixed emotions that I leave. I do look
forward to my new opportunity, and I have promised to send many
bright young law students to Washington, DC to be public
defenders, so in that way I will still contribute.
As to my successor, the search started in February, early
last month, and applications are due by the 16th of March. And
by the end of March, beginning of April, I anticipate that our
board of trustees will have selected a new director.
I happen to know that our very capable deputy director,
Avis Buchanan, who is sitting behind me, is applying for the
directorship, and I certainly wish her well in that endeavor.
IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
As to--from our perspective, as to the three or four most
important issues facing the District, at least with respect to
the criminal justice system, No. 1, I would speak about
forensic issues. I have written in detail in my written
statement, particularly about some of the science that we are
becoming acquainted with with respect to identifications.
We have seen in the DNA context that for an overwhelming
majority of persons who have been convicted and incarcerated,
sometimes for years, but DNA evidence has exonerated them, the
principal basis of the conviction was a false identification.
And in almost every time, it was nothing vindictive about the
identification. It was an honest mistake.
Over the past several years, psychologists and professors
in psychology departments in universities across the country
have been looking into this issue of identification and,
frankly, we have learned a lot about how to do identifications,
the best way that police should present lineups, and a whole
host of issues surrounding how we can better our identification
processes.
Some States, New Jersey for example, have adopted sweeping
changes in their identification procedures. And we have
encouraged the District of Columbia to do the same. We have
presented the Court with some of the social science findings
about identifications.
And, indeed, I have been in a room with--filled with
lawyers where most of the room picked the wrong person. There
is a video clip, and it would sort of replicate a crime and
then, you know, show different pictures. We have learned, for
example, that identification is a relational concept. That is
to say, if you show somebody six pictures, the mind tends to
work in a way that you pick the one that looks most like who
the perpetrator was. Whereas, if you show pictures in sequence,
then that is a much better way to get at the actual
perpetrator.
So at any rate, I do not want to bore you two with a litany
of the problems with our current identification system, but it
has resulted in--and we know because of DNA that it has
resulted in false convictions, and that is something that we
are working to eradicate.
We have begun in the last couple of years a forensic
practice group at the agency, where we are looking into not
only that, but DNA sciences, mitochondrial DNA is becoming a
much more important aspect of the criminal justice system; the
metallurgy science, with respect to bullets and that sort of
thing, these are all very important issues. So that is one.
Second, I would say jury pool issues. There are problems in
the District with respect to a too narrow jury pool. We are
working with the Court to see what we can do to expand the jury
pool so that all citizens can, as is consistent with their due
process rights and the Constitution, participate on the juries
in the District of Columbia.
So those are two sort of overarching issues to give you an
idea of some of the things we are working on.
Senator Landrieu. Very good. Very helpful. Thank you.
IN RE JERRY M. LITIGATION
Senator DeWine. Good. Mr. Sullivan, your agency is suing
the District on behalf of children in the juvenile justice
system. And you cite years and years of the system failing
these kids.
Your lawyers told a D.C. Superior Court judge last week
that the court-appointed receiver should take over the Youth
Services Administration, to operate the agency and report to
the Court every 2 months about changes and improvements. I
wonder if you could give us some information, more information
about this suit and what problems you see with the City's Youth
Services Administration?
Mr. Sullivan. The problems frankly, Mr. Chairman, are
legion. It has been nearly two decades of not complying with
even the most basic requirements for the health and safety of
the most needy children in the District.
One example, I think, will illustrate just the mind-set of
this particular agency with respect to the children. Recently,
we were in the hearings, my agency was in the hearings in front
of Judge Dixon, and one of the complaints that we made in our
receivership application was that children had to stuff
towels--and this is at Oak Hill, the juvenile detention
center--towels in holes in their rooms to keep rats from coming
in at night.
The question the District posed to the expert who produced
this finding was that, ``Well, sir, could it be that these are
not rats, but they are very large mice,'' as if that in some
way justifies the presence of rodents in the children's rooms.
I mean, and that is just one example that is just
indicative of some of the problems, but the report from the
inspector general, I think, in many ways lays out some of the
most critical shortcomings of the Youth Services
Administration. For example, numerous residents who tested
negative for drugs when they went into this locked, secure
facility tested positive for marijuana and PCP once they were
in there.
Senator DeWine. That is unbelievable, is it not?
Mr. Sullivan. And unacceptable.
Senator DeWine. And it is shocking.
Mr. Sullivan. And unacceptable. And the inspector general
postulated that the guards were the source of the illegal
contraband.
In violation of every fire prevention and safety
requirement imaginable, locks on the housing unit doors are
manual and cannot provide safety in the event of fire. Oak Hill
did not have a trained health and safety officer there.
Nearly 100 percent of the youth at Oak Hill are--test
positive for drugs. It is--I mean, the list goes on and on and
on. And it has been like this for nearly two decades.
Senator DeWine. Well, that is what is shocking, is that it
has been that way for two decades. And so Senator Landrieu and
I are, you know, are going to hold a hearing. And it may take
more than one hearing, frankly, to review the District's
juvenile justice system.
We want to hear specifically, you know, how the system is
broken, why the City has been unable to fix this problem in
almost two decades. You know, when you hear these--what the
facts are, it just, you know, has to trouble anybody. You know,
I am troubled to note that children in the city as young as 10
who are merely truants or victims of a failed foster system are
being incarcerated with serious teenage offenders. I mean, that
just has to trouble anyone, you know. You know, that is not
supposed to take place anyplace in this country today. We
passed that a long, long time ago, I thought, in this country.
You know, we hear that system allowed a 12-year-old boy to
be sexually assaulted by nine other boys while incarcerated at
the City's detention facility. We have learned that drugs are
readily available as you point out in the facility. Where are
they coming from? You know, we can only surmise or guess.
So we are going to hold a hearing. Senator Landrieu and I
are going to do that. And if it takes more than one hearing, we
are going to bring in the people who know about this, and we
are going to talk to them, and we are going to try to get to
the bottom of this. So we appreciate your diligence on this,
and what the lawyers who work with you have done in this area.
We congratulate you for your diligence in this area.
Senator Landrieu, anything else?
Senator Landrieu. No.
Senator DeWine. Should --
WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
Senator Landrieu. Well, I do, actually, want to submit for
the record, and maybe you can respond to this briefly and in
writing. There was a case--and I know we are short on time, Mr.
Chairman, but there is a case pending--if the staff will help
me find the news article in The Post a couple of days ago. Here
it is. The case of lengthy delays, Ida and Charles Chase were
arrested in the slaying of Julius Alderman during an apparent
robbery. This was 6 years ago.
I understand that subsequently Mr. Chase has died of a
heart attack, but Ida is still in jail, 6 years waiting for the
trial. And every time we try to go to trial, something happens.
Can you just comment about this, so that I can----
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Landrieu. Briefly, and then perhaps at--more at
length in writing?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely. I will comment very briefly
to the degree I can. I, obviously, cannot divulge any
confidential information.
However, I can say that Ms. Chase maintains her innocence
and is anxiously anticipating her trial date. It has been too
long. There have been delays in this trial. She wants to go to
trial, and she wants to prove her innocence, and the attorneys
on the case are committed to doing that.
I will say just parenthetically, and I do not--unless
obviously you are inclined, I do not want to get into a back
and forth. If the predicate of the question has to do with the
article, that is, in my view, one of the most irresponsible
pieces of journalism that I have ever experienced and certainly
beneath the standards of a major newspaper. It is replete with
omissions and misstatements and allows for inferences that are
factually false.
For example, I will just take the very last continuance.
They make a lot about that in the paper. They say the defense
asked for more time to review evidence. Well, what happened was
that a month before trial, the FBI indicated to us that they
found two additional hair samples that had not been disclosed
before and had not been tested.
We said, ``Well, we need to test those.'' One of them was
on a piece of duct tape, which is very important to the facts
of the case, which I will not go into.
We said, ``We need to test it. We need a brief time to get
it tested. It will take a few weeks from the lab, and we are
ready to go.''
The Court granted it. The prosecutor did not oppose it. The
prosecutor said, ``I am tied up from January to July. So it is
in July.''
So the article says, ``Oh, defense asked for a pass. There
is a seven-month delay.'' But it does not mention that, ``Well,
the reason for this delay, for example, is that there is a--the
prosecutor was not available for seven months.''
There was one other huge omission. The article indicated
that Judge Bowers said that there will be no further
continuances and granted two more, but simply did not mention
that what happened was that the D.C. Council passed the
Innocence Protection Act, and our client, with advice of
counsel, asserted her rights under the Innocence Protection Act
to pre-trial testing of biological material, recognizing that
that would delay the start date. But there was material that
was back in, oh, boy, April--somewhere around April of 2002,
the IPA was passed.
All of the biological material was supposed to be disclosed
and, you know, we still did not get those two hairs until a
couple of months ago. So there is a lot that happened in that
case. I do agree that it was--it is too long. We are anxious to
get to trial. But for the article to lay the blame simply in
the defense attorney's lap is wrong. But we are ready to go,
and we think that it is going to be a good result.
Senator Landrieu. And I appreciate it. And you have made--
you know, you have made very direct and excellent and
clarifying comments.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
But I would just say to the Chairman that we do have a
challenge on our hand to create a system where neither those
that are accused of a crime have to wait 6 years in jail for
their day in court, nor those victims that have suffered
terribly have to wait that long. So let us get about the work,
Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Service for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
RE-ARREST RATE AND PAROLE REVOCATION
Question. Would you please submit to the Committee a comparison of
the re-arrest rates and parole revocation hearings in the District to
other jurisdictions of similar size?
Answer. Statistics comparing the District's parole revocation rates
to those of cities of a similar size are difficult to obtain, in part
because there is no longer a local paroling authority that maintains
such statistics for D.C. parolees. As of August 5, 1998, through the
implementation of the Revitalization Act,\1\ the U.S. Parole Commission
assumed responsibility for making parole decisions for D.C. Code
offenders. The Commission estimates that slightly fewer than 50 percent
of D.C. parolees return as parole violators. However, most of these
``violators'' are charged not with new crimes, but with minor
administrative violations such as failing to meet with their parole
officer, failing to obtain steady employment, or failing to overcome
their drug addiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, parole boards nationwide conducted 143,154 violation
hearings with California, New York, and Texas conducting 50 percent of
them.\2\ In the District of Columbia, the Public Defender Service
represented 1,349 persons who were facing revocation of their parole
before the U.S. Parole Commission. Most of these individuals had not
committed new crimes but had failed to follow a condition of parole
release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole Board
Survey 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a 652 percent increase in the number of parole
violators, according to an analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) data by the nonpartisan Urban Institute.\3\ In fiscal
year 2002, 19 State paroling authorities reported an increase in
resources in order to keep up with the demands created by the volume of
revocation hearings.\4\ Twelve States had double digit increases in
their parole population in 2002. Four States had a parole population
increase of 20 percent or more: North Dakota (27 percent), New Mexico
(26 percent), Kentucky (23 percent), and Oklahoma (21 percent).\5\
Nationally, this was the largest increase in the parole population
since 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, ``7-Fold Jump in Parolees Sent Back to Prison Since 1980,
1 in 3 State Prison Admissions is Result of Parole Violation,'' Urban
Institute, November 2, 2002.
\4\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole
Board, Survey 2002.
\5\ Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, ``Probation and Parole
in the United States, 2002,'' August 2003, NCJ 201135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of community resources is an overwhelming stumbling block
to successful re-entry. Many parolees lack the educational or
vocational skills necessary to become productive members of society. A
parolee who has lost everything that he has accomplished due to
technical parole violations must start anew upon his return to the
community. According to a report from the Association of Paroling
Authorities International, housing is the number one issue facing
parolees upon their return to the community.\6\ Other issues they face
include a lack of available, licensed, substance abuse treatment and
vocational/employment resources and services. The chronically ill, the
elderly, and women particularly face insurmountable obstacles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole Board
Survey, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We echo the sentiments of Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown: ``The
revolving door is failing. They aren't getting the marketable skills
and literacy they need in prison. It's a big huge problem.'' \7\ Parole
violators leave the prison walls but they cannot leave the stigma
associated with incarceration. A study on public attitudes toward
prisoner reentry revealed that most respondents were aware that
prisoners face daunting obstacles in returning to the community and
establishing a noncriminal lifestyle. Most admitted, however, that they
had not given much thought to prisoner reentry.\8\ Many persons leave
prison with no particular place to go and very little support or
monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, ``Parole Violators Crowd California Prisons,'' Associated
Press, Newsday.com, March 8, 2004.
\8\ See, ``The Revolving Door: Exploring Public Attitudes Toward
Prisoner Reentry,'' March 2002, Urban Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the goals of PDS's Community Defender Program is to educate
ex-offenders, including those on parole, about their legal rights and
responsibilities following their release on parole. To that end, the
bilingual Community Re-entry Program Coordinator regularly makes
presentations at offender orientations hosted by the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, particularly those targeted at Spanish-
speaking clients. The CRP has also presented educational sessions to
other groups, including women at the Washington Transitional Center who
are parolees. Topics covered in the educational presentations include
housing, employment, family law, public benefits, sex offender
registration, DNA testing, immigration, and community resources that
are available to ex-offenders and parolees. The CRP, along with the
Parole Division, has also developed an outline covering the same
topics, which will be presented at the D.C. Jail to prisoners pending
release.
DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION RESPONSE INITIATIVE
Question. With the increase in cases involving DNA, have you found,
informally, that fewer convictions are overturned on appeal?
Answer. There are two reasons why the advent of DNA technology is
not likely to result in fewer cases being overturned on appeal. First,
very few cases involve biological evidence and, second, quality control
issues affecting the reliability of DNA evidence are likely to generate
more rather than less appellate litigation for the foreseeable future.
To date, there have been relatively few DNA cases in the District
of Columbia, and potential DNA cases represent a very small sample of
the cases in the criminal justice system. That is, only a small
fraction of criminal cases present situations where DNA can be used to
exonerate someone (because biological evidence is often not present or
not preserved), and in even fewer cases can DNA inculpate someone
(because it is more difficult to show a ``match'' than an exoneration
when, for example, the sample is degraded--allowing for minimal
analysis, or the sample is a mixed sample--a sample in which more than
one person's DNA is present).
In the District of Columbia, there has been and will continue to be
considerable litigation concerning the reliability of DNA results as
the technology changes and as forensic labs are subject to lower
standards than, for example, medical labs. Recent examples of problems
in quality assurance at DNA labs include the scandal involving a DNA
lab in Houston where results were falsified and contamination was
rampant, and the termination of an FBI analyst after it was revealed
that for 2 years, she had failed to run negative controls while
analyzing samples.
Thus, while cases involving DNA evidence where there has not been a
challenge to the reliability of the results may make appellate courts
more confident in the results at trial, examples of numerous DNA
exonerations actually inform us that mistakes are likely being made in
cases where no biological evidence was left at the scene. This should,
if anything, make appellate courts more rigorous in their review,
although as a practical matter we have not noticed much of a change.
The D.C. Council did, however, pass the non-DNA portion of the
Innocence Protection Act, D.C. Code 22-4135, in 2002. The express
purpose of that provision was to provide closer review of innocence in
non-DNA cases, on the theory that at least as many mistakes were being
made in those cases as were made in the cases where DNA exonerations
had demonstrated trial mistakes were made. It is too early to tell
whether this provision will result in closer judicial scrutiny of
innocence.
Question. Or, is there anecdotal evidence that the court and public
are more willing to convict a defendant if scientific evidence is
present?
Answer. PDS does have polling results of potential jurors in a
specific case that show that jurors place extraordinarily high credence
in scientific evidence and in DNA evidence in particular. In the view
of most potential jurors, DNA evidence is by far the most reliable form
of evidence, and approximately one out of three jurors believes that it
``can never be wrong.''
Our polling results also show that jurors begin trials with very
little understanding of DNA evidence, and particularly its variety and
limitations. For example, a little under half of the jurors begin the
trial not understanding that different types of DNA evidence exist
(nuclear and mitochondrial). Even when jurors are told that different
types exist, around half do not understand that nuclear DNA evidence is
more discriminating than mitochondrial DNA evidence.
Our polling data also showed that jurors place considerable weight
on eyewitness identification evidence and are not familiar with the
growing body of science delineating the weaknesses associated with
eyewitness identification. Currently, however, efforts to present
eyewitness expert testimony are usually denied by trial judges.
PDS is actively engaged in training to improve defense attorneys'
ability to explain DNA evidence to jurors, litigation to improve the
quality of DNA evidence that is admitted in criminal trials in the
District of Columbia, and litigation to provide jurors with expert
information concerning eyewitness identifications.
REPRESENTATION OF JUVENILES WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS
Question. Does PDS handle special education administrative cases or
those that go to court?
Answer. Generally, PDS handles special education cases at the D.C.
public schools administrative proceedings level, while concurrently
serving as the clients' education advocates in delinquency cases in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Special education administrative hearing decisions, of course, are
appealed to the United States District Court. Because PDS has an
excellent record in obtaining favorable outcomes for its clients in
special education administrative proceedings, PDS attorneys have not
had to pursue client claims in the U.S. District Court thus far, except
on one occasion; J.C., et al. v. Vance, et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-
971) (D.D.C.) filed on May 2, 2003. The major issue in the J.C. case is
the District of Columbia's failure to provide federally mandated
special education services to eligible youth incarcerated at the D.C.
Jail.
Question. Is PDS part of the court ordered attorneys' fees in
special education cases? If so, how much has PDS collected?
Answer. PDS does not apply for or otherwise receive attorneys' fees
in special education cases.
Question. What role does PDS play in determining what assessment
program a child receives or which business or other group performs that
assessment?
Answer. The D.C. Public Schools system assumes responsibility for
determining what evaluations and assessments should be performed for
children and for having them conducted by either D.C. Public School
evaluators or independent specialists.
In those instances in which the D.C. Public Schools either fails to
perform evaluations and make educational assessments--or fails to
perform appropriate, complete, or necessary evaluations and
assessments--PDS will identify and seek independent assessments and
evaluations from highly qualified specialists and experts in the fields
and in disciplines associated with the disabilities of the child who is
to be evaluated.
Question. Does PDS play a part in determining what special
education program or school a child is sent to?
Answer. As the parent's attorney in special education
administrative proceedings and as the child's education attorney in the
related Superior Court delinquency proceedings, PDS may make
recommendations and advocate for or against particular special
education program placements, depending on the needs of the child. PDS
does not itself decide the child's placement.
CREATION OF A MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PROGRAM
Question. I understand the OPTIONS program was created to reduce
the number of mentally ill offenders who are incarcerated or
institutionalized because no treatment is available.
Would you highlight the effectiveness of the program and the
services it provides to the District of Columbia that were non-existent
before now?
Answer. OPTIONS was created as a diversion program to divert
mentally ill offenders charged with misdemeanors away from the jail or
another onerous condition of release to a more therapeutic environment.
This assures the court that the risk of flight is minimal and the
mental health issues are being adequately addressed. The program has
been very effective in that many people have been connected or
reconnected to the mental health system and are getting the appropriate
treatment. The OPTIONS program is linked with Community Connections, a
private core service agency that affords a myriad of services and
contracts with the Department of Mental Health. An OPTIONS client is
given a case manager who not only services the client's mental health
needs, but also serves as a court liaison--ensuring that clients are
present at their court hearings and providing information to the court
about the client's progress. The case management provided is aggressive
and comprehensive. OPTIONS clients have access to psychiatrists to
prescribe medication and, with the help of a treatment team, clients
have individually tailored treatment regimens designed to address their
individual needs. Therapeutic programs include, but are not limited to,
day programs that provide substance abuse counseling, group therapy
regarding mental health issues, forensic groups designed to address the
unique needs of forensic clients, work training programs, and
assistance with benefits and housing. Although acceptance into a core
service agency is available to any D.C. resident with a mental illness,
the OPTIONS program was the first program to target recent offenders to
connect them with services and housing and to help them successfully
navigate through the criminal justice system. Approximately 200 people
a year have been serviced through the OPTIONS program since its
inception in 2001. Examples of great success stories include an
individual who successfully completed the program, received a
probationary sentence, and got her own house through the Home First
program; she is still stable and doing well.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Well, Mr. Sullivan, we wish you well, and
we thank you for your good service very much.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine, Hutchison, and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATWAR M. GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order.
Today, we will hear testimony regarding the District of
Columbia's fiscal year 2005 local budget request. D.C. Mayor
Anthony Williams, D.C. Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and the
District's Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Natwar Gandhi, will
present the city's budget and will discuss the District's
requests for Federal resources.
I would like to note that last year the Senate passed a
bill by unanimous consent which would give the District
autonomy over its local budget, eliminating the need for the
D.C. local budget to be passed on the annual appropriations
bill. By decoupling the local budget from the Federal
appropriations process, we will avoid delaying the city's local
funds from being available whenever the D.C. appropriations
bill is not passed before the end of the fiscal year, which
occasionally does happen.
Senator Stevens, the chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee; Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full
committee; Senator Landrieu, ranking member of this
subcommittee; and I all cosponsored this bill. Unfortunately,
the House has not considered a companion measure. So today we
will not only hear city leaders present the priorities for the
Federal payment, but we will also receive the city's local
budget for our consideration and inclusion in the D.C.
appropriations bill.
As we consider the local budget, I would like to
congratulate the city leaders on the vote of confidence that
they have recently received from Wall Street. At a time when
many local jurisdictions' bonds are being downgraded, the
city's bonds were upgraded two steps, from BBB+ to A. So we
congratulate the city and the city's leaders.
Despite this good news about the city's short-term
financial performance, I think we are all well aware that the
city faces a long-term economic structural imbalance, and that
has been well documented. This imbalance represents a gap
between the District's ability to raise revenue at reasonable
tax rates and its ability to provide services of reasonable
quality to its residents.
I recognize that the structural imbalance is driven by
expenditure requirements and revenue restrictions, which
frankly are mostly beyond the control of the District's
leadership. Clearly, the city's revenue capacity would be
larger without constraints on its taxing authority, such as its
inability to tax Federal property or the income of non-
residents.
I agree that the city faces a troubling problem in the long
term, and I plan to hold a separate hearing on June 22 to begin
to discuss ways that the city can address this problem. At that
hearing, we will hear from business leaders, local officials
and economists about ways to close this gap and ensure the
long-term economic health of our Nation's Capital and the seat
of our Federal Government. So we look forward to that hearing
on June 22. I think it will be a very informative hearing and I
think a very important hearing.
I note that some of our colleagues in the House,
particularly some of our colleagues from Virginia, have taken
the lead in this area and we congratulate them for that. Some
of them will be testifying, as well, on that date and we look
forward to their testimony. This will be, I think, a very
important hearing and I think we will draw some attention to
this very important issue.
I believe that the Federal Government must recognize the
costs it places on the city and the burden it places on the
city's infrastructure, all the while limiting the ability of
the city to raise revenue. Indeed, many of the problems facing
the city result from it being the seat of the Federal
Government. As chairman of the subcommittee, I intend to work
to explore and develop ways to avoid a financial catastrophe
for the District of Columbia.
Now, we look forward today to hearing what the District's
priorities are for Federal funding and how the city has used
the funds we recently provided in the fiscal year 2004
appropriations bill. Clearly, there are many worthy activities
which will place demands on the always limited resources in the
D.C. appropriations bill, but we look forward to working with
city leaders to fund a number of the city's initiatives and to
continue to make life better for all who live, work and visit
this Capital City.
As usual, witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their
oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be placed
in the record in their entirety.
Let me now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee
and my good friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome
all the leaders of the city, Mr. Mayor and members of the
Council, and thank you all for being here this morning and for
your hard work to help make the District the wonderful place it
is to live and a wonderful place as an example for the Nation.
We thank you for your leadership and for acknowledging the
very special and unique partnership that the District has with
Federal officials. So we look forward to continuing to work
with you across a broad array of issues, particularly on the
transformation of the education system and reform here in the
District; the renaissance of the Anacostia River waterfront;
the rebuilding of the child welfare system; some additional
general management principles that we have worked on; the
financial discipline that this committee and others have
helped, with your leadership, to bring to the city.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I am going to submit a more formal statement, Mr. Chairman,
for the record to get us to our panel more quickly. I will wait
for further comments until the question period.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
I would like to welcome our witness and thank Chairman DeWine for
calling the annual hearing on the District's local funds budget. I look
forward to hearing from the city on the status of the District's
economy, current Federal funding priorities and a summary of the fiscal
year 2005 local funds budget.
The District has been careful to develop a consensus budget, and
rather than adding funds to please every constituent group, has looked
ahead to address looming budget pressures while maintaining priority
services. At this time, almost every city in the country is struggling
to maintain a balanced budget, much less deliver adequate or even good
services to their citizens. The city is in good fiscal standing and I
trust that this environment will continue. However, long-term economic
pressures on the city and continued service challenges in such areas as
public education and child welfare will require a different management
approach. I am committed to developing a new partnership with the
District to support building the Mayor's goal of building the
population by 100,000 residents.
In addition, substantial Federal funding was provided to the
District over the last 3 years, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003,
fiscal year 2004 ($136.3 million in direct response to requests made by
the Mayor, out of a total $545 million in the D.C. appropriations bill
for Federal responsibilities). The last 2 years have been unprecedented
in the amount of discretionary Federal dollars that have gone to the
city, as well as an increase in Congressional confidence in local
leadership, resulting in increased autonomy for the District of
Columbia.
In keeping with our mandate, the Committee must balance the State-
level agencies we are legally responsible to fund and funding the
priority needs of the city leadership. The Mayor has requested an
additional $253.5 million, above the $71.3 million requested in the
President's budget. Chairman DeWine and I share a commitment to the
restoration of the Anacostia Waterfront, improving child and family
services, assistance for charter schools, and enhanced security this
year. In this hearing I hope we can identify the city's main priorities
and how best to address them with very limited funding.
The fiscal year 2005 President's budget supports a wider array of
local initiatives. Funding is recommended $7 million for the Unified
Communications Center, $10 million for the combined sewer overflow
initiative, $3 million for the Anacostia Riverwalk and $40 million for
the three-sector School Improvement Initiative. I am interested to hear
the city's view of two areas which the President requested that the
Committee is seeking more information. The first, a request of $10
million to construct a new firehouse in downtown District of Columbia
was not initially requested by the Mayor. The second piece we need
additional information to is the $15 million annual request for
emergency planning and security; however, the President did not request
any additional funds to address the inauguration. In 2001, the city was
reimbursed for $6 million in inauguration costs. I appreciate the views
of the witnesses on these two areas. The Chairman and I have a
challenge ahead to balance additional requests during a seriously
constrained Federal budget outlook.
Last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirmed a more
broad challenge in a landmark report finding the city faces an annual
deficit of $400 million to $1 billion between their revenue capacity
and cost of providing average services. The report, requested by
Congresswoman Norton and myself, found the underlying reason for the
structural imbalance in the city's budget is the high cost of providing
services in the District of Columbia. The Committee will review
carefully the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act bill,
introduced this month by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, to
reinstate an annual Federal payment of $800 million to the District
targeted for infrastructure needs. The GAO identified capital
infrastructure suffers the most because a budget balanced on a thin
line has no room to invest in long-term capital projects or the ability
to borrow great sums.
The District is uniquely situated and requires a unique
relationship with the Federal Government; the Committee should explore
other options for funding: changing the tax collection ability of the
District; funding directed to specific infrastructure; reevaluating
State functions and taking over those agencies (like State education).
We must examine the underlying issues that create an imbalance and take
a multi-faceted approach to addressing it, before the District goes
back to years of deficit. I understand Chairman DeWine will call a
hearing later this year on the structural imbalance and I look forward
to working collaboratively with him on this complex issue.
One major benefit for the District, with no budgetary impact,
endorsed by President Bush, is to release the local budget from annual
Congressional approval--local budget autonomy. The concept of budget
autonomy for the District's local budget is building momentum on the
Hill and I hope it will be approved this year. These are funds derived
from locally-generated tax dollars. The last word on how the city's
budget is expended should be made by locally-elected leaders, just like
any other city. I am pleased to say, with the hard work of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, the endorsement of President Bush, the
Senate passed the budget autonomy bill this Congress. I hope the
leaders here and Chairman DeWine will join me to gain approval in the
House.
I would like for the Mayor and Council Chairman Cropp to comment on
how current and future general provisions--limitations on spending
local and Federal funds--will be addressed under budget autonomy. I
respect city leaders' diligence in implementing and upholding these
``social riders'' through the years, against local pressure. I expect
that this same degree of respect for the law will be maintained in the
future. There are legitimate means for Congress to provide guidance to
the city; however it is my hope that at some point in the future
Congressional interest in imposing riders will wane.
In addition, this year Chairman DeWine and I have investigated the
Youth Services Administration and Child Services Agency. I understand
the Mayor is developing a plan to transition the Oak Hill youth
detention facility to another model which is better focused on
rehabilitation, not just housing, of youth involved in the criminal
justice system. I know the Chairman has a keen interest in this project
and I am committed to bringing national programs and resources to bear.
The Committee also held a hearing last week on the charter school
movement in the District. I was very encouraged to see proof that the
District is far ahead of other cities or States in developing a strong
charter school base. Now at nearly 20 percent of the public school
population, charter schools are showing great innovation and have the
ability to cultivate this innovation in traditional public schools. The
Congress passed the first charter school law, the School Reform Act of
1995, overseeing the creation and oversight of schools. The Committee
will be re-examining this law to see if there are additional support
mechanisms needed to scale up the most successful charter schools. And
by successful, I mean looking at the chartering principles, not just
the test scores, to make graduates more employable or college-ready or
self-sufficient. Congress will maintain the $13 million investment in
charter schools, as well as overseeing the $1 in $7 spent in public
charter schools from Federal funds. I look forward to the input of
local leaders as Congress evaluates the Federal charter law.
Finally, I am pleased to share with the Committee that the City
Build Charter School Initiative, started in the fiscal year 2004 D.C.
Appropriations Act, is about to take off. The City Build Initiative was
created to support Mayor Williams' vision of increasing the population
by 100,000 residents. This can be done by retaining current residents
who move to the suburbs or attracting new residents. Educational
options are the primary factor that has been pointed to in why families
relocate. If waiting lists or tuition are insurmountable, families will
move to find better educational options for their children. City Build
was created as a way to connect the economic and community development
already underway in emerging neighborhoods with schools. The promise of
quality schools is a tool to increase residential and commercial tax
base of the city.
I am excited to see a plan developing in the city to identify
neighborhoods that are ready for school investment and a process for
creating schools. I am pleased to have benefited from the resources of
the Brookings Institution's Greater Washington Research Program, led by
Dr. Alice Rivlin and David Garrison. Their research has identified 12
neighborhoods in the midst of or which are ready for revitalization
that would benefit from more schools. I look forward to continuing this
partnership this year in standing up the new City Build Initiative.
In addition to the $13 million provided for charter schools and $14
million provided for scholarships to private schools in the fiscal year
2004 D.C. Appropriations Act, the Congress supported an unprecedented
investment of $13 million in public education. The conferees agreed
that these funds would be used to raise academic achievement of
students and strengthen leadership and instructional excellence. The
plan transmitted by the D.C. Public Schools lacked the detail necessary
to justify these funds and, for the most part, did not meet the mandate
set by Congress. The Committee is currently reviewing this plan and
will provide guidance as soon as possible. However, I think it is worth
noting to this panel, the elected leadership of the District and the
independent Chief Financial Officer, that our ability to continue
supplemental funding for public schools is severely impacted by this
lackluster plan. I think the Committee should recognize that no one on
this panel has control over the schools' choices on how they spend
their budget. This disconnect has become very clear to Congress.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and hope that we
may continue the strong partnership developed over the last 3 years.
Senator DeWine. Senator Hutchison, any opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am so, so happy about the bond rating upgrade. For the
first time in the recent history--I can't say all the way back,
but for the first time in recent history you have an A rating
across the board from every rating agency. I commend the Mayor,
Chairman Cropp and Dr. Gandhi for really making some tough
calls to assure that your financial stability is in place. You
had hard choices and I so appreciate that you have worked with
our committee every time you have had a hard choice to make
sure that we knew everything that was happening.
I think the building up of the reserves which was mentioned
by all of the rating agencies as something that I and this
committee had really asked you to do--and you have done it
really even before the timetable that we set, and I think that
played an important role in those upgrades.
I just want to say that this is going to help the city
lower its cost of borrowing, which means more money will be
available for the programs and the needs of the city. I think
it is going to show a stability that will attract more business
to the city and more taxpayers to the city. So I think it is a
win for everyone.
I want to say that I have been working with Dr. Gandhi over
the last few weeks. He has asked for some adjustments in the
reserves and I have worked with him and the rating agencies to
assure that there could be some small changes that would give
you more flexibility in the city, but yet keep the conservative
approach.
I am going to recommend that there be some changes.
Basically, those changes would be to adjust the definition of
expenditures so that the calculation of reserves excludes debt
service, allows the calculation of the reserve amount to be
based on the prior year actual ending expenditures rather than
projected expenditures, reduces the total reserve requirement
from 7 percent to 6 percent.
Seven percent was more than most cities in our country
have, but when we were working with B and very low ratings,
that was very important to show that we were serious to the
rating agencies. But now that we are A across the board, I
think 6 percent is quite reasonable, and the rating agencies
agree with that. So that will give you, I think, more leeway.
And then we would extend the repayment period from 1 year to 2
years, no less than 50 percent in the first year if you have to
repay the reserves. So that also gives you, I think, more
flexibility.
I want to say that Dr. Gandhi has really been a leader in
this. He asked for some changes, knowing that the Mayor and the
chairman had wanted more flexibility, and I think we have come
to terms that will be very favorable, but also still quite
conservative and in line with the A ratings that you have.
So I could not be more proud of this city from the
financial standpoint than I am because you just worked so
closely with us. You took leadership positions and I commend
you, and I think it is going to be a great benefit in the long
term for the city.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS
Senator DeWine. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Strauss has included a statement to be inserted in
the record as well.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, ranking member Landrieu, and others on the
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, I would like to take this opportunity to provide this
statement on behalf of my constituents.
Due to our lack of self-determination, we are unable to provide or
fund certain government services on a local level. As long as Congress
continues to utilize city services, it has an obligation to fully fund
our city budget. I would like to address the District's fiscal year
2005 local budget request to Congress. The hearings for this budget
have been held in the D.C. Council, and are subsequently fundamental to
the operation of the city. It is essential to the District that
Congress pass this budget in time for the new fiscal year 2005, and
avoid being caught up in Continuing Resolutions. When the District of
Columbia's budget is held up, needed spending adjustments are not
allowed to be implemented and the cost of debt services increases. Each
day, our local government services suffer greatly when the budget is
held up.
The dilemma of our budget being held up every year can be resolved
through budget autonomy. I appreciate the Senate passing this bill. I
wish the House of Representatives would also vote to allow the District
Budget to be separated from the Federal Appropriations Process. This
step should be furthered, as our local budget has nothing to do with
Congress. Since fiscal year 1996, the District of Columbia has
continuously provided Congress with a balanced budget. The District has
demonstrated itself as a competent, governing body, which should allow
itself the right to reject all policy interference and social riders
attempting to regulate the government within the District. It should be
the privilege and priority of the government of the District of
Columbia, not Congress, to make the District's economic decisions.
Although it is presently a constitutional prerogative of Congress to
exercise oversight of the District and its budgetary needs, it is not
always appropriate.
The District of Columbia has submitted a budget that calls for
serious investments in public services and education. Mayor Williams,
Chair Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi have explained the
specifics in great detail and I support their efforts in the budgetary
requests of the District of Columbia.
Congress should have a focus on the District of Columbia's budget,
in respect to resolving the structural imbalance of the budget. This
major problem concerning the budget is the gap between the District's
ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the ability to
provide services of reasonable quality to its residents jeopardizes the
District's ability to retain residents. Instead of being penalized for
residing in the District, citizens should receive the same
constitutional rights as all American citizens.
The government of the District of Columbia needs to be fairly
compensated by Congress for the services it provides to Federal
agencies. This would serve as a solution to the structural imbalance
within the District's budget. The District's budget represents the
citizens of the most unique city in the Nation. The District has
repeatedly provided Congress with a budget that has proven both
sensible and attainable. The outlook for the current fiscal year 2005
is projected as balanced with a surplus. The District government is by
itself the best evaluator of local expenditures. The reoccurring record
of balanced and responsible budget management during times of economic
hardships and declining revenues is yet another fact that proves the
District's elected officials can govern the District. Not allowing the
District to have complete control over its spending only increases the
structural imbalance, therefore discouraging citizens.
The elected officials are persistent in attaining locally raised
revenue needed to fund various local interests such as public service
and education. The city should be allowed to utilize tax dollars in a
more flexible manner. This in turn would give the District government
the opportunity to provide the community greater benefit from the
revenue. Flexible use of revenue specifically secures and stabilizes
public service departments within the city. My constituents have the
right to receive the needed revenue to meet their children's
educational needs. I urge you to approve the proposed budget, as it is
deemed necessary to aide the District's schools. The District of
Columbia has submitted a timely budget so Congress has appropriate time
to approve it. I ask again that Congress pass this budget before the
beginning of the fiscal year. It is unfair to the District and its
constituents when Congressional delays disrupt critical improvements
within the local area.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement. This
local budget was optimally drafted in order to benefit the citizens of
the District of Columbia. I support its prompt passage without riders
or amendments. In closing, let me thank a member of my legislative
staff, Merin Rajadurai, for his assistance in preparing my testimony
this morning.
Senator DeWine. Mayor, would you like to come up, and
Chairman, Doctor? We appreciate you all joining us very much.
It sounds like we do have some good news.
Mayor, why don't you start off? We have your written
statement and we appreciate it very much, and if you could just
summarize for us and give us the highlights.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have
said about three times that you would just like the highlights.
So I will take that instruction and I will submit my written
testimony for the record and will share with you and with
Ranking Member Landrieu and certainly Senator Hutchison some of
the highlights.
But I want to take this opportunity as Mayor of the city to
thank the committee, No. 1, for its support for budget autonomy
for our city, and you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in
calling for a hearing on the long-term structural imbalance
issue.
Senator Landrieu, thank you for your leadership in many,
many different areas, particularly with the Anacostia River and
with education.
Senator Hutchison, I have worked with you since the time I
was CFO and I remember talking with you one night asking for
mercy from the reserve requirement. You did not grant that
mercy and, in retrospect, you were right and I was wrong. So we
are in much better shape because of it. I thank you, though,
for your willingness to work with Dr. Gandhi and provide those
adjustments. I think they are welcome. Certainly, as former
State treasurers, both you and Senator Landrieu, your comments
on our fiscal status are taken to heart by this Mayor.
In fact, though, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
we are doing better, but there is still more to do. Because of
the structural imbalance, the mismatch between long-term
revenues and expenditures in the District, three things are
happening in our city.
First, because of the artificial restrictions on our
revenue base against State expenditures and requirements as a
Federal city, we end up over-taxing about half of our tax base,
and that is not healthy for the long-term future of the city.
We would like to have lower tax rates, and Council Chair Cropp
has been a leader in that effort along with the Council.
Secondly, because of this situation, we have the second
highest per-capita debt of any city in the country, second only
to New York City. This again reflects a mismatch between long-
term revenues and expenditures. Because of this mismatch,
because we are at the limit of what we can borrow, we have
under-invested and we are deferring massive investments in
critical services and infrastructure. Approximately $2.5
billion of infrastructure has been deferred, including
renovating crumbling schools, repairing the sewer overflow in
the Anacostia River, fixing roads, and putting in place needed
security systems to keep residents and visitors alike to our
city safe.
The major initiatives in our local budget include
education. We remain proud of our robust charter school
movement which educates approximately 20 percent of the school-
age children in the city. Under our leadership, the local
facilities allowance for public charter schools has increased
by almost 400 percent, from $617 per student in 2000 to about
$2,400 per student in the proposed budget before you.
There is still more work to do, but we have been working
with the subcommittee and the charter school community to
launch the exciting City Build initiative which was funded by
this subcommittee, and Senator Landrieu deserves enormous
credit for that. But in education, we are working to expand
early childhood education, to expand after-school and out-of-
school activities; working to create five new transformation
schools, where we have shown improvement in test scores;
creating eight new charter schools; and upgrading school
security.
In the public safety area, we make room in our local budget
to continue to fund our full complement of 3,800 officers, to
reconfigure our patrol service areas, to build our Office of
Unified Communications, and to work toward civilianization of
our force. A remaining challenge before us is working with the
Council to reform our disability procedures and processes in
the department. We think with an additional investment there,
we can put an additional roughly 200 officers on the street.
Opportunity for all is a major commitment of mine as Mayor
of the city, and we have put in place additional funds for the
Youth Services Administration, particularly for reform laying
the groundwork for replacing the current Oak Hill facility with
a smaller, state-of-the-art facility. And I applaud you, Mr.
Chairman, for your leadership on that effort, and for your
steadfast oversight.
There are a number of requests we have made to the Federal
Government in the Federal appropriations area; one is the
Tuition Assistance Grant program. We are asking for a request
to fully fund this program at a level of $25.6 million above
the President's mark of $17 million. This has been a very
successful program and honoring this request will avoid having
to either limit the program on an income basis or to limit the
program on a pro-rata basis. This has been a very successful
program and we would like to continue its upward path.
Bioterrorism and forensics laboratory. Every city in the
Nation has access to such a facility, as provided by their
State. Many major facilities have their own. This is a critical
public safety investment and we are requesting $9 million to
move down the road for the planning and design phase of this
lab. After the 4-year period of capital investment, we are
prepared to commit the $40 million, roughly, a year to operate
this.
We ask for dollars for the WMATA subsidy. What we have
found, members of the committee, is that over the years the
Federal Government has reduced its support for transportation
in urban areas. States have increased their support. The
District, because of its peculiar situation, is at a loss here.
Maryland and Virginia are increasing their support. The Federal
Government is diminishing its support.
So we are at the core of the Washington area and the center
of Federal operations and have an enormous hit on our budget
because of the amount of the subsidy. This is again a State
function. It is something that benefits the Federal Government
and its workers and makes us a healthy and livable region.
Next to last, Mr. Chairman, we ask for an increase in the
Public Safety Event Fund. We have received from the President
$15 million. We are asking for an allocation of $25 million,
primarily and essentially because of the inauguration. With the
expenses for the inauguration, post-September 11, we expect to
easily absorb this additional amount. This is a one-time
request for this addition and we would ask for the committee's
support.
Last but not least, in the area of public school security
we have seen what has happened in our public schools,
particularly at Ballou High School. We have developed with our
chief and in consultation with school officials a detailed
public safety plan and are requesting from the Federal
Government $15 million to assist us in this effort.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, I want to thank the committee for its support for
budget autonomy as we move toward the road for full democracy
in the District. With that, I would be happy, after the other
testimony, to answer each and all of your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony A. Williams
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and other
distinguished members of this subcommittee, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today in support of the
District of Columbia's fiscal year 2005 budget and financial plan. It
has been particularly rewarding to work with you, Chairman, and this
committee over the past year. The strength of State and local
government experience you bring to your oversight responsibilities,
along with your dedication to the District of Columbia, provide this
panel with an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of citizens
of the District of Columbia and make our Nation's capital an even more
rewarding place to reside, work, and visit. My remarks this morning
will focus on three main goals we have for working with this
subcommittee:
--promoting the fiscal strength of the District despite a difficult
national economy and a long-term structural imbalance caused by
Federal restrictions;
--passing a local funds budget that provides for citizen priorities;
and
--seeking critical Federal investments relating to services for our
residents and our special status as the Nation's capital.
I will begin by discussing our efforts to overcome fiscal challenges.
OVERCOMING FISCAL CHALLENGES
The District has worked hard to overcome many fiscal challenges
over the past decade. Some have been of our own making, others have
been a matter of circumstance, affecting States and localities across
the country, and others have been imposed by the Federal Government.
Under my leadership, along with the legislative stewardship of our
Council, led by Chairman Linda Cropp, and the fiscal guidance of Natwar
Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer, there are few States or localities
that have accomplished more in such a short period of time.
Fiscal year 2003 marked the District's seventh consecutive balanced
budget. In April, the District received a two-notch upgrade in our bond
rating from Moody's Investor Service and now all three rating agencies
rate the District as grade A investment material. Over the last 4
years, as States and cities have weathered the deepest financial crisis
in 60 years, the District has continued produce balanced budgets and
has managed to increase our cash reserves, which totaled over $250
million at the beginning of this fiscal year. Our steady accumulation
of reserves despite difficult times is due in no small part to the
diligence of Senator Hutchison, who has advocated for robust and secure
reserve funds. These reserves have the served the District well and
have contributed to our string of ratings upgrades. I would also like
to thank the senator for considering our proposal to restructure our
cash reserves this year and hope that she and this subcommittee will
support our proposal. This proposal, which is part of our budget
request, would reduce our overall reserve requirement from 7 percent of
total expenditures to 6 percent and extend the period over which the
District can replenish the reserve from 1 year to 2 years. Even with
these modifications, the District will have sound and stable cash
reserves when compared to States across the country.
We have also achieved these accomplishments despite a long-term
structural imbalance estimated by the General Accounting Office to be
between $470 million and $1.1 billion per year. The GAO cites multiple
factors causing this imbalance: the high cost of providing services in
the D.C. metropolitan area, the relative poverty of our population, and
Federal restrictions on our revenue collection authority.
So what explains this apparent paradox? How can the District
achieve remarkable financial performance, yet still face this
structural imbalance? The answer is twofold. One, our residents are
among the most heavily taxed in the Nation, and two, the District is
deferring massive investments in critical services and infrastructure.
This is perhaps the most important point in my testimony today, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee, so I believe it bears repeating.
In order to balance our budgets and fund our reserves, the District is
deferring massive investments in critical services and infrastructure.
What is the magnitude of this deferral? Approximately $2.5 billion
of infrastructure has been deferred, including renovating crumbling
schools, repairing the sewer overflow, fixing roads, and putting into
place the needed security systems to keep District residents and
visitors safe.
As we seek solutions to address the structural imbalance and
address our long-standing problems, it is clear that taxing our
residents more or providing fewer services are not viable alternatives.
Though the GAO report noted areas where the District needs to improve
management efficiencies, the report is quite clear that this deficit
would exist under any management structure and even if operational
efficiencies were improved even more. One option proposed by the GAO is
a change in Federal policy to expand the District's tax base or to
provide additional financial support.
Earlier this month, at the request of this committee I submitted a
report to you that laid out a comprehensive plan for addressing
structural imbalance in the District of Columbia. This report presented
several alternatives for addressing the imbalance and highlighted one
very promising vehicle, a bill recently introduced by Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ``District of Columbia Fair Federal
Compensation Act of 2004''. This bill would provide the District with
an annual dedicated Federal payment of $800 million a year dedicated to
transportation projects, debt service payments, public school
facilities, or information technology investments. This approach to
redressing the District's structural imbalance would allow the Federal
Government to invest in infrastructure that benefits the Federal
Government itself, the Washington metropolitan area, as well as the
District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your
commitment to find a workable solution to this problem that threatens
our long-term fiscal viability. In addition to addressing the Federal
contribution to our budget, we also need to repair the Federal process
for reviewing our budget. As you know, last year the Senate unanimously
passed a budget autonomy act for the District. This legislation,
besides being a well-deserved boost for us Home Rule advocates, would
significantly streamline and rationalize our budget process by allowing
the city to better align local funds with oftentimes unpredictable and
shifting needs. This legislation would put a permanent end to long
delays where the District budgets resources to respond to new service
needs, but those dollars are tied up in seemingly endless continuing
resolutions. This bill would also allow the District to better align
our fiscal year with the Federal grant cycle and school year, as are
most local jurisdictions. This would eliminate a massive number of
administrative burdens. Therefore, we are hopeful that the House of
Representatives will follow the Senate and pass the same bill. Without
the support of Chairman DeWine and Senator Landrieu, as well as
Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, this historic legislation would
not have been possible, so I offer special thanks to you all. Having
set the context, I will now discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
District.
FUNDING CITIZEN PRIORITIES
Over the past year our citizens have articulated their priorities
in citizen summits and town hall meetings across the city, and this
budget is the manifestation of those discussions. Our residents are
calling for better education, public safety, health care and housing,
and this budget makes critical investments to improve services in these
areas. As a result, the growth of funding in this budget is focused on
improving critical services, perhaps the most important of which is
public education.
As I'm sure you noted, local leadership had a very robust debate in
formulating this budget, and one of the topics discussed was the
appropriate level of expenditure growth. After a healthy debate the
Council approved a budget that funds the operations of government.
While growth in the budget appears dramatic at first glance, the
true story is much less severe. Almost half of the growth in the budget
funds one-time investments such as fulfilling court orders, paying for
debt service from prior-year investments, and funding Medicaid cost
increases. To manage the growth of Medicaid expenses we have new
leadership in place, which includes a new Medicaid director and a
director of our new Office of Medicaid Operations Reform. Our new
leadership has led an effort to bring expertise and accountability to
the District's Medicaid office and public provider agencies. We are
implementing the recommendations from our prior-year Medicaid audits,
we have made significant improvements to our Medicaid budget
development process, and we have improved our approach for billing for
Medicaid services. In the following discussion I will discuss key
initiatives included in this budget.
EDUCATION
Since my first budget as Mayor, I have increased the funding for
public education by almost 60 percent. In addition to stabilizing
funding for District of Columbia Public Schools despite continuing
decline in enrollments, our fiscal year 2005 budget provides record
funding for charter schools. Despite these investments, I continue to
be concerned with the quality of education we are providing to our
children, and I am particularly concerned with how DCPS has managed its
budget. To address these concerns, I have introduced legislation that
would streamline the accountability and governance of our public
schools by creating a chancellor position that reports directly to the
Mayor with oversight from our City Council. Based on feedback from
Council members and the general public, I am refining that proposal to
also create an elected State board of education that would have
considerable State-level powers. I am encouraged by the increasing
number of Council members who voted against the status quo at
yesterday's legislative session. This indicates momentum in the
direction of meaningful change. I look forward to continuing to work
with the Council to reach agreement on a new governance structure soon.
I hope we can rely on expedited consideration by the Congress of any
legislation passed by the Council that would require a change in our
Home Rule Charter. My efforts to recruit the best chancellor possible
and strengthen the accountability structures around that new position
are just part of my effort to improve the educational opportunities
available to our children.
In addition, the city remains extremely proud of its robust charter
school movement, which educates approximately 20 percent of the school-
age children in the city. Under my leadership, the local facilities
allowance for public charter schools has increased by almost 400
percent, from $617 per student in 2000 to over $2,400 per student in
the proposed budget before you. We have also been working closely with
this subcommittee and the charter school community to launch the
exciting City Build initiative, which was funded by this subcommittee
and will provide five charter schools with $1 million for their
facilities in the coming months. Senator Landrieu deserves tremendous
credit for her work on this program, and on charter schools in general.
In summary, the fiscal year 2005 budget includes several new
education initiatives, including:
--expansion of early childhood education,
--expansion of after-school and out-of-school activities for children
and youth,
--creation of 5 new transformation schools in the D.C. Public School
system,
--creation of 8 new public charter schools, and
--an upgrade of school security.
In addition, the District's new federally-funded scholarship program is
unfolding quite well and has received approximately 1,500 applications
from eligible families. Over 40 schools have submitted school
commitment forms to participate in this program and more are expected
to join. Based on these rough numbers we anticipate that will be able
to meet our goal of serving approximately 1,700 students. The
Washington Scholarship Fund, which is administering the program, is
currently working with the program evaluation team, and the Department
of Education to assess the number of slots and eligible participants to
determine whether a lottery will be necessary for specific grade
levels. I am confident that if such a lottery process is employed it
will be consistent with the intent and priorities identified in the
legislation.
PUBLIC SAFETY
On May 3, our city suffered the tragic death of 8-year-old Chelsea
Cromartie. Chelsea's murder was a senseless cowardly act of violence
and unfortunately, it was not an isolated event. This year, 13 more of
our children have been victims to senseless murders. The District's
response has been aggressive: we continue to fund 3,800 officers, we
have conducted a new Patrol Service Area plan to enhance police
deployment in our neighborhoods, and we have established the Office of
Unified Communications to coordinate our emergency responses, and we
have just launched a major new effort to concentrate resources from
across the government on crime ``hot spots'' in order to make
fundamental change. Recently I also introduced legislation at the end
of last year to reform the District's juvenile justice system. This
legislation includes key legislative changes that would make the
District safer for residents and victims of crime while providing
improved rehabilitation services for our youth. Through these
initiatives the District will make great strides to provide a safe and
secure city for those who live, visit, and work here.
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
The city is also devoting its efforts to improving services for the
District's most vulnerable. At the Youth Services Administration, I
have put in place transitional leadership that has already delivered
improvements in the areas of security, treatment, staffing,
administration, and licensing. We have also developed a comprehensive
plan to best serve our youth and comply with and ultimately exit the
current outstanding class action litigation. The plan also lays the
groundwork for replacing the current Oak Hill facility with a smaller,
state-of-the-art youth facility. In addition, this budget includes the
following enhancements:
--expanded coverage for traditional Medicaid clients,
--full funding for the Health Care Alliance,
--expanded treatment for the elderly, mentally challenged, and HIV/
AIDS patients, and
--facility upgrades at community clinics and ``Medical Homes''.
PRIORITY FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS
Our budget includes several requests for funding projects in
partnership with the Federal Government and I welcome this Committee's
partnership with the District to invest available Federal resources in
the city's top priorities.
The President's budget includes funding for several of my top
priorities, including education funding for public schools, charter
schools and private school scholarships; funding for the Combined Sewer
Overflow project, which is part of a long-term effort to clean up and
revitalize the Anacostia River; and funding for important public safety
investments such as the Unified Communications Center and the Fire
Department's command center. Our budget also includes funding requests
for several projects at a higher level than the President's mark and
for other projects that are not included in the President's budget but
are worthy of congressional attention. I would like to emphasize
several of them here today:
--Tuition Assistance Grant Program.--This program will allow 4,000
students to pursue higher education this year--either at public
institutions and private historically black colleges around the
country as well as local private colleges and universities.
This high participation rate, along with rising tuition costs,
means that the District will need to restrict payments to
students or make the program needs based for students applying
to the program for the 2004/2005 school year unless Congress
takes action to fund the program at a higher level. This would
have a devastating impact on the program which has had such a
profound impact on opening up college opportunities to many
families for the first time, as well as providing an incentive
for middle class families to remain in or relocate to the city.
Our budget contains a request to fully fund this program at a
level of $25.6 million above the President's mark of $17
million. Otherwise we will have to curtail this very successful
program.
--Bioterrorism and Forensics Laboratory.--Every city in the Nation
has access to such a facility as provided by the State, and
major cities have their own. These laboratories are critical to
tracing evidence that leads to convicting and incarcerating
offenders in cases involving homicide, rape, and other serious
offenses. Although the District is given some access to the
laboratory managed by the FBI, the available capacity is
woefully inadequate, and therefore the District faces a large
crime rate without the tools needed to address it.
This laboratory is also essential for assessing, detecting, and
addressing bioterrorism attacks. As we have seen with the
events of September 11, the anthrax attack, and the ricin
scare, the Federal Government is a natural target for
terrorists and the public safety infrastructure of the District
of Columbia is the first line of defense. This laboratory would
significantly enhance our ability to detect and respond
effectively to such threats. Toward this end, we are requesting
the $9 million for the planning and design phase of a
bioterrorism and forensics lab.
--WMATA Operating Payments.--The District's contribution to WMATA
operations will consume $208.5 of the city's local budget in
fiscal year 2005. Because the District is the core of the
Washington metropolitan area and the center of Federal
operations, this investment not only benefits District
residents, but it benefits the entire region. Last year, for
the first time, Congress contributed $3 million towards this
subsidy. This year, we are asking for full funding for our
WMATA subsidy. This support is justified because Federal
stations, Federal workers, and visitors to the Federal
Government constitution a significant amount of the WMATA
activity subsidized by the District. Federal support is also
justified because mass transit costs are typically funded at
the State level; Maryland funds 100 percent of its localities'
operating subsidy and Virginia funds half for its
jurisdictions. I would argue that inherently unfair allocation
of operating expenses allocated among Maryland, Virginia, and
the District is a striking example of the structural imbalance
and a logical opportunity for the Federal Government to craft
an immediate, partial solution.
--Downtown Circulator.--The Downtown Circulator project will provide
the 22 million visitors to Washington, DC with an inexpensive
and easy way to move around the Monumental Core. The service
will connect several of the District's most popular
destinations for residents, tourists and even Federal
employees. In the future, the system could also be adopted by
Federal agencies as cost-saving replacement for private vehicle
fleets and shuttle services. The Federal Government provided
half a million dollars for this project in fiscal year 2004 and
the District is requesting an additional $1 million in fiscal
year 2005, which the District will match with local funds on a
one-to-one basis on top of considerable support from the city's
tourism and business sectors.
--Public Safety Event Fund.--This fund was established to fund local
costs incurred in response to major Federal events, but this
year it was seriously under-funded by the President and should
be raised to $25 million in fiscal year 2005. The proposed
level of $15 million would barely cover reimbursement for the
District's costs associated with relatively predictable events
such as anti-war protests, IMF and World Bank events, and high
alert details. It does not account for any cost associated with
the Presidential inauguration, including payment for officers
from outside jurisdictions, the overtime costs of our own
police officers, and the additional services from other
agencies such as the Fire Department, WMATA, and WASA. In the
post-9/11 security environments, total costs will cost well
over the extra $10 million that we are requesting.
--Public School Security.--In the wake of the tragic shooting at
Ballou Senior High School on February 2, 2004, we need to
redouble our efforts in this area. The approach of city
leadership recognizes the critical importance of school
principals and school staff in creating a climate of safety and
the importance of providing our staff the necessary tools and
training. There is currently legislation before Council to
transfer the responsibility for school security to the
Metropolitan Police Department. While the District is planning
on funding the significant operating costs of this initiative,
I am requesting Federal funding of $15 million to assist with
the one-time start up costs.
--Adult/Family Literacy Initiative.--This initiative, which was
launched by this subcommittee, continues to address a gaping
hole in the city's educational infrastructure. The District has
leveraged over $1 million in private assistance with Federal
appropriations to date and we have used this funding to fund
literacy services to 872 adults who otherwise would not have
received assistance. We have also recruited, hired, placed and
provided professional development for 20 Lifelong Learning
Coaches. I am requesting an additional $2 million to continue
our efforts and focus additional efforts on the areas where we
have identified significant disparities between the need for
literacy services and the availability of those services.
DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL
Having presented the District's fiscal year 2005 budget and Federal
request, I would like to close with a discussion of something that is
beyond price, and that is the democratic rights of our citizens. The
Senate has already signaled its interest in expanding Home Rule and
democracy in the District by passing budget autonomy. I would like to
ask for your individual support to take the next crucial steps. The
District is the capital of the world's greatest democracy, and it is
the ultimate hypocrisy that its citizens suffer from the exact
disenfranchisement this Nation was founded to end. The United States is
continuing to sacrifice hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to
provide Iraqis with freedom and democracy, yet denies full democracy to
more than a half a million people at its very heart. I urge you to end
this injustice and provide the city with full voting representation in
the Congress. Anything short of full democracy for our residents should
be at the level of personal outrage for all Americans. This concludes
my remarks today. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mayor.
Chairman Cropp, thank you very much for joining us.
STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Landrieu, Senator Hutchison. It is indeed a pleasure to be here
with the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi to testify before you with regard
to the District of Columbia's budget. I join with the Mayor in
thanking you so very much for the support that you have given
to the District in the past, in particular your passage of the
budget autonomy for the District of Columbia.
The fiscal year 2005 budget, as many of you recognize,
represents the eighth year in a row consecutively that a
fiscally-sound and balanced budget is presented to you. This
budget is also a reflection of our resolve to stand as one
government that will remain fiscally prudent and responsible.
The efforts of the Council and the Mayor working together
have created a spending plan that continues to provide the
services needed to make the District of Columbia a much better
place to live, to work, to raise a family and to visit. The
Council and the Mayor will continue to work in a collaborative
effort throughout the year in order to manage government
spending.
Fiscal discipline has always been and will continue to be a
top priority of the last few Councils for our legislative
agenda. We have not only demanded it of the executive branch,
but we also practice it. The various forms of fiscal
discipline, from rainy-day funds, financial safeguards,
insurance and investment policies, economic triggers, to pay-
as-you-go funds, that we have demanded and imposed on ourselves
in the past several years have yielded significant returns for
the District.
During the Council's 50-day review period of the budget, we
held 54 hearings, totaling 296 hours of public hearings. These
public hearings are a very important part of our budget
process. The public hearings provide our citizens an
opportunity, with our workforce, to comment and to critique the
programmatic funding needs and agency performance that impacts
them. This feedback is essential.
The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning
both sets of priorities and put together a fiscally-sound and
responsible spending plan. The operating budget funds basic
city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result of
stringent oversight, has been aligned. For example, funds were
redirected and targeted for those projects with higher priority
and critical need.
On May 14, the Council approved a $4.16 billion spending
plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services and
programs. The funding level for fiscal year 2005 represents a
7.1 percent growth over the revised 2004 local budget and sets
growth for next year's budget at 4.6. The Council is determined
to keep our budget growth within realistic figures.
The budget provides $40 million for the production of low-
and moderate-income housing, and increases the funding for
child care, substance and drug abuse treatment, and health care
for uninsured residents. In keeping with the seven goals of the
Council's legislative agenda, schools continue to receive full
funding. The budget earmarks approximately $1 billion for
public and charter schools.
In order to address concerns about the growth of spending
in certain agencies, while still wanting to finance programs
important to the District's most vulnerable residents, a
contingency fund was established. This fund would provide
financial support for the District's budget if other sources
were not available for the Department of Human Services' Child
and Family Services, Mental Health, Inspector General,
Employment Services, Youth Services, and the Office of the
Secretary. A request to expend money from the contingency fund
would require proof of need and the appropriate efficiencies
that we expect from government.
The Council supports the congressional budget request
items, particularly the Tuition Assistance Grant program and
the planning and security costs associated with the Federal
presence. A total of 4,086 students are receiving funds this
year from the TAG program. It has had a significant impact on
furthering the education of these students. Therefore, it is
important that the additional $8.6 million be provided to
continue to fund this program.
The need for funding, planning and security costs related
to the Federal presence continues to rise. The requirements of
homeland security have added to this cost. In the past 2 years,
the District has been reimbursed for the costs it has incurred
for major events held in Washington, due to the fact that we
are the Capital City. These cost have now been capped at $15
million.
In the past 2 years, which have been non-inaugural years,
the District has received $15 million to cover the costs for
providing safety at events. The District is now being asked to
apply the $15 million to cover the costs for the major events
and the Presidential inaugural. Historically, the District has
been directly reimbursed for the costs associated with the
Presidential inauguration.
The costs for providing security during the 2001
inauguration were $6 million. With the addition of homeland
security requirements, this amount has grown to $10 million.
The District, however, is now asking for the additional $10
million. We just cannot possibly absorb that within all of the
other costs.
Another area I would like for you to consider is funding to
assist with the cost of correcting the problem of the lead in
the water. As you are aware, investigations to date have
revealed that the various actions of the D.C. Water and Sewer
Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Washington Aqueduct may have all contributed to the problem.
Therefore, it would appear to be appropriate for Federal
dollars to be made available to assist in the cost for the
testing of the water, the testing of the lead levels in
residents, and for the replacement of the lead service line. It
is our hope that through the joint effort of the District and
Federal governments, we can resolve this problem and again make
water safe in the District of Columbia.
I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining the
approval of the District's tax incentives that expired at the
end of last year. The first-time homebuyer credit, the
enterprise zone credit and the revenue bond programs are
important to economic development in the District. The first-
time homebuyer credit attracts residents to the District and
assists persons in purchasing homes that might not otherwise
have the opportunity to do so. As you are probably aware, the
Mayor has a proposal that would bring in more residents to the
District of Columbia, and those tax credits certainly played a
major role in helping to grow our economy.
The District is always challenged in developing its budget
due to ongoing structural imbalances. I want to join with the
Mayor in thanking you so very much for supporting and passing
budget autonomy. It is very important to the citizens of the
District of Columbia and we thank you for your wisdom and your
action in that.
On the structural imbalance, we hope that we would be able
to rely on some of the reporting from the General Accounting
Office and the committee and that they will look at that and
give the District some assistance in that.
I would like to mention one other way the Congress could
assist the District of Columbia in its managing of funds, and
Senator Hutchison has elaborated on that in her opening
statement with regard to our cash reserve. We thank you for the
changes that are being made. We think that that is the right
direction for us to go.
We believe that we ought to have some cash in the bank. We
join with you in that, but the changes that were there were
possibly just a little bit too much and we are happy we are
moving in this direction. I would ask that you consider in the
future as we continue along the line of fiscal responsibility
that you look at a 3-year pay for paying it back if we need the
emergency money within 1 year.
In most instances, a 1-year pay-back is still too soon.
When you look at what most other jurisdictions do, they usually
have a 3-year time period to pay it back. So as we continue
along fiscal responsibility, we hope that you will look at
that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I would like to say that we look forward to
working with you as we make the District of Columbia the type
of city that we all know that it can be. We are on our way, we
are moving in that direction, but we will continue to strive to
make it a much better place for people to work, live and visit.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp
Good morning, Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am
pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on the District's
budget for fiscal year 2005.
INTRODUCTION
The fiscal year 2005 budget represents for the eighth year in a
row, a fiscally sound and balanced budget. This budget is also a
reflection of our resolve to stand as one good government that will
remain fiscally prudent and responsible. The efforts of the Council and
the Mayor, working together, has created a spending plan that continues
to provide the services needed to make the District a better place in
which to live, to work, to raise a family, and to visit. The Council
and the Mayor will continue this collaborative effort throughout the
year in order to manage government spending.
Fiscal discipline has always been and will always be a top priority
on our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of the executive
branch, we practice it. The various forms of fiscal discipline--from
rainy day savings, financial safeguards, insurance and investment
policies, economic triggers to Pay-As-You-Go funds--that we have
demanded of, and imposed on ourselves in the past several years, have
yielded significant returns to the District of Columbia. This is
reflected in the District Government receiving for the seventh
consecutive year an unqualified audit opinion and a fiscal year 2003
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) showing a balanced budget.
In addition, this year for the first time, the District received an
``A'' rating from all of the Wall Street financial rating agencies.
In 2004 the Council passed the fiscal year 2005 Budget Submission
Requirements Resolution of 2004. It established the date for submission
of the Mayor's proposed budget. It required performance plans and
reports, and certain information and documentation be submitted to the
Council along with the proposed budget.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
During the Council's 50-day review period the Council conducted 54
hearings totaling 296 man-hours. These public hearings are an important
part of the budget process. The public hearings provide the citizens
and our workforce with an opportunity to comment and critique
programmatic and funding needs, and agency performances that impact
them. This feedback is essential in reaching the decisions and
determining the recommendations of each committee in the mark-up of the
budgets.
The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning both sets
of priorities and, put together a fiscally sound and responsible
spending plan. The operating budget funds basic city services and
programs. The capital budget, as a result of stringent oversight by the
Council, was realigned. For example, funds were redirected and targeted
for projects with higher priority and critical needs, such as schools
for the children, housing for low and moderate income residents, and
enhancing existing facilities for better public/Council interaction.
The Mayor submitted the budget to the Council on March 29. The
proposed local budget was $4.17 billion, an increase of $282.8 million
or 7.3 percent above the revised fiscal year 2004 budget. The Council
carefully reviewed the proposed expenditures to ensure that priority
programs were properly funded. Adjustments were made through hard
decisions between competing program preferences and by rooting out
unnecessary budget cushions within the request.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
On May 14 the Council approved the $4.16 billion spending plan that
provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. This
funding level for fiscal year 2005 represents a growth of 7.1 percent
over the revised fiscal year 2004 local budget and sets growth for next
year's budget at 4.6 percent. The budget provides $40 million for the
production of low and moderate income housing and increases the funding
for childcare, substance and drug abuse treatment, and health care for
uninsured residents. In keeping with the seven goals on the Council's
legislative agenda, schools continue to receive full funding. The
budget earmarks approximately a billion dollars for public schools and
public chartered schools.
In order to address the Council's concerns about the growth of
spending in certain agencies while still wanting to finance programs
important to the District's most vulnerable residents, a contingency
fund was established. This fund would provide financial support from
the District's budget if other sources were not available for the
Departments of Human Services, Child & Family Services, Mental Health,
Health, Inspector General, Employment Services, Youth Services
Administration and the Office of the Secretary. Requests to expend
money from the contingency fund would require proof of need and
approval by the CFO, the Mayor and the Council.
FEDERAL BUDGET REQUEST
The Council supports the Congressional budget request items
included in the Mayor's proposal. However, I would like to highlight
two items included in that request. The Tuition Assistance Grant
Program (TAG) and the Planning and Security costs associated with the
Federal presence. The TAG program has been extremely successful in the
District. A total of 4,086 students are receiving funds this year from
the program. TAG has had a significant impact on furthering the
education of these students. Therefore, it is important that the
additional $8.6 million be provided to continue to fully fund this
program.
The need for funding Planning and Security costs related to the
Federal presence continues to rise. The requirements of Homeland
Security have added to this cost. In the past 2 years the District has
been reimbursed for the costs it has incurred for major events that are
held in Washington. These costs have now been capped at $15 million. In
the last 2 years, which have been non-inaugural years, the District has
received the $15 million to cover its costs for providing safety at
events. The District is now being asked to apply the $15 million to
cover the costs for major events and the Presidential Inauguration.
Historically the District has been directly reimbursed for the costs
associated with the Presidential Inauguration. The costs for providing
security during the 2001 inauguration were $6 million. With the
addition of Homeland Security requirements this amount has grown to $10
million. The District Government is asking for the additional $10
million to cover the anticipated costs that will be incurred for the
2005 inauguration.
Another area I would like for you to consider is funding to assist
with the costs of correcting the problem of lead in the water. As you
are aware the investigations to date have revealed that the various
actions of the DC Waster And Sewer Authority (WASA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington Aqueduct may have all
contributed to the problem. Therefore, it would appear to be
appropriate for Federal dollars to be made available to assist in the
cost for the testing of water, the testing of lead levels in residents
and for the replacement of lead service lines. It is our hope that
through the joint effort of the District and Federal Governments we can
resolve this problem and again make water safe in the District of
Columbia.
I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining approval of the
District's tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. The
First Time Homebuyer credit, the Enterprise Zone credit and the revenue
bond program are important to economic development in the District. The
First Time Homebuyer credit attracts residents to the District and
assists persons in purchasing homes that might not otherwise have an
opportunity to do so. The Enterprise Zone credit and the revenue bond
program are real incentives for attracting businesses to operate within
the District.
The District has not been able to offer these very important
benefits for the past 5 months. It is important to our economic growth
that these tax incentives we reauthorize.
FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
Historically, the relationship between the District and the Federal
Government has been a unique political and financial arrangement.
Between 1879 and 1920, the Federal Government would provide assistance
by paying half of all District expenditures. Subsequently, given the
various Federal prohibitions on taxing nonresident incomes, Federal
properties, Federal purchase of goods and services, the District would
receive a direct payment. This payment was stopped in 1997 when the
Federal Government assumed responsibility for the cost of the
contributions to the police, firefighters, and teachers retirement
plans, various Court services and portions of other State functions.
It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was
passed, one recommendation was that Congress would not need to review
or approve the District's budget because the city would no longer
receive any Federal payments. At a minimum, Congress should no longer
approve the local portion of the District's budget. Just like the other
50 States, the District should be solely responsible for approving its
own local spending. Achieving such budget autonomy will allow the
District to implement its budget in a timely manner and will assist in
improving the city's fiscal management. I want to thank you Mr.
Chairman, the subcommittee and the Senate for supporting this
initiative. It is my hope that the U.S. House of Representatives will
soon join you in adopting this proposal.
The District Government is always challenged in developing its
budget due to the ongoing structural imbalance that exists between its
spending needs and its revenue generation capacity. As noted in the
General Accounting Office's May 2003 report the imbalance amounts to
between $400 million to $1.143 billion per year. The report also noted
that the cost of providing public services is much higher in the
District than it is in the average State due to a relatively large
poverty population, poor health indicators, high crime, and the high
cost of living. The report stated that the District has a very high
revenue capacity, and the city is already taxing toward the upper limit
of our revenue capacity, thereby creating a punitive tax structure.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced Bill H.R. 4269,
the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004. The
bill outlines the unique situation of the District of Columbia as a
Federal city. It proposes an annual Federal payment of $800 million
with provisions to adjust the number in the future. The $800 million
would be made available to address important structural needs of the
city, which the District Government cannot fully fund from its current
budget. Transportation and street maintenance, information technology
and DCPS capital improvements are essential to the running of the city.
I ask for this subcommittee to support this legislation and encourage
adoption by the Senate.
I would like to mention one other way that the Congress could
assist the District Government in managing its funds. Dr. Gandhi has
proposed changes to the requirements for the Emergency and Contingency
Cash Reserve funds. The proposed changes would provide additional
monies for local programming and the provision of services to the
residents of the District of Columbia while still maintaining required
reserve levels. Your support of the proposed changes would be of great
benefit to developing and managing our budget.
CONCLUSION
Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that
you support and pass the budget in time for the start of the new fiscal
year and before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. Furthermore, we
urge you to pass the budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This
much anticipated fiscal year 2005 budget is important because it shows
how the Mayor and the Council can work together and underscores our
commitment to make Washington, DC one of the best governed cities in
the Nation.
Nonetheless, the Council will continue to oversee the Executive's
operations and expenditures. We will be responsive to our constituents
who call the District their home. We will work with the Mayor,
Congress, and the surrounding governments to achieve mutually shared
goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good responsible
budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for
future generations. Granted we do not always agree from time to time,
but we will be at the table to assert ourselves as an institution and
work for the betterment and future of our citizens.
I thank you for this opportunity to present the fiscal year 2005
budget and these issues of major importance to the District of
Columbia.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Dr. Gandhi.
STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI
Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,
Senator Hutchison. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial
Officer for the District of Columbia and I am here today to
testify on the District's fiscal year 2005 budget request to
the Congress.
The Congress created the District's Office of the Chief
Financial Officer to preserve and enhance the District's
financial viability at all times. The District has made
substantial progress in the last 7 years, achieving a
consistent series of balanced budgets and clean audits, and
significantly improving its financial infrastructure.
As part of this success, the District has had a $1.4
billion turn-around in fund balance, from a negative of $518
million in 1996 to a positive balance of about $897 million at
the end of fiscal year 2003. We had almost $254 million in cash
reserves for emergency and contingency purposes at the end of
fiscal year 2003, probably the largest of such reserves as a
percentage of budget in the entire Nation.
The crowning event to date, in fiscal year 2004, is the
recent two-notch upgrade in the rating on our general
obligation bonds from Moody's, lifting our rating to the A
category from all rating agencies for the first time ever. And
I particularly want to thank this committee, and particularly
Senator Hutchison, for taking a lead on that.
We continue to build on this record of accomplishment.
Standardized spending plans for all agencies are now in place,
and we are monitoring reserves against those plans using a new
online financial management tool for controlling agency
spending.
The District has enacted its own Anti-Deficiency Act to
hold financial and program managers accountable for achieving
program results within approved budgets. The first-ever local
anti-deficiency report identifying agencies that have strayed
from the approved budgets and spending plans in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2004 is forthcoming.
With all these accomplishments in place as evidence of
ongoing fiscal prudence and commitment to sound fiscal
management, it is high time to grant the District local budget
autonomy. It will allow the District to improve budget
preparation and management quite significantly.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your leadership and
support on that matter, and we hope that the U.S. House of
Representatives will soon follow your lead in this matter.
The fiscal year 2004 financial outlook is good, and I am
confident that we will end the year with a balanced budget one
more time. The fiscal year 2005 budget request has just been
voted on by the Council on May 14. As Chairman Cropp pointed
out, the Council and the Mayor are currently reconciling their
respective budget amendments, and we will provide the
subcommittee with the final numbers as soon as they are
available. However, I would like to briefly summarize some of
the key points in the request.
The local funds, taxes and fees paid by D.C. residents
comprise about two-thirds of the total budget, or about $4.16
billion, an increase of about $332 million, or about 8.7
percent. Please note that the expenditure growth for the local
funds in 2005 does not set the mold for 2006 and beyond.
Expenditures are expected to grow at 4.5, 4.3 and 4.5 percent
for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively.
The 2005 budget includes important budget corrections or
increases to recognize the true cost of providing the current
level of services. The increases in this budget are driven by
the cost of maintaining current programs at existing program
levels, not by new program initiatives. All of the total
increase of $332 million in local fund expenditures is related
to maintaining current services.
Two areas of note are Medicaid and public education. The
rising Medicaid expenditures are in large part due to the cost
of providing care to the District's aging and disabled
population. In 2000, 20.3 percent of the District's population
was disabled, and about 12 percent was over the age of 65. The
cost of caring for these groups has increased at a rate much
faster than inflation. The District has also experienced
enrollment increases and has now reached 99-percent-eligible
enrollment status.
When we benchmark our Medicaid programs with our
neighboring States, here is what we find. Fully 25 percent of
the District's population is enrolled in Medicaid, compared to
12 percent in Maryland and 9 percent in Virginia. The District
spends on average $7,200 per enrollee, compared to about $5,500
in Maryland and about $5,100 in Virginia. Per resident, the
District of Columbia spends about $1,776, compared to about
$649 in Maryland and $445 in Virginia.
In public education, the formula increases in public
education for both D.C. public schools and charter schools
added about $70 million over the 2004 budget. However, these
increases are needed to maintain schools as they operate today.
The economic outlook for the District of Columbia for
fiscal year 2005 is quite good. Retail sales, including
tourism, are expected to be up by about 5 percent, reflecting
the current trends. The real estate market continues to be very
strong, with taxes on property sales remaining at all-time
highs. Real property tax revenues are expected to increase by
about 11 percent in 2005.
Our 5-year financial plan projects positive net operating
margins through fiscal year 2008. However, the District will
operate on a very slim financial margin, about $2 million, in
fiscal year 2005. As you are aware, in fiscal year 2002 the
District fully funded its emergency and contingency cash
reserve funds at the maximum current required level, totaling
about $248 million, or 7 percent of the total expenditure
budget. This was a significant accomplishment, achieved 5 years
ahead of our deadline, and it has contributed significantly to
the District's bond rating upgrades.
Senator DeWine. Doctor, if you could wrap up, please.
Dr. Gandhi. All I need to add here is basically the changes
that we are currently working with Senator Hutchison's office
on, once they are implemented into law, we will be able to
provide still a substantial amount of cash in there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The last thing I would want to say is basically we
appreciate your lead on the structural imbalance, and on that
front the recent legislation that is sponsored by Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton in the House would be the most welcome correction
for the District's structural imbalance.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. I request
that my written testimony be made part of the record.
Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record. Thank
you very much.
Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Natwar M. Gandhi
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, and members of the
subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the
District of Columbia, and I am here today to testify on the District's
fiscal year 2005 budget request to the Congress. My remarks will
briefly touch on the fiscal year 2004 financial outlook, the fiscal
year 2005 request, and the overall health of the District's finances.
OVERARCHING FINANCIAL GOAL
Since assuming this office, my overwhelming objective has been to
preserve, enhance, and secure the District's financial viability for
today and into the indefinite future. The District has made substantial
progress in the last 7 years, achieving a consistent series of balanced
budgets and clean audits, and significantly improving our financial
infrastructure. As part of this success, the District has had a $1.4
billion turned around in fund balance from a negative $518 million in
1996 to a positive balance of $897 million at the end of fiscal year
2003. We have over $253 million in cash reserves for emergency and
contingency purposes, the largest such reserves as compared to budget
that I can identify in the entire Nation. The culminating event to-date
in fiscal year 2004 is the recent upgrade in the rating on our General
Obligation bonds from Moody's Financial Services, lifting our rating to
the ``A'' category from all rating agencies for the first time ever.
We continue to build on this record of accomplishment. Standardized
spending plans for all agencies are now in place and we are monitoring
results against those plans using a new on-line financial management
tool for controlling agency budgets. Across all agencies, we are
building performance budgets that set targets for accomplishments and
benchmark these targets against best practices in local government. The
District has enacted its own Anti-Deficiency Act to hold financial and
program managers accountable for achieving program results within
approved budgets. We have recently issued the first ever local Anti-
Deficiency report identifying agencies that have strayed from their
approved budgets and spending plans in the first quarter of fiscal year
2004.
The District is making steady progress on its long-term replacement
strategy for its administrative systems--the Administrative Services
Modernization Program (ASMP)--spearheaded by the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer. Over the next 3 years, all of the District's
administrative systems--personnel, payroll, procurement, property
management, and budget--will be upgraded and integrated with the System
of Accounting and Reporting (SOAR). For the first time, the District
will have a top quality, integrated information system with which to
manage District operations. Already in operation is a new procurement
system linked to our accounting system. A new budget system is
scheduled to become operational in August 2004, a personnel system in
November 2004 and a payroll system in July 2005.
With all of these accomplishments in place, as evidence of ongoing
fiscal prudence and commitment to fiscal viability, it is time for two
changes in the District's relationship with the Federal Government.
Specifically, budget autonomy will allow the District to improve budget
preparation and management quite significantly. Without autonomy we
must prepare specific expenditure plans and revenue estimates many
months in advance of the actual budget year, adding more-than-usual
uncertainty about the planned budget and posing more difficulty in
budget execution. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your support and
that of the U.S. Senate on the matter of budget autonomy and am very
hopeful that the U.S. House of Representatives will soon follow your
lead in this matter.
It also is time for some additional Federal consideration of the
District's infrastructure needs. The District faces about $3 billion in
infrastructure needs in the next 4 years--mostly in schools, streets
and transportation--that cannot possibly be funded locally. The
District of Columbia already has the highest per capita general
obligation debt in the Nation and a tax burden that is 18 to 33 percent
higher than average for the States. Our only local options for meeting
these infrastructure deficiencies are: (1) adding even more per capita
debt--an action very much frowned on by the rating agencies, (2)
increasing per capita tax burdens--an action likely to discourage
current and potential residents and employers, or (3) lower delivery of
other types of services--a difficult choice in a city with an unusually
large population of people in need.
In May 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) strongly
underscored the District's unique financial challenges in generating
the funds to finance all usual and necessary services. An annual
structural imbalance is identified in report GAO-03-666, of $470
million to $1.14 billion between the costs of delivering typical
services and the revenue available from typical tax burdens, based on
the fiscal year 2000 budget and data. Over the years, the District
dealt with this gap by neglecting infrastructure needs and assessing
very high taxes. Today, we continue to need assistance to address our
many infrastructure problems.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
Through the leadership and cooperation of our elected officials,
the District made the necessary tough decisions to assure a balanced
budget for fiscal year 2004. As of this time, all identified spending
pressures have been resolved through internal or interprogram
reallocations. I am confident we will end the year with a balanced
budget.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
The Council of the District of Columbia voted to approve the fiscal
year 2005 budget request on May 14. I would like to briefly summarize
some of the key points in the request.
In total, the District's gross funds operating request for fiscal
year 2005 is $6.25 billion, an increase of about $545 million, or 9.6
percent, over the approved fiscal year 2004 level of $5.7 billion. The
total number of positions in fiscal year 2005 from all funding sources
is 33,050, an increase of 882 positions.
Local funds, taxes and fees paid by D.C. residents comprise about
two-thirds of the total budget, about $4.17 billion, an increase of
about $332 million, or 8.7 percent, over fiscal year 2004 levels. The
total number of positions funded with local funds is 26,050 in fiscal
year 2005, a decrease of 195 positions.
Please note that the expenditure growth for local funds in fiscal
year 2005 does not set the mold for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
Expenditures are expected to grow at 4.1, 4.6 and 4.3 percent for
fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. The fiscal year 2005
budget includes important budget corrections or increases to recognize
the true cost of providing the current level of services, including
entitlements experiencing both higher provider rates and utilization,
court orders' compliance costs, attainable projections of Medicaid
reimbursements, higher pension costs for prior years' pay raises for
teachers, police officers and firefighters, as well as new operating
costs from completed capital projects. Almost half of the fiscal year
2005 local funds growth rate of 8.7 percent, or $156 million of the
$332 million increase, is due to these one-time budget corrections for
fiscal year 2004 service level and rate increases. The reminder of the
growth--4.6 percent (growth rate of 8.7 percent minus 4.1 percent) or
$176 million--is anticipated service level and cost increases for
fiscal year 2005 alone. If we isolated service level and rate increases
for just fiscal year 2005, it would be 4.6 percent rather than a 8.7
percent growth, which is in-line with the previously mentioned out-
years growth rates.
COST DRIVERS
The increases in this budget are driven by the cost of maintaining
current programs at existing program levels, not by new program
initiatives. All of the total increase of $332 million in local fund
expenditures is related to maintaining current services. Program
initiatives of $36.3 million are accommodated by making program
reductions or shifting costs to other fund sources.
Medicaid.--The fiscal year 2005 proposed budget for Medicaid is
$1.4 billion, or 22 percent of the District's gross funds budget. Total
program costs have risen 45.2 percent and local fund costs by 30.9
percent between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year
2005, Medicaid costs are projected to increase by $39 million.
There are several contributing factors to rising Medicaid
expenditures, but they are in large part due to the cost of providing
care to the aging and disabled populations. Care for these groups has
increased at a rate much faster than inflation because of price
increases in prescription medications, the rapidly rising costs for
nursing home services, and labor costs that continue to soar, driven by
a nationwide shortage of nurses and new staffing requirements. The
District has also experienced enrollment increases and has now reached
99 percent eligible enrollment status. This is attributable mainly to
aggressive outreach campaigns and program expansions such as the
Childless Adults Waiver that offers coverage for ages 50-64 up to 50
percent FPL and the expansion of the HIV/AIDS Waiver.
When we benchmarked our Medicaid program with our neighboring
States, here is what we found:
--25 percent of the District's population is enrolled in Medicaid--
compared to 12 percent in Maryland and 9 percent in Virginia.
--The District spends, on average, $7,242 per enrollee--compared to
$5,509 in Maryland and $5,177 in Virginia.
Per resident, D.C. spends $1,776--compared to $649 in Maryland and $445
in Virginia.
Costs per enrollee are higher in the District than in surrounding
jurisdictions because the District, an entirely urban area, has higher
costs to deliver the same services as Maryland and Virginia. These
States spread part of their service delivery over rural areas that have
lower costs. With higher costs per enrollee and a high proportion of
its population in need, D.C. taxpayers carry a large burden for their
fellow residents.
Public Education.--Formula increases in public education for both
D.C. Public Schools and Charter Schools add $75 million to this
appropriation. However, these increases are needed to maintain schools
as they operate today.
Pay Costs.--The increased cost of maintaining the District's
workforce, essentially unchanged in size from fiscal year 2004, is $89
million--an increase of six percent over fiscal year 2004. These
increased costs are driven predominantly by previously negotiated
labor/management agreements.
Operating Impact of Capital Projects.--As a matter of good-
budgeting, the District has decided to recognize explicitly in its
operating budgets the on-going maintenance costs of completed capital
projects. This approach assures that the on-going operational costs of
such projects do not show up as subsequent spending pressures or
inadequately maintained systems. In the past 5 years, the District has
had an aggressive program of capital improvements in the information
technology arena and must now budget for resultant maintenance costs.
In fiscal year 2005, such costs add $28 million to our baseline needs.
Debt Service and Other Fixed Costs Increases.--An increase of $68
million is required to service the District's debt and meet fixed cost
increases (rent, telecommunications, etc.).
The chart at the end of my testimony breaks out these cost
increases by type.
THE FISCAL FORECAST
The economic outlook for the District in fiscal year 2005 is quite
good, with a forecast growth in the baseline tax revenue of 5.4
percent. Retail sales, including tourist accommodations and
restaurants, as well as general retail, are expected to be up by 5
percent--reflecting current trends--as will individual and corporate
income taxes. The real estate market continues very strong, with taxes
on property sales remaining at all time highs and real property tax
revenue expected to increase 11 percent in fiscal year 2005. Special
purpose revenue funds will grow by 8.7 percent.
The fiscal year 2005-fiscal year 2008 financial plan projects
positive net operating margins through fiscal year 2008. However, the
District will operate on a very slim financial margin--about $1 million
in fiscal year 2005--based on expenditure plans and forecasts of
revenue growth. The 8.7 percent expenditure growth in the fiscal year
2005 budget is financed through the use of growth in current year
revenues and fund balance amounts accumulated from prior years. Once
used, a fund balance is gone and on-going expenditure requirements must
ultimately be met with on-going revenue streams. Our financial plan
shows that the District of Columbia meets this requirement in the
planning period.
Because of these tight projected margins, any adverse disturbance
in the District's expected financial fortune could necessitate
immediate major cutbacks in programs and services. Our very large
emergency and contingency reserves are of limited help, for two
reasons. First, the conditions for use are very restrictive and,
second, any funds used must be paid back in the next fiscal year.
Realistically, and especially in very difficult circumstances when
resources are desperately needed, the District cannot take advantage of
these funds. It will be challenging for our revenue stream to sustain
the current level of service, and there is no room for consideration of
additional program initiatives or significant infrastructure
investments. For these reasons, the city and its elected leadership
will face progressively more difficult program and financial decisions
in the years to come.
CAPITAL BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
One area where the imbalance between revenues and needed
expenditures is already apparent is in the capital budget. The Capital
program is increasingly constrained by limited operating revenues to
support debt service as well as by the impact of prudent debt ratios
and debt service affordability determinations. To maintain good
standing with Wall Street, we must cap annual capital borrowing at $400
million in fiscal year 2005, $350 million in fiscal year 2006 and $300
million in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. With estimated needs
of $775 million, the District's Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal
year 2005 has an expenditure gap of approximately $375 million.
Structural Imbalance in the District's Budget.--In the last 7
years, the District has submitted balanced and responsible budgets
during periods of increasing, as well as declining, revenues. Our
restrained budgeting in the good years helped us work through some of
the hard times. Despite this record of balanced budgets, the District
has a serious long-term financial problem--a structural imbalance that
transcends short-term challenges and cyclical revenue fluctuations.
This structural imbalance is a long-term gap between the District's
ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the District's
ability to provide services of reasonable quality and quantity to its
residents. The causes and consequences of this imbalance were well
documented by the General Accounting Office.
The GAO defines a financial structural imbalance as an inability to
provide a representative array of public services by taxing at
representative rates. Using this definition, many municipalities could
legitimately claim to have a structural imbalance. However, the
District is unique among all municipal governments. It is the only city
chartered in the Constitution of the United States and under the
legislative jurisdiction of the Congress--that is, the District is the
only Federal City of the United States of America. It is the only city
that has no State to share costs or underwrite expenditures in whole or
part; instead, the District of Columbia bears about $500 million
annually in costs of Mental Health, Human Services, Child and Family
Services, a University, Motor Vehicles, Taxation, Insurance Regulation,
Public Service Commission, and other State services. The District is a
city whose primary employer is self-determined to be exempt from tax on
its property and exempt from tax on its income. Further, by Federal
law, the preponderance of workers in the District of Columbia are
exempt from the District of Columbia income tax. Lastly, it is the only
municipality in the country that must exercise the responsibilities of
a city, county, State, and school district. Although the District has
the taxing authority for all types of taxes typical of States and local
governments combined, it does not have the corresponding tax base
sufficient to pay for the services it must provide.
As a consequence of these factors, the GAO finds the District's
structural imbalance for fiscal year 2000 to be 14.4 percent to 40.3
percent of local revenue, depending on how it is measured. Note that
this is after the benefits of the 1997 Revitalization Act that relieved
the District of some State-like services and ended the annual Federal
payment. According to GAO, the District either is among the group of
States with the very highest shortfalls (at the very lowest end of the
range) or the District has more than twice the shortfall of the highest
State (at the highest end of the range). The lower-end represents a set
of services typical of a State and the higher-end adds emphasis for
dense urban areas. The District obviously falls somewhere above the
bottom and, arguably, close to the top. Because of our urban population
and service requirements, the District of Columbia's problem clearly is
severe and exceeds that of any State.
The GAO report also finds that the District of Columbia continues
to defer significant amounts of infrastructure development because of
constraints in its operating budget. When compared to combined State
and local debt across the 50 States, GAO found that the District's debt
ranks as the highest in the Nation both per capita and as a percentage
of own-source revenue.
THE BASIS FOR FEDERAL ACTION TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE
Because of the District's unique status, the Federal Government--
both the legislative and executive branches--has recognized its
responsibility to assist the District in meeting its municipal
financing needs. For many years, federally appointed commissioners
administered the delivery of municipal services under the aegis of the
Federal Government. With the establishment of limited home rule in
1973, chartering Federal legislation provided for a Federal payment.
The basis for such payment was laid out in Section 11601 of the Act,
which recognized the special limitations and burdens placed on the
District by the Federal Government. These restrictions included
limitations on the District's taxing authority, the costs of providing
municipal services to Federal installations in the District, and the
special costs imposed on the District because of its status as the
capital of the Nation.
The District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997 restructured
responsibilities in a way that resulted in the assumption by the
Federal Government of prisons, courts and certain D.C. employee pension
liabilities. In the absence of a parent State for the District, under
the Revitalization Act, the Federal Government assumed certain
responsibilities that in other localities would be undertaken by the
State. At the same time, this Act phased out the annual Federal payment
to the District but contained language permitting this issue to be
revisited at an appropriate time.
In addition to the courts and prisons, each year the Federal
Government provides financial assistance to the District for a variety
of targeted projects. Apart from pass-throughs to non-governmental
entities and formula-driven Federal entitlement payments, this amount
has ranged from a high of $167 million in fiscal year 1998 to a low of
$24 million in fiscal year 2000 and was $127 million in fiscal year
2003. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Revitalization Act, and the
continued financial support from the Federal Government for earmarked
projects, the District still faces an on-going structural imbalance.
When it comes to addressing the structural imbalance, we see few
additional options other than continuing to shortcut services. Already
the District has extremely high tax burdens; recall that by GAO account
this burden ranges from 18 percent to 33 percent above the average for
States, depending on the measurement used. Increasing the tax burden on
District businesses and residents even further simply influences
potential and current residents or businesses to locate in adjacent
lower-tax or higher-service States. Given the structural imbalance, the
District must continue to choose between tax levels that are even
higher than the national average, service levels that are lower than
the national average, or combinations of both.
It is my hope that the GAO report helps Congress and the District
move beyond questions of whether there is a structural imbalance to
questions of how the Federal Government and District government can
work together to address this problem. And this problem must be
addressed with urgency to assure the long-term financial viability of
the Nation's capital city.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton authored Bill H.R. 4269, the
District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004, that
recognizes the District's unique needs and provides unique solutions.
That Bill establishes a Dedicated Infrastructure Account within the
general fund of the District. The fund would receive $800 million
annually in Federal monies, with growth adjustments over time. These
monies could be used only for transportation including streets,
information technology, and DCPS infrastructure developments and to
support debt service payments on bonds, notes and other obligations of
the District. Funds would remain available until expended.
I urge the Senate to consider the Norton bill favorably. By
providing for infrastructure development, it can help reverse the
history of necessary neglect and move the District of Columbia toward
the shining example that should be set by the capital city of the free
world. With so many financial accomplishments now well underway in the
District of Columbia, this is the last major piece of the financial
puzzle and the District cannot prosper into the future without it.
CASH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
The District's flexibility in managing its finances is also
constrained by its current reserve requirements. As you are aware, in
fiscal year 2002, the District fully funded its Emergency and
Contingency Cash Reserve Funds at their maximum required levels,
totaling $248 million, or 7 percent of the local expenditure budget.
This was a significant accomplishment, achieved 5 years ahead of the
Congressionally mandated time frame. Maintaining the 7 percent level
for the District's Cash Reserves required an increase to $254 million
for fiscal year 2003 and $285 million for fiscal year 2004. In fiscal
year 2005 the emergency and contingency cash reserves combined are
budgeted to reach $303 million. This is in addition to the $50 million
in operating cash reserve maintained by the District. If I may, I would
like to briefly summarize cash reserve requirements elsewhere as a
reminder of how noteworthy the District's performance is in this area.
No other major city has a cash reserve requirement except Denver,
which is required to have 3 percent of general fund expenditures in a
reserve.
Among States, most have some form of cash reserve or ``rainy day''
fund. Further,
--the approximate average size of these funds is 5 percent of budget;
--most States have no replenishment requirement, but 6 States require
the funds to be replenished over the course of 2, 3, or 5
years; and
--in 21 States, the reserve funds can be used when the State faces a
deficit for any reason, and in most other States the funds can
be used in the event of a revenue shortfall.
Working with Congress, the District has developed proposed changes
to our emergency and contingency cash reserve requirements. These
changes, included in the District's fiscal year 2005 Budget Request
Act, would reduce the overall requirement from 7 percent to 6 percent
(2 percent Emergency and 4 percent Contingency). The proposed changes
would modify the requirement for replenishment from a 1-year
replenishment to a 2-year requirement with no less than 50 percent
being paid back in the first fiscal year after use. In addition, the
proposed changes recognize that the District's Home Rule Act requires
the District to maintain a separate cash reserve for expenditures
associated with debt service payments. This separate cash reserve is in
addition to the 7 percent emergency and contingency cash reserves. The
proposed changes remove from the calculation of the 7 percent emergency
and contingency cash reserve those expenditures associated with debt
service for which this separate reserve is already maintained. Finally,
the proposal would change the basis of the calculation of the 7 percent
for the emergency and contingency cash reserves from local fund
expenditures as proposed in the District's upcoming fiscal year budget,
to local fund expenditures as calculated in the annual Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report.
Even with, what we hope will be congressional enactment of the
proposed changes, you can see from the comparison to other States, the
District has an exceptionally strong reserve position, but would still
have among the most demanding of any jurisdiction in the country with
respect to the amount required, the fact that access to these funds is
granted only in declared major emergencies or serious revenue
contingencies and the replenishment requirements.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request that
this testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to answer
any questions you or the other members may have.
Senator DeWine. Mayor, you have requested $9 million in
Federal support for a new forensic lab. As a former county
prosecutor, I certainly understand the need for good forensic
work.
What will be the local contribution for this and what is
the total cost of the project? And something you and I
discussed the other day--what are the operational cost
estimates when the lab is up and running? Have you figured that
out yet?
Mayor Williams. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. We estimate
that the overall cost will be $80 million through 2008.
Senator DeWine. For the construction of the lab itself?
Mayor Williams. For the planning and the construction, and
the District's participation would be over that period. So, for
example, in the first year we are requesting $9 million. The
District would contribute $2.3 million for a total of $11.3. In
2006, the combined Federal-District contribution would be $30
million; the same for 2007 in construction. And then in fiscal
year 2008, for construction, commissioning, and the completion,
it would be $8.7. So it would be a partnership.
As I said in my testimony, we are prepared to--and I can't
speak for whoever is Mayor at that time, but we are committed
to putting in place $40 million. That would be about $20
million more than we are spending right now to operate this
facility because we believe the benefits to our city, to
Federal workers and to visitors alike are more than worth the
investment.
Senator DeWine. So it would be how much per year, Mayor? I
am sorry.
Mayor Williams. Around $42 million, my people are telling
me. So that is about $20 million more than we are spending now.
Senator DeWine. For the lab itself?
Mayor Williams. Right, so we are assuming the operating
burden for this facility.
Senator DeWine. So the use of the lab is just going to go
up, as we would expect, as you and I discussed the other day.
Mayor Williams. Right, because we are going to be doing
more than we do now.
Senator DeWine. Sure. It is going to do a lot more than you
are doing now, and your results, we assume, will significantly
increase. And if you got a good lab there, what is going to
happen is that your prosecutors and your police are going to be
able to use it more, and as they use it more, your costs are
going to go up.
Mayor Williams. Right.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Mayor Williams. I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have shown a
lot of progress with Chief Ramsey, with the oversight--the
Council has been very strong and adamant about this--in
improving our closure rate to where it is now leading many
other cities. But we still have a long way to go and the
forensics lab would really enormously help that effort.
Senator DeWine. Your current situation now is that you use
the FBI lab. That is free to you, is that right, or do you pay
for that or how does that work?
Mayor Williams. I believe it is free.
Senator DeWine. But you have got limited use of it?
Mayor Williams. You get what you pay for, right.
Senator DeWine. Well, I mean in all fairness, it is a
limited use, though.
Mayor Williams. Right, because we are not their top
priority, by definition.
Senator DeWine. Right, and that is just the way it is.
Mayor Williams. We thank the FBI and we value their
partnership. I don't mean to say anything otherwise.
Senator DeWine. Right, but in all fairness, it is not
yours.
Mayor Williams. Right.
Senator DeWine. Let me ask you about your request in regard
to Federal support to help the District meet its commitment to
Metro. Why is this important?
Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think it is enormously
important because if you look at our Metro responsibilities, as
I said before, this is something that benefits not only the
District, but it benefits our visitors, it benefits our Federal
workers, it benefits the overall region.
We are paying a disproportionate share here in the District
for regular funding compared to Maryland and Virginia because
the formula doesn't recognize our peculiar situation, and the
structure of the Metro, as well, doesn't. We have a number of
stations, for example, that are right within the District's
boundary, and the long and short of it is we have an enormous
amount of commuter use of our Metro and that is not reflected
in the formula.
Finally, as I said in my testimony earlier, the Federal
Government has withdrawn support over the years, has reduced
its support for Metro, while States have increased support. But
we have no State to increase support to compensate for that
lack of Federal support. So that is all coming out of the
District, some $210 million.
In terms of actual benefits, we are talking about increased
ridership, new bus systems that particularly would allow our
lower-income workers--I know the Senate, for example, has been
very, very supportive of mothers moving into the world of work,
with support for day care. This would allow those mothers the
opportunity to have transportation to get to their jobs. So
there are enormous benefits to this, as well. I would be happy
to go into more detail.
Senator DeWine. No, no, that is fine.
Dr. Gandhi. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may just add some
numbers to what the Mayor just said, we are talking about in
2004 roughly $163 million of operating expenditures that we
have to provide to Metro. That goes to 171, 179, 188, all the
way up to 2007.
But more important is the capital needs that we have to
provide for, and the needs are something like $250 million in
2004, double that much, or about $420 million in 2005, and keep
on going to $468 million in 2007. Obviously, these are enormous
needs and we cannot afford to provide that kind of capital
funding because we have a limitation. As the Mayor pointed out,
we have the highest per capita borrowing in the country, and if
we were to go out and borrow more money, it would affect our
bond rating. So we are in kind of a catch-22 here.
Ms. Cropp. Mr. Chairman, if you took the capital needs for
Metro and the capital needs for our school system alone, there
would be no more capital dollars available for any other
infrastructure needs in the District of Columbia.
Senator DeWine. Well, my time is up. I am going to have
some more questions, but let me turn to Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
have four questions, if I could, on, No. 1, the imbalance that
I would like to get some information on the record on, the
structural imbalance; one on the school governance issue; the
progress we are making on child welfare; and also back to
education and tuition assistance. There may be more, but I
would like to try to work through these.
I think, Mr. Mayor, based on my view, having worked with
many of you on a variety of different issues, it would be fair
to say--and I would like if you would agree or disagree with
this--that with all the immediate challenges before the
District, the structural imbalance issue is at the core or is
essential to find some remedy.
According to the GAO study that was commissioned by
Congresswoman Norton and myself which was released last year--
the chairman is aware of this study--it is estimated that,
first of all, the gap is real and it exists. This is an
independent third party, so that was one of the findings. It
could be anywhere from $470 million to $1 billion.
The other interesting part of this finding said that the
District of Columbia cannot raise more revenue; it already has
one of the highest taxing structures in the Nation and the
region. It also says in this study the District of Columbia
cannot lower spending, spending 5 percent less already than
other urban areas for comparable services.
It says the imbalance is largely beyond the D.C. officials'
direct control. It does acknowledge that some additional
management efficiencies could be achieved, but it is quick to
say even if you did 100 percent and were perfect in your
management, which no city is, and obviously neither is the
Federal Government, you couldn't close the gap with management
efficiencies. It says the District of Columbia is not the same
as other cities. It has special benefits and burdens of being
the Nation's Capital.
So given that, and given your testimony, Mr. Mayor, do you
agree with this, and what are the one or two steps that we
could explore that, in your mind, might be a way the Federal
Government could help close that gap? Is it focused on maybe
capital outlay needs of the District? Could it be focused in
other ways? What would your suggestions be to us? And I am
hoping that this Congress could develop a remedy.
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I agree
wholeheartedly with the GAO study. I think in this case where
the GAO study has said something without any axe to grind on an
objective basis, I think they are right on the money. They have
also mentioned, in addition, Senator Landrieu, the fact that we
are a higher-cost urban area. They mention that the District
has the highest concentration of poverty in the United States.
We have one of the largest extremes in education in our
city and in income in our city of any city in the country, and
this concentration of poverty presents the District with higher
costs, particularly State costs, without the tax base to meet
them. So we are overly bonded and we are over-taxed.
I happen to think, chiming in with what Chairman Cropp has
said, if we spent all of our money on our schools and on our
Metro, we wouldn't have any more debt capacity. I think one of
the major ways that the Federal Government can meet this
responsibility is to take the measure that has been supported
by a number of regional leaders and led by Congresswoman Norton
that calls for a regular formula investment in the District,
and to take that formula investment and put it into our
infrastructure needs.
I think that, No. 1, that will relieve enormous pressure on
our budget, and, No. 2, these infrastructure needs really are
needs that are, No. 1, regional; No. 2, benefit the quality of
life in the District, but also benefit the Federal Government
because it benefits our Federal workers and it benefits our
visitors. So there is a shared interest in success in that
area. So I would strongly support using these funds to support
our debt financing and our infrastructure needs.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me say, Mr. Mayor, we are going
to look very closely at that proposal because obviously, based
on this study, some remedy has to be proposed. But, again, the
importance is to recognize the gap is real, that it is not
within the power of city officials to close the gap. So all the
reforms that we are putting in place, whether it is financial
reform, school reform, environmental reforms in terms of the
clean-up efforts underway, or the reforms on child welfare
which this chairman has led, are all in jeopardy if this issue
is not faced head-on.
So, Mr. Chairman, with all the challenges, I think if our
committee could stay focused on this solution, it would be
helpful.
I want to outline a particular formula. It could be
something like this; it could be something different. But if we
thought about taking the problem down into measurable amounts,
50 percent of the gap could be closed by a Federal relief in
some way, 15 percent--maybe it is not that high--10 or 15
percent by increased management efficiencies, and 35 percent
based on maybe new strategies within the District to increase
residents.
One way to close the gap is to bring new taxpayers to the
District so that you increase the tax base. The Mayor and the
Council, I think, have some strategies in place, and my second
question is about one of those strategies, in particular, which
is City Build charters.
Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you for your support and
efforts.
I wanted to read for the record what the City Build charter
initiative is and then submit a longer document. With the help
of our committee and with you all, we created a City Build
charter school initiative. It is designed specifically to meet
the Mayor's goal, shared by the Council, of attracting 100,000
new residents to the District by targeting neighborhoods that
have the near-term potential of attracting and retaining new
homeowners, particularly those with school-age children, by
using the promise of quality schools as an economic development
tool to increase the residential and commercial tax base of the
District.
[The information follows:]
City Build Charter School Initiative
``Improving education is one of the most crucial elements to
improving our city. It is key to attracting 100,000 new residents, who
want to live and raise children in the District.''----Mayor Anthony
Williams, Feb. 14, 2003.
WHAT IS THE ``CITY BUILD'' CHARTER SCHOOL INITIATIVE?
The ``City Build'' Charter School initiative is designed
specifically meet the Mayor's goal of attracting 100,000 new residents
to the District by targeting neighborhoods that have the near term
potential of attracting or retaining new home owners, particularly
those with school age children, by using the promise of quality schools
as an economic development tool to increase the residential and
commercial tax base of the city.
In the Senate D.C. Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004,
Congress included $5 million to develop a ``City Build'' Charter School
Initiative. This initial appropriation will be used to create five new
charter schools in the District neighborhoods that demonstrate the
greatest potential for meeting the goals of the program.
HOW WILL THE NEW SCHOOL SITES BE CHOSEN?
As stated in the text of the appropriations bill, Mayor Williams
will be responsible for selecting sites for the five new charter
schools. The determination of the neighborhoods and school sites will
be made in consultation with the D.C. City Council, the School Board,
advocacy groups and community and business leaders in a public meeting.
The selection of neighborhoods best suited to help attract or retain
100,000 D.C. residents, will take into consideration the following:
--The number, quality and affordability of the neighborhood schools
(public, charter and independent).
--The waiting lists for admission to the areas high performing
public, independent and charter schools.
--Recent trends in the neighborhood's real estate market, including
the sale and purchase of homes, demand for rental properties
and the potential for population growth and increased private
investment.
ARE THE ``CITY BUILD'' CHARTERS THE ONLY NEW CHARTERS AVAILABLE THIS
YEAR?
No. Since the passing of the District of Columbia's charter school
law in 1996, the District of Columbia's chartering authorities have
approved almost 40 charters, earning the District of Columbia the
distinction of having the highest concentration of charter schools in
the Nation. The ``City Build'' initiative is designed to further this
laudable growth in the use of charter schools as a means of achieving
excellence and expanded choice for children and their parents. The
District of Columbia's charter school law allows for up to 20 new
charters to be created each year. To support these efforts, the Fiscal
Year 2004 Appropriation also includes $8 million for the Charter School
Direct Loan program and other charter school support programs, bringing
the total Federal support for D.C. charter schools over the last 3
years to almost $40 million.
WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THESE AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, DON'T THEY
NEED HELP?
Yes. The ``City Build'' Charter program is only a part of an
overall plan for transforming elementary and secondary education in the
District. With this in mind, Congress appropriated a total of $40
million in 2003 for school improvement activities; $13 million for
public school transformation activities; $13 million for charter school
enhancement programs, including the $5 million for the ``City Build''
initiative, and $13 million to provide opportunity scholarships for low
income students to attend private schools. The goal of all of these
efforts is not to create competition among the various types of
schools, but to create a strong synergy around the shared goal of
giving parents more choice and every child a chance to succeed.
Expanding high quality options allows parents to make the choice that
is best for their child and their needs.
WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN?
The Appropriations Committee intends for this to be a 5-year,
ongoing appropriation. If funding allows, the goal would be to fund
three to five new ``City Build'' charter schools each year for the next
5 years. As other public and private funds become available and as this
pilot program proves successful, opportunities for future ``City
Build'' charters will be explored.
HOW WILL THE PROGRAM BE EVALUATED?
Each year, the Mayor will report to Congress on the effectiveness
of the program. Such report should include:
--The academic performance of the students and the overall
performance of the schools funded by this initiative.
--The enrollment of schools funded by this initiative.
--The waiting lists for schools funded by this initiative.
--The impact of these schools on the sales and/or purchases of homes
as well as rental turnover, specifically by residents with
children.
--The impact of these schools on the size of the population of the
neighborhood.
--The impact of these schools on the overall vitality of the
neighborhood.
At the end of the 5 years, the U.S. Department of Education will
conduct an independent evaluation to determine if this initiative could
be expanded to other urban areas in need of similar development.
Senator Landrieu. So I am urging us to consider this
strategy as one of many strategies--tax credits. There could be
other school-related strategies, other economic development
strategies in neighborhoods, as part of this structural
imbalance challenge. Again, the Federal Government should step
up and commit some resources. The city can continue to improve
its efficiencies to close that gap, but another very important
part of that is what can we do to attract new residents to the
city.
So, Mr. Mayor, my question is you have been given under our
new law the obligation to identify the potential neighborhoods
where these City Build charters may work to attract middle-
income families to either stop leaving or return to the
District.
Without going into any specific detail, just give some
comments about your thoughts about this initiative, your hopes
for it. Do we think we could build on it this year and expand
it in the years to come? Do you see as an effective tool for
trying to get new residents back to the city?
Mayor Williams. I think City Build is an enormously
important initiative because it really gives us more
flexibility and focus in improving education, and education is
critical to providing the expectations that families have when
they move to a city.
The three critical things are operations, public safety and
public education. I believe the city has made enormous strides
on the operation front in terms of predictability, regularity
and efficiency of service. So then that gives you public
safety. We have begun making some inroads on public safety. We
are running substantially below last year in crime now, and I
applaud the chief and our public safety people, and
particularly City Administrator Robert Bobb for focusing on the
high-crime hot spots.
So that leaves us with public education. The Mayor and the
Council are engaged in discussions about the governance of
education, bringing in the very best superintendent, and we are
moving on that front. The Mayor and the Council have worked
together in supporting a robust charter school effort, leading
the country per capita in the number of charter schools, and a
key part of that is City Build.
We are hoping that, by June, we can receive applications
for these City Build schools in targeted neighborhoods and,
with City Build, provide one of two important functions, I
think, that charter schools can provide our city. The first
function is providing parents in these targeted neighborhoods
with an additional choice for their children so they don't move
out once their children reach school age, and that is
absolutely important.
The other area where charter schools, I think, can provide
an enormous help is in providing additional choices and
flexibility for kids who need additional help. An example of
that would be the SEED School, where you have every one of
these kids at the SEED School, in this boarding school concept,
going to be going to college. Another example is the wonderful
Maya Angelou School, where you are targeting kids with special
needs.
Charter schools can do that much more quickly, and in many
cases more effectively for a lot of different reasons than our
regular public schools. So the City Build concept as part of
the larger public charter school concept is critical to
bringing in these 100,000 new residents, because you are right,
Senator. The reason why I set the goal, in conjunction with the
Council, at 100,000 new residents is, yes, we are trying to
expand our tax base.
One way you solve this problem is to recognize that the
District used to have around 800,000 people in it. So if we
could use a business model, we have got a store that is built
for 800,000 customers and we have only got about 600,000 and we
have got a lot of slack capacity. It is like driving around the
bus half empty, so we need more passengers, and the charter
schools allow us to do that.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to commend you for your
effort because almost every city in America is struggling,
particularly cities in the South that saw a lot of flight in
the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's because of the Brown v. Board
of Education decision, which we mark and celebrate today.
Mr. Mayor, as you can recall, it was a very unsettling
decision back in the 1950's and 1960's, but we have learned a
great deal and I think we have matured as a society. New
Orleans, for instance, my hometown, had 750,000 25 years ago.
Today, it has 450,000 because of the white flight that left the
city.
Now that we are 50 years smarter since Brown and more
mature and more sophisticated, I think that we can devise
strategies that will work, that will meet the needs of people
and the great aspirations and hopes that all people have,
regardless of race or income, about having opportunities for
their children and for themselves.
This is part of a very exciting strategy that many cities
are beginning to use, and I want to commend the District for
using schools as a lure, if you will, to attract people back to
the cities, and smart and efficient tax cuts.
My second question--and I thank the chairman for his
latitude here, because schools are a great passion and because,
I guess, we are marking Brown v. Board of Education this week.
It is much on my mind and many of the Senators that advocate
for fairly radical change and transformation in our school
systems.
I read with some disappointment, I guess, the vote last
night. Although I have not endorsed any particular plan, Mr.
Mayor, as you know, and Council leader Cropp, I would just want
to state for the record that I do disagree with the statement
that was reported in the paper this morning about the solution
being a quality superintendent.
Districts all over this country that think that just
getting the right superintendent is the answer to their problem
should line up behind the thousands of districts around this
country that have brought in top-flight, top-quality,
enthusiastic, well-skilled superintendents, only to find them
leave after 3 years with very little in place.
I would say that while it is very important to have a sharp
superintendent, and obviously tremendous leadership from your
principals and your teachers, a system that continues to reward
mediocrity, resist transparency, a system that resists
accountability, a system that focuses on process and not
results, is doomed to failure no matter how many great
superintendents or great principals or great teachers.
So without endorsing or supporting any particular plan, I
would like, Chairman Cropp, if you would just give a couple of
thoughts, and the Mayor, about your continued efforts to try to
find a way to create a new system--I don't know who is going to
run it, but a new system that is accountable, that is
transparent, that focuses on excellence, that is child- and
family-centered and brings hope to the residents of the
District and the region, and serves as a model for the Nation.
This will be my last question until the second round, but
maybe, Chairman Cropp, you could give a couple of thoughts that
you might have.
Ms. Cropp. I don't think, Senator Landrieu, that anyone
would disagree with your statement as to what we need for a
system and that everyone wants to have a better system,
obviously, including the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia in recent years has gone through
so much change. From the time that the Financial Authority came
to the District, we have changed superintendents from the
original superintendent, to General Beckton, to Arlene
Ackerman, who did not really want to be superintendent, then
another superintendent. All of this was under strict governance
of the Financial Authority--total instability, total change for
our school system. How could we expect anything but failure,
when we have constant change and instability? We are now moving
in a direction where the Board of Education recently has
adopted certain standards that would bring about those very
things that you just articulated.
It seems to me that one of the things that we need to
continue to try to do is bring about stability. Over the past
couple of weeks, we have had an opportunity to interview
candidates to become Superintendent of Schools, and many of us
believe that the superintendent is an important role, along
with the classroom teacher who has that direct nexus with the
students.
The one thing that we found from every study across the
country, even all of the leading superintendents, is that
governance is not what dictates what will bring about a good
school system. There is an awful lot that is involved in it,
and I think we are committed, as we struggle in the District of
Columbia to find out what that answer is, to work together.
As we have talked to the superintendents who have come in,
they have seen many different governance structures work. But
what they need is they need to have people who are committed to
educate the young people. They need to have the ability to run
the school system and put in the types of programs that are
needed, and they need to have the commitment of all of the
principals who are involved in this city to say that they are
indeed supportive of education.
I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised with the types
of candidates that we got to be Superintendent of Schools. We
have some of the top, most respected educators in the country
who have applied. I think we still have an opportunity, in
talking with some of the others, to bring in those individuals.
And if we have the commitment of all of the elected leadership
and if we have the commitment of that superintendent and if we
get down into the bowels of the school system with the teachers
who are really interacting and bring about some standards and
criteria that we need to educate the type of child that we want
to send out into society, then I think we all will be winners.
It is a struggle. If we had the answer, everybody in the
country would do it, but I think we are moving along the right
way. What I would like to do is to have the school system
submit to you some of the new changes that they have instituted
within the past probably 3 or 4 months that I think would
increase your level of comfort with regard to the direction
that the school system is going--very thoughtful and
considerate, and I think directly related to the education of
our young people.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I am familiar with some of
them, but I appreciate you sending me that additional
information. I think the urgency of trying to scale up some of
the things that are working in the District is what is on
people's minds, not to wait 10 or 15 or 20 years, which is the
entire life of a student, but to try to identify quickly the
things that are working and scale them up with some urgency,
considering the dismal performance of some of the schools not
just in this city but across the Nation. To have only 20
percent of children reading at certain levels just robs them of
any good future that they might have.
Ms. Cropp. Might I just add that with our budget, the Mayor
submitted to Council and the Council approved a recommendation
that would improve our early childhood education level. That is
one of the main things, I think, that will make a difference
because indicators have shown that if a child enters the first
grade and they don't know certain basic skills such as their
name, their address, their parents' names, or can't count to
10, colors, they are already 3 years behind. And unless they
really have an infusion of support, they probably will not
catch up. So we are doing some other things budget-wise that
will help move our system, too.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor, very quickly, because the
chairman has been gracious.
Mayor Williams. I am a big fan of Chairman Cropp and I
think she has done a fantastic job with our Council and our
city wouldn't be where it is but for her leadership. I don't
know how she manages to keep the Council going, but she does,
and she has a unique skill and ability to do it. We just
disagree on this issue, and I am confident that as we get
through the final stages of the legislative process, her unique
skills and abilities and my initiative will allow us to reach a
conclusion that will honor the strong voice in our city for
democracy.
I respect that the School Board was the first elected board
in the city--I mean, the first elected anything in the city on
a home rule basis. It has got to have more than just simple
significance; it has got to have some kind of influence.
Parents have to have a way to redress their grievances, and the
board ought to be--and the Council has spoken to this--the
board ought to be more about policy and not about nitty-gritty,
in-the-weeds operations.
I think we can do this and at the same time do two
important things, and this is why I believe strongly that some
change is needed. One, we really need one point of contact in
the District government to manage the systems because the
systems in the schools are a mess. There is no other way of
looking at it. I mean, I know what a mess is because I saw a
mess when I was CFO and I have seen a lot of messes as Mayor.
Second, the needs of children. We really need one point of
contact in the government to focus on the needs of these kids.
Many of these kids don't have any home. So the community,
through the government in partnership with the faith community,
in partnership with business and in partnership with non-
governmental organizations--the government, as the lead
facilitator, is in loco parentis for these kids.
Finally, when you say the studies don't really correlate
any real outcome when it comes to governance, when you take all
the schools systems as a whole that is true. But if you compare
high-impact, screwed-up urban systems with high concentrations
of poverty, there is no question that you will get better
outcomes that lead to better test scores if you change the
governance structure. I think you could bring God in here and
if you don't have the right environment for success, it won't
be successful. But that is just my opinion and the Council
Chair and I respectfully disagree.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeWine. Dr. Gandhi, one criticism of the GAO report
on structural imbalance is that the District has significant
medical billing and claims management problems. How are you
working to address this problem?
Dr. Gandhi. I think we have faced a substantial problem
particularly in the area of Medicaid reimbursement. In the
past, we have not had any infrastructure to be able to identify
document claims, everything that was coming to the city. We
have been working at it for the last at least 3 years.
Under the former City Administrator John Koskinen, and now
under Robert Bobb, there is a special office that does nothing
but make sure that Medicaid is properly accounted for, properly
monitored, and that we do claim everything that is coming to
the city. We hope that we have taken care of our past sins,
when we had a major write-off last year, and we want to be very
vigilant about that. The first thing that I told Mr. Bobb when
we had our meeting when he came to the city is that there are
three things that he should concentrate on--Medicaid, Medicaid
and Medicaid, because that is a substantial part of our budget.
Senator DeWine. Mayor, you requested $15 million for
security costs related to special events in the city because it
is the Nation's Capital--you requested, actually, $25 million
and the President requested $15 million. Do you want to discuss
that difference, that $10 million difference there?
Mayor Williams. Right. The big difference, Mr. Chairman, is
the inauguration. We estimate that, post-September 11, the
inauguration is going to be significantly higher in its
exposure to us than we have had in the past because of the
additional security needs and in order to do it in a way that
balances the need to have an open inauguration and a safe city
and, needless to say, continuity of government.
Senator DeWine. What does the inauguration normally cost?
Ms. Cropp. Six million dollars.
Mayor Williams. I think it was half that amount, right.
Ms. Cropp. In past years, it was budgeted at $6 million.
Senator DeWine. So you figure with the new environment, we
are talking a lot more money than that?
Mayor Williams. Right.
Ms. Cropp. The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is in this year's
budget we were not even given the $6 million that had been
budgeted and funded in prior years.
Mayor Williams. Some of the costs that we are looking at
are overtime, for example, bringing in outside jurisdictions,
some IT expenses related to coordinating all of this. Public
works expenses are often overlooked, but they are around $1
million, and fire and EMS as well. So I think it is a fairly
conservative, objective request, given what we are looking at.
Senator DeWine. Chairman Cropp, you highlighted the need to
provide $8.6 million above the President's request for the
Tuition Assistance Grant program. What would be the
consequences if we were unable to provide these additional
funds?
Ms. Cropp. Many of our students have been able to benefit
from that program. It would be the loss of getting education
for a lot of citizens in the District of Columbia, and that is
probably the worst cost.
Senator DeWine. It has been a very successful program.
Ms. Cropp. It has been extremely successful, and the return
cost for that will be much greater than the initial lay-out.
Senator DeWine. Well, I think we have gone on and kept you
all quite a while. We appreciate it very much.
Mary, a last question.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Just one more, Mr. Mayor and Chairman Cropp, on the child
welfare issue on which we are making progress. Again, I just
thank you. We have got a long way to go, but with the
establishment under the chairman's leadership of the new family
court, the new principle of one judge, one family, the
coordination of city services and court services to streamline
and make sure that children are not lost in the system, that
they are identified early, and seamless services brought to
them with a focus on permanency, either reunification with
their family, temporary foster care, and then long-term
permanency through adoption or kinship adoption, that is a
system that we are trying to put forward throughout the whole
country, and in many ways in the world.
But for the purposes of this hearing, I understand that the
Council cut $23 million out of child welfare and put it in
reserve. I wanted to ask you, Madam Chair, why, and ask the
Mayor if you would comment on that situation and what you are
doing or where you are in the process of, I think, a new hiring
of the head of this important office.
Ms. Cropp. The Council believed that there is a need for
this program to continue and to be expanded. In fact, the money
put in the contingency reserve is somewhat safeguarding those
dollars.
What the budget showed, as presented to the Council, was
that there was extreme growth in the area of adoptions and
foster care success, something that we all want to happen. And
while we saw extreme growth of many millions of dollars in that
particular, very important area, we also saw growth in the
corresponding component of that program that says that there
wouldn't be as many children left because you have put the
children in an adoption-type program.
The Council felt strongly that the program is of such
importance that we wanted to err on the side of caution, and
rather than not have the necessary dollars there for the side
of the program that would deal with foster care, we would put
the money in a contingency fund so that the city could have
access to it if it was needed. But we didn't want the money
just languishing there if there was no need. But if there is
need for it, then the Mayor would have the ability to draw
down. So it is in a reserve for that particular purpose.
But if you look at the budget and you look at the line of
children who are in foster care and then you look at the line
of children for adoption, the adoption line is going up
significantly, which means that the other side ought to go
down. But it went up significantly, also, so there was a
disconnect there. It was a non-sequitur. So then we said, well,
let's put the money in contingency because we wanted to make
sure that the dollars would be available if, in fact, there was
a need.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Williams. If you look at the growth in our budget,
the major elements of growth have been really four-fold. That
is what has pushed us up at an abnormal level. It isn't
sustainable, and I don't think, as you have heard from Nat
Gandhi's testimony, it is something we are planning on in the
future.
One is Medicaid, and the chairman asked a question about
that. One was debt service. We have talked about the structural
imbalance. One was operating costs for capital projects put in
the operating budget. And one was court-ordered compliance.
I am looking at what we need to do with this and I am going
to certainly be working with the Chair to make this work, but I
am very deeply concerned because our child welfare system is in
a very fragile state. We have got a number of things, from
caseload requirements, to the family team meetings that have
been requested, some of the services for these kids that we
want to make sure that we keep in place.
We have moved from an utter disaster to a point where the
court monitor came in at one of my press conferences about a
month ago and said we are now about equal to other States.
Well, that is enormous progress. We don't want to lapse back to
where we were. We want to keep going in a positive direction.
So I want to work with the Council to see that we are
justifying to them that these funds are being used efficiently
and we get them to these kids, and I pledge to do that in every
way I know how.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator DeWine. Well, we thank you very much, Mayor and Dr.
Gandhi and Chairman Cropp. Thank you very much for your good
work and we look forward to working with you. The budget is
always tight. There is never enough money, but we look forward
to working with you.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, May 19, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Atherton, Charles H., Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts,
Prepared Statement of..........................................26, 27
Brennan, Paul, Community Supervision Officer, Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, District of Columbia.............. 39
Statement of................................................. 47
Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia... 103
Prepared Statement of........................................ 119
Statement of................................................. 116
DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:
Opening Statement of.....................................1, 39, 103
Prepared Statement of........................................ 3
Questions Submitted by....................................... 60
Floyd, Craig W., Chairman, National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 29
Statement of................................................. 27
Gallagher, Patricia, Executive Director, National Capital
Planning Commission:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 23
Statement of................................................. 21
Gandhi, Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia. 103
Prepared Statement of........................................ 124
Statement of................................................. 122
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, Statement
of............................................................. 107
Isaac, Reverend Donald, Executive Director, East of the River
Clergy-Police-Community Partnership............................ 39
Prepared Statement of........................................ 54
Statement of................................................. 52
King, Rufus G., III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District
of Columbia.................................................... 1
Statement of................................................. 19
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:
Prepared Statement of........................................4, 105
Questions Submitted by.......................................79, 99
Statement of.............................................4, 40, 105
Lindstrom, Frederick J., Assistant Secretary, U.S. Commission of
Fine Arts, Statement of........................................ 26
Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, District of Columbia:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 45
Statement of.................................................39, 42
Saum, Christine, Senior Urban Designer, National Capital Planning
Commission..................................................... 21
Strauss, Senator Paul, U.S. Senator from the District of
Columbia:
Prepared Statement of....................................5, 41, 108
Statement of................................................41, 108
Sullivan, Ronald S., Jr., Director, Public Defender Service,
District of Columbia:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 87
Statement of................................................. 85
Wagner, Annice M., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals; Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration:
Statement of................................................. 1, 7
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 112
Statement of...............................................103, 109
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Page
Capital Budget Constraints....................................... 127
Cash Reserve Requirements........................................ 128
City Build Charter School Initiative............................. 133
Cost Drivers..................................................... 126
Democracy for the Nation's Capital............................... 116
Education........................................................ 113
Federal:
Budget Request............................................... 120
Contribution................................................. 121
Fiscal Year:
2004 Financial Outlook....................................... 125
2005 Budget Request.......................................... 125
Funding Citizen Priorities....................................... 113
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget........................ 120
Opportunity for All.............................................. 114
Overarching Financial Goal....................................... 124
Overcoming Fiscal Challenges..................................... 112
Priority Federal Funding for Critical Projects................... 115
Public Safety.................................................... 114
The:
Basis for Federal Action to Address the Imbalance............ 128
Budget Process............................................... 119
Fiscal Forecast.............................................. 126
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Additional Committee Questions................................... 60
Community:
Court........................................................ 77
Supervision Program.......................................... 60
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council............................ 82
Demonstration of GPS Monitoring.................................. 47
Drug Treatment................................................... 78
Financial Management............................................. 73
Information Systems.............................................. 71
Pretrial:
Caseloads.................................................... 59
Services Agency.............................................. 76
Re-arrest Rate and Parole Revocation............................. 82
Re-entry:
And Sanction Center..........................................73, 79
Strategy..................................................... 64
Special Supervision.............................................. 69
Status of Re-entry and Sanctions Center.......................... 58
Success Rate of Women Offenders Re-entering the Community........ 81
Supervision:
And Treatment................................................ 80
Strategies................................................... 62
Courts
Capital Funding in Fiscal Year 2005.............................. 15
Complete Budget Request Summary.................................. 17
Court Construction Schedule...................................... 20
Critical Fiscal Year 2005 Priority--Infrastructure............... 11
Entrance to the Old Courthouse................................... 35
Family Court in the Master Plan.................................. 14
Historic Judiciary Square........................................ 12
Judiciary Square Master Plan..................................... 13
Location of the Memorial and Museum.............................. 31
Master Plan for Facilities....................................... 13
Site Plans....................................................... 34
Status of Key Capital Projects................................... 16
Submission to NCPC and CFA....................................... 37
The Courts' Strategic Plan....................................... 14
Public Defender Service
Additional Committee Questions................................... 99
Background....................................................... 87
Creation of a Mental Health Treatment Program.................... 102
DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative........................ 100
Fiscal Year:
2004 Accomplishments......................................... 89
2005 Request................................................. 88
General Program Accomplishments.................................. 89
Important Issues Facing the District of Columbia................. 95
In Re Jerry M. Litigation........................................ 96
Other Program Accomplishments.................................... 91
PDS Director Sullivan's Departure................................ 95
PDS's Fiscal Year:
2004 Accomplishments......................................... 86
2005 Budget Request.......................................... 85
Re-arrest Rate and Parole Revocation............................. 99
Representation of Juveniles with Special Education Needs......... 101
Washington Post Article.......................................... 98