<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27993.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-334, Pt. 2
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
District of Columbia
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2007
109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
S. 3660
PART 2
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
S. Hrg. 109-334, Pt. 2
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 3660
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,
2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 2
District of Columbia
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-993 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 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
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio) officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Dietrich
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
Administrative Support
LaShawnda Smith
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Page
District of Columbia: Courts..................................... 1
Thursday, June 22, 2006
District of Columbia............................................. 35
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:03 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Brownback and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Courts
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC T. WASHINGTON, CHIEF JUDGE,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, AND
CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HON. RUFUS G. KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HON. ANITA JOSEY HERRING, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
JOSEPH SANCHEZ, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURTS
opening statement of senator sam brownback
Senator Brownback. The subcommittee will come to order. I
have just been informed that we have a series of stacked votes
this afternoon starting at 5 minutes after 3 p.m. Therefore, if
it is seven and these are going to be 10 minutes apart votes,
we are just not going to get much of a hearing going. So I am
going to put my statement in the record. What I would like to
do is just briefly introduce each of you, and could each of you
make a couple of statements about your key points so we can get
that much at least in the record. Your full statement will be
in the record, because what I am fearful of is otherwise we are
just--we will have to cancel the hearing, and I would really
like to get at least some of your thoughts into the record of
what we need to do.
The Honorable Eric Washington, the Chief Judge, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals. Good to have you here, Judge
Washington; the Honorable Rufus King, Chief Judge, District of
Columbia Superior Court; Ms. Avis Buchanan, Director, Public
Defender Service; Honorable Paul Quander, Jr., Director of
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency; and Reverend
Donald Isaac, Executive Director of East of the River Clergy-
Police-Community Partnership and Assistant Pastor of Southeast
Tabernacle Baptist Church.
We will start off with Chief Judge Washington, if we could.
I am apologetic for doing this, but I do not think you want to
reschedule this and we have got everybody here. So if you can
just make really a couple summary statements, and all of your
written material will be in the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Sam Brownback
Good afternoon. This hearing will come to order. Today, we are
considering the fiscal year 2007 budget requests for the District of
Columbia Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,
and the Public Defender Service. Since the enactment of the National
Capital Revitalization Act of 1997, the federal government has provided
the sole source of funding for these agencies.
For fiscal year 2007, the President has requested $196.7 million
for the Courts, which is $20.1 million below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. I would like to hear from Chief Judge Washington about
how this proposed funding cut might affect the ongoing Courthouse
renovation and construction projects, which are critical to the
fulfillment of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001.
Today we will also hear from Ms. Avis Buchanan, Director of the
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, who will present
her agency's fiscal year 2007 budget request. PDS provides legal
representation to indigent adults and children facing criminal charges
in the District of Columbia. Ms. Buchanan's agency also provides legal
representation for individuals in the mental health system and for
children in the delinquency system, including those who have special
education needs due to learning disabilities.
Finally, Mr. Paul Quander, Director of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency, will present his agency's budget request.
CSOSA is responsible for supervising adults who are on pretrial
release, probation, or parole supervision in the District of Columbia.
The President has requested $214.4 million for CSOSA in fiscal year
2007, an increase of $15 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
I am particularly interested in how CSOSA is working with the faith
community to help ex-offenders successfully return to their
communities. CSOSA's ``Faith Community Partnership program'' embraces
more than 25 member institutions, and its volunteer mentoring program
has matched more than 80 returning offenders with individuals who are
committed to helping offenders stay out of prison.
Joining Mr. Quander today is one of CSOSA's key faith partners, the
Reverend Donald Isaac. Rev. Isaac is Executive Director of the ``East
of the River Clergy Police Community Partnership.'' Last year, this
subcommittee provided $300,000 to help Rev. Isaac's organization
renovate a building to begin operations of a 15 bed transitional
housing facility for ex-offenders. I'm eager to hear more from Rev.
Isaac about how these funds are helping the faith community serve the
critical need for housing for ex-offenders.
Thank you all for appearing before this subcommittee today. You
will be limited to 5 minutes for your oral remarks, while copies of
your written statements will be placed in the record in their entirety.
The record will remain open for 30 days.
I want to congratulate Chief Judge Eric Washington who began a 4-
year term as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
on August 6, 2005. This is his first appearance before this
Subcommittee and we welcome him as he presents the Courts budget.
Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Senator Landrieu, who has passionately advocated for
Family Court reform here in the District and who has helped steer this
subcommittee to ensure adequate funding of the Courts and with whom I
have worked in the Senate on so many efforts to ensure the health,
safety, and well-being of children and their families.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good afternoon. As the first hearing of the District of Columbia
subcommittee I would like to first thank Chairman Brownback for making
the review of our Federal responsibilities a priority for our hearing
schedule.
Before I share some of my thoughts on the issue at hand, I would
like to take this opportunity to suggest other areas for this committee
to focus on this year. As you well know, the primary purpose of the
D.C. subcommittee is to ensure the immediate and long term economic
health of the District. There are many ways we can do that. We can
continue our work to correct what GAO has identified as a structural
imbalance between the cost of providing city services and their ability
to take in revenue. But at the same time, we must focus on other tools
for bringing greater prosperity and long term stability to the
District. Cities that have good public schools, safe communities and
strong families are cities that have strong economies. If we focus
ourselves on providing these things in the District, we will go a long
way toward the economic independence the city needs and deserves.
I think we have come a long way toward reforming public education
in the District. One of the driving forces behind this change has been
public charter schools. In the District, charter school students now
make up 20 percent of the public school population, some 16,500
students. When people ask me why I support charter schools, I tell them
it is because I believe in public education. I firmly believe that if
we work to modernize the system of delivery for public education, allow
greater opportunities for innovation and hold schools accountable for
results, then we can provide a high quality public education for every
child in America. One size does not fit all, and if we give our parents
choices, they will choose what is best for their child.
Until now, the focus of the charter school movement has been to
increase the quantity of charter schools. But if we expect this to be
more than a movement, we must shift our focus from quantity to quality.
As the Washington Post put it, ``The District's experiment with charter
schools has proved hugely popular with parents, but the schools vary
widely in quality and have yet to demonstrate that they are doing
better than the city's regular public schools in raising student
achievement.''
Our focus today is oversight of the Federal entities which provide
the city's criminal justice functions, generally considered to be
``state level function''. There are several areas in which this
committee has invested in the city's infrastructure or services where
we are striving for results. One of these projects, initiated by the
committee in 2003, is the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency (CSOSA) new Re-Entry and Sanctions Center at Karrick Hall which
has made a difference in the lives of 1,500 D.C. residents rejoining
the community after serving in prison. I hope to hear this was a
successful investment made by this committee. Another major investment
has been the revitalization of Judiciary Square and improvement of
Court facilities. This is a substantial project, which I look forward
to discussing shortly.
The District's criminal justice activities are under the direct
oversight of this subcommittee and are comprised of the main entities
here today: the D.C. Courts, the CSOSA and the Public Defender Service.
These agencies encompass the representation, adjudication, and
supervision of offenders in the District. The final component of
criminal justice, corrections, was successfully transitioned by the
D.C. Correction's Trustee, closing Lorton prison and moving all adult
felons to the Federal Bureau of Prisons in December 2001. Corrections
of D.C. adult felons are now the sole responsibility of the Federal
system; some 6,400 D.C. inmates housed in the Bureau of Prisons are
scattered in 77 prisons nationwide. Though we do not fund the
corrections of D.C. adult felons, we do fund re-entry of offenders and
the ensuing challenges and impact on the District community--
particularly, the ability of offenders to maintain close ties with
children and families.
The CSOSA is the primary entity responsible for successful re-
entry, as well as supervision of citizens before trial and after
conviction, or pre-sentencing. I welcome Director Paul Quander back to
the committee, thank you for your leadership and we look forward to
your testimony. In fiscal year 2007 CSOSA requests $214.4 million, an
increase of $14.9 million (7.5 percent) from fiscal year 2006 and
increases staff by 15 for a total of 1,486 positions (a 1 percent
increase in staffing). The main increase ($3.4 million) is to staff the
new Re-Entry and Sanctions Center which will provide a 30 day intensive
re-entry program for the highest risk offenders. The President's budget
also recommends increases over fiscal year 2006 for the two other
primary functions, Pre-Trial and Public Defender Service, to continue
their critical services. I look forward to hearing from their
directors, Susan Schaffer and Avis Buchanan, to explore the request
further and discuss creative areas of supporting your functions.
The other Federal component under this subcommittee's jurisdiction,
the D.C. Courts, is responsible for the administration of justice for
District residents. I am glad to welcome back Chief Judge Rufus King
and welcome the new head of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration, Chief Judge Eric Washington. In addition, I would like
to take this opportunity to recognize the new presiding judge of the
Family Court, Anita Josey-Herring, who has served superbly as deputy
and will continue the great gains made for children and families begun
by Judge Lee Satterfield.
The Courts have submitted a separate request for a total of $350
million for fiscal year 2007. Funding is proposed to support court
system operations and capital improvements. This is $131 million more
than the enacted level in fiscal year 2006, which is nearly a 60
percent increase. Of this increase, the majority is for the capital
improvement plan for Judiciary Square, which entails major renovation
of the five main buildings on the square. The President's request for
fiscal year 2007 for the entire Court's is $196.6 million, which is a
decrease of $20 million from fiscal year 2006 (or a cut of 10 percent).
My primary concern is the President did not keep the promise in this
budget to the restoration of Judiciary Square, a project which requires
the renovation of multiple buildings simultaneously. The Courts budget
justification states you will require $188.7 million in fiscal year
2007 to continue the major renovations and the maintenance program.
This request is an increase of $108 million over what was provided last
year and it is impossible to see how this committee can provide such a
substantial increase, but it is equally disheartening to think the
renovations will be further delayed, possibly not complete until well
beyond 2015. We have much work ahead of us to determine the needs of
the Courts and how to meet them in a stretched Federal budget year. I
would like to focus today on the critical gap in the President's
request of $23 million to fully fund the contract, just signed by the
Court, to restore and re-open the Old Courthouse. The committee has
already provided $76 million for this project and we must focus on how
to complete it.
The Master Plan was begun in 2003 with our commitment to fund
renovation of the entire court system, but with a particular eye to
creating a model Family Court building. The committee has provided
$142.5 million since fiscal year 2002 for renovations in the Capital
Master Plan. I understand that each project hinges on the first being
completed, because there is no room for swing space downtown. However,
I am dismayed that the President's budget does not provide the
remaining $23 million to have a functional Old Courthouse, which would
allow people to move out of the Moultrie building to facilitate the
Family Court expansion. Beyond this, I question spending greater sums
on maintenance of buildings. We have limited resources. Chairman
Brownback and I must write a bill which chooses among a limited pool of
funding. None of us want court employees or the public that comes to
the court every day to work in the conditions I have seen there. But we
cannot do it all, and it may be sensible to complete major projects
which drastically improve working conditions rather than ``band-
aiding'' small corridors for years to come.
Under Chairman Brownback's leadership in 1997 the D.C.
Revitalization Act eliminated the $600 million Federal payment
appropriated by Congress to the District. The Act transferred several
functions of the D.C. government to full Federal responsibility, areas
traditionally carried out at the state level: criminal justice and
District employee pensions. I hope Chairman Brownback and I can focus
this year on the effect of the Revitalization Act, and work to find the
appropriate balance between the Federal government and the District.
I look forward to your testimony today and working together to meet
the needs of the District's criminal justice sector, as well as meeting
the responsibility of Congress to the city.
Judge Washington. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Basically----
Senator Brownback. Would you get that on?
Judge Washington. I think I am on now.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Judge Washington. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the 2007 budget request of the District
of Columbia Courts. I am Eric T. Washington. I am appearing in
my capacity as the chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration for the District of Columbia, which is the
policymaking body for the D.C. Courts. As you know, I also
serve as chief judge of District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
I just want to introduce those who are with me today very
quickly, because I think I am going to be the only one, unless
you have some questions, who will be making an extensive, now
modified, oral statement. With me this afternoon are: Chief
Judge Rufus King of the Superior Court; Judge Anita Josey-
Herring, the Presiding Judge of Family Court; Ms. Anne Wicks,
the court's executive officer; and Mr. Sanchez, Joseph Sanchez,
our administrative officer.
The critical focus, getting to the nub of the issue and
your point, of our 2007 budget request is ensuring that the
courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure and
first-rate security for the approximately 10,000 members of the
public who visit our courthouses each and every day. The
courts' capital needs are significant because we are
responsible for over 1 million gross square feet of space in
Judiciary Square in five buildings, which range in age from 30
years to 200 years. We must maintain, preserve, and build court
facilities that are safe, functional, and emblematic of their
public significance and character.
The courts' capital budget addresses these responsibilities
as a comprehensive matter based on the master plan for
facilities, which delineates our space requirements, outlines
plans to address maintenance needs, and provides a blueprint
for optimal space utilization both in the near and in the long
term.
The old courthouse is an architectural jewel and an
historic landmark. Built from 1821 to 1881, it is one of the
oldest buildings in the District of Columbia. Inside its walls
Daniel Webster and Francis Scott Key practiced law and John
Surratt was tried for his role in the assassination of Abraham
Lincoln.
Because of its age and condition, the structure requires
extensive work to meet health and safety building codes and to
re-adapt it for modern use as a courthouse. The restoration of
the old courthouse is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the
court system as delineated in the master space plan. By
relocating the court of appeals to the old courthouse, nearly
40,000 square feet of space will become available in the
Moultrie Courthouse, space needed for the relocation of
Superior Court functions so that we can fully consolidate all
of the services needed for family court.
Thanks to your support, the old courthouse renovation
project received funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. At the
time, the General Services Administration and independent
construction consultants believed that the renovation could be
completed for the amount appropriated. However, since those
cost estimates were made, construction costs have skyrocketed
due to circumstances beyond our control. In addition, the
unwillingness of construction companies to bid on a phased-
funding project delayed our start date for the construction,
thus contributing to the overall increase in costs. As a
result, appropriations to date will not permit the courts to
complete the restoration of the old courthouse as approved by
the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning
Commission, and the Historic Preservation Review Board.
Just this past week we concluded our procurement process
for that construction project and we learned that the
construction contract for the renovation of the old courthouse
requires an additional $23 million in fiscal year 2007.
Should funding not be provided, the courts would have to
reprogram nearly half of the capital funds included in the
President's 2007 recommendation. This would bring the majority
of our infrastructure maintenance initiatives to a standstill.
The negative impact on the safety and security of the public we
serve would be immeasurable. We will therefore be submitting a
revised request to you shortly.
The courts are committed to ensuring that the old
courthouse renovation is completed on time and within budget,
as have each of our prior capital projects.
Another critical priority for the District of Columbia
courts in 2007 is the enhancement of security for the public as
well as for our staff and judges, particularly in light of the
recent incidents around the Nation. The President's 2007
recommendation for the courts finances additional security
officers for the family court and some security enhancements
for our facilities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to recognize,
of course, Senator Landrieu for your involvement and your
leadership on issues involving the courts. We appreciate more
than I can tell you the support we have received from Congress
in the past, and we certainly look forward to working with you
throughout the year on this appropriation.
We are prepared to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Judge Washington.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Judge Eric T. Washington
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request of
the District of Columbia Courts. I am Eric T. Washington, and I am
appearing in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, the policy-making
body for the District of Columbia Courts. I also serve as Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
As you know, this jurisdiction has a two-tier court 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 is known as the
Court System.
My remarks this afternoon will summarize our overall budget request
and highlight our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me
this afternoon are Chief Judge Rufus King, III, Chief Judge of the
Superior Court, Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer for the Courts,
and Mr. Joseph Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. We are prepared to
answer questions on the budget request for the D.C. Courts.
INTRODUCTION
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 responding to the changing needs of our society and
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 efficiently in the Nation's
Capital. Through our Strategic Plan, the D.C. 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 in our
courts. We appreciate the support of this Subcommittee which makes
possible the achievement of these goals for our community.
The D.C. Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound
financial management. Although we have requested funds for several
important operating initiatives, the critical focus of our fiscal year
2007 budget request is ensuring that the courts of this jurisdiction
have a sound infrastructure and first-rate security. 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 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 these needs and to ensure that the quality of justice is not
compromised.
To support our mission and goals in fiscal year 2007, the Courts
budget submission requested $334,839,000 for court operations and
capital improvements. Of this amount, $9,529,000 is requested for the
Court of Appeals; $94,675,000 is requested for the Superior Court;
$57,175,000 is requested for the Court System; and $173,460,000 is
requested for capital improvements for courthouse facilities. In
addition, the Courts requested $54,000,000 for the Defender Services
account.
THE PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATION
I am pleased to report that the President's recommendation for
fiscal year 2007 supports some of our most important priority items;
however, the level of capital funding is not adequate to complete
critical projects nor to keep our capital projects on the schedule
established by our Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities (hereinafter
Facilities Master Plan). The President's recommendation includes
capital investment in physical security and funds to hire additional
security officers for critical courtroom proceedings not protected by
the United States Marshal Service, such as those in Family Court. The
President's recommendation also finances completion of new holding
facilities for juveniles appearing in Family Court and of Building A
modernization, as well as continuation of much-needed infrastructure
work.
Unfortunately, the President's capital budget recommendation of $51
million, from a $173 million request, is not adequate to complete
construction of the Old Courthouse nor to initiate other facility
projects scheduled to begin in fiscal 2007. Restoring the Old
Courthouse for use by the Court of Appeals and preserving it for future
generations is the lynchpin in the Courts' Facilities Master Plan. In
2002, when the Facilities Master Plan was completed, there was a
shortfall of 48,000 square feet for Court operations--with a projection
of a 134,000 square footage shortfall within 10 years. The restoration
of the Old Courthouse, and the subsequent relocation of the Court of
Appeals from the Moultrie Courthouse, is critical to implementing our
plan to ensure adequate space for the justice system in the Nation's
Capital. Until this building is restored, the Courts cannot begin to
renovate and relocate other court facilities and operations, including
Family Court. To address courtwide space needs and facilities
deficiencies, the Courts have developed a tight schedule of renovation,
modernization, and reorganization. The President's recommended 2007
funding level would delay numerous projects, and, as we have learned in
a very painful manner recently, any delay in construction projects
significantly increases their cost. Inadequate funding will also result
in an inordinate delay in occupancy and reoccupancy of space critically
needed for efficient court operations.
We are gratified by the Presidents support for key items, but to
meet our facilities needs in a timely and cost effective manner,
additional resources are required in fiscal 2007.
RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS
As the Courts approach the ninth year of direct federal funding in
fiscal year 2007, we continue to enhance services to the community and
demonstrate our commitment to fiscal responsibility. We are
particularly proud of our recent achievements that include the
following:
--commencement of the restoration of the Old Courthouse, a building
of historic and architectural significance that is critical to
meeting our long term space needs, following approval of the
project by the National Capital Planning Commission, Commission
of Fine Arts and Historic Preservation Board;
--development and approval by the National Capital Planning
Commission of a Master Plan for Judiciary Square, an urban
design and renewal plan to revitalize this historic area of the
District of Columbia that dates to the original L'Enfant Plan
for the Nation's Capital;
--further implementation of the Family Court Act, including: newly
constructed, family friendly facility on the JM level of the
Moultrie Courthouse in fiscal year 2004, which houses the new
Central Intake Center to provide one-stop public service;
implementation of the one family-one judge principle;
development of attorney practice standards and creation of
attorney panels for neglect and juvenile cases; establishment
of a Family Treatment Court for mothers with substance abuse
issues and their children; creation of a Self-Help Center for
indigent and unrepresented litigants; opening the Mayor's
Services Liaison Center in the courthouse to coordinate the
provision of needed social services; and transferring all
required children's cases to Family Court judges;
--courtwide implementation of a five-year strategic plan, Committed
to Justice in the Nation's Capital, to ensure that the Court's
goals, functions, and resources are strategically aligned for
maximum efficiency and effectiveness;
--installation and conversion to a new case management system, the
Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) which consolidates
19 distinct automated databases into one comprehensive system,
thereby ensuring complete information on all cases pertaining
to one individual or family to enhance case processing and
judicial decision-making;
--establishment, by the Court of Appeals, of the District of Columbia
Access to Justice Commission to enhance access to justice for
all persons without regard to economic barriers;
--comprehensive revision of the Court of Appeals rules of practice,
the first such revision since the mid-1980's;
--development and implementation of a pilot appellate mediation
program to assist parties in reaching satisfactory case
outcomes more expeditiously, thereby saving them and the Court
of Appeals time and money;
--revision of the Criminal Justice Act plan to improve quality legal
representation for indigent criminal defendants in the Court of
Appeals;
--continued enhancements to the Courts' website, designed to increase
public information and access, including implementation of on-
line juror services;
--achievement of an ``unqualified'' opinion for the fourth year in a
row on the Courts' independent financial audit, conducted in
accordance with OMB Circular No. A-133;
--creation of a Landlord Tenant Resource Center to provide free legal
information to unrepresented parties and referrals to legal and
social service providers;
--promulgation of draft probate attorney practice standards and
creation of the Probate Review Task Force, to enhance service
to incapacitated adults and other parties in probate cases;
--reengineering of the Appeals Coordinator's Office to enhance
service to the public and facilitate appellate case filings by
establishing a single point of filing for all appeals;
--comprehensive space renovation, including mechanical, electrical
and security upgrades; new space for the Landlord Tenant and
Small Claims courts and juvenile probation (the Social Services
Division of the Family Court) in Building B; and renovated
space in Building A for the Crime Victims Compensation Program,
as the Courts' Facilities Master Plan is implemented.
CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITY--INFRASTRUCTURE
The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000
courthouse visitors each day, process 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, a published report indicates
that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has the tenth
highest number of cases filed per judge, and the second highest number
of civil case filings per capita of all state courts in the nation, and
that our Court of Appeals has the highest number of appellate filings
per capita among all states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Examining the Work of State Courts 2004: A National
Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, by R. Schauffler, R.
LaFountain, N. Kauder, & S. Strickland (National Center for State
Courts 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courts' capital needs are significant because we are
responsible for five buildings, including the Moultrie Courthouse, one
of the busiest and most heavily visited public buildings in the
District of Columbia. Our funding requirements include 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
emblematic of their public significance and character. The 2007 capital
budget seeks to address these issues in a comprehensive manner.
Facilities that provide adequate and efficiently designed space are
essential to enhance the administration of justice, simplify public
interaction with courts, and improve access to justice for all. In
contrast, facilities with inadequate space for employees to perform
their work, with evidence of long-deferred maintenance and repair, and
with inefficient layouts can detract from the public perception of the
dignity and importance of a court and impair its ability to function in
the community. This negative perception impacts public trust and
confidence in courts, a nationally recognized critical requirement for
the effective administration of justice. The National Center for State
Courts succinctly states the relationship between courts and their
facilities:
``Court facilities should not only be efficient and comfortable,
but should also reflect the independence, dignity, and importance of
our judicial system. . . . It is difficult for our citizens to have
respect for the courts and the law, and for those who work in the
court, if the community houses the court in facilities that detract
from its stature.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Don Hardenbergh with Robert Tobin, Sr. and Chang-Ming Yeh, The
Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities, National
Center for State Courts, 1991, p. xiii.
The D.C. Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of
space in Judiciary Square. The age of the Courts' buildings range from
30 years to 200 years. Deferred maintenance forced by limited financial
resources left these buildings in a state that may be perceived to
detract from the stature of the Courts. We are beginning to see
improvements, thanks to your support in recent years, but much work
remains to be done.
The Courts' fiscal year 2007 budget request seeks resources to meet
health and safety building codes and to provide safe facilities for the
public. For example, adequate ventilation must be provided in the
courthouse buildings. Electrical systems must be upgraded, both to meet
modern office needs and to limit risk of fire. Fire and security
recommendations from the U.S. Marshals Service must be implemented.
Safety hazards posed by disintegrating flooring materials must be
remedied.
The halls of justice in the District of Columbia must be well
maintained, efficient, and adequately sized to inspire the confidence
of the members of the public who enter our buildings. The Courts'
facilities plans reflected in the fiscal year 2007 budget request will,
over the next 10 years, meet the well-documented space needs of the
Courts and return the buildings to a condition that inspires trust in
the justice system of the Nation's Capital.
The Courts' facilities plans will also enhance the efficient
administration of justice and improve public access to justice in this
jurisdiction by co-locating related functions. The restoration of the
Old Courthouse for the Court of Appeals, for example, will provide the
public with a single location for services that are currently located
on different floors and in different buildings from most Court of
Appeals offices. Offices related to the Family Court will be
consolidated in the Moultrie Courthouse, which will be made possible
only as we renovate space in other buildings, converting usage to
public court proceedings and relocating operations from Moultrie. More
efficient location of these offices will not only facilitate public
access to the Courts, but will also enhance the efficiency of
operations.
In addition, basic mechanical systems impact the administration of
justice. A broken air conditioning or heating system, for example, can
force suspension of trials when courtroom temperatures reach unbearable
levels.
Facilities in the Courts' Strategic Plan
The capital projects included in this request are an integral part
of the Courts' Strategic Plan, completed in fiscal 2003. I am pleased
to have co-chaired the Strategic Planning Leadership Council, which,
with broad input from the community, developed the Strategic Plan of
the D.C. Courts, entitled Committed to Justice in the Nation's Capital.
The Strategic Plan 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, enhanced public accountability,
competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks.
Facility improvements were identified as a high priority among all
constituency groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan was
developed. Employees, judges, and stakeholders were asked to identify
the most important issues the Courts must address in the coming years,
and each ranked ``enhance court facilities'' among the highest
priorities. In addition, approximately half of judges and 65 percent of
employees reported inadequate light, heat, air conditioning, and
ventilation in their workspaces.
``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.''
Overview of the D.C. Courts' Facilities
In preparing the fiscal year 2007 capital budget request, the
Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to
performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions.
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 2007.
The Courts' request for capital funding is particularly critical in
fiscal year 2007 because of the need: (1) to address essential public
health and safety conditions in our busy court buildings, including the
Moultrie Courthouse to which some 10,000 people come each day; (2) to
meet the Courts' space requirements for conducting their business,
which includes our new Family Court recently established by Congress;
and (3) to avoid interruption of ongoing projects and the Facilities
Master Plan schedule as delays result in substantially increased costs.
The Courts currently maintain four buildings in Judiciary 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 vacates Building C, the old Juvenile Court,
later this year 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 Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, conducted by experts in
architecture and space planning, and secured through the GSA, defined a
shortfall of 48,000 square feet of space in 2002, with a shortfall of
134,000 square feet projected in the next decade. The experts 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 and Family Court consolidation; (2) construction of an
addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, to include a separately accessible
Family Court facility; and (3) the occupation of Building C, adjacent
to the Old Courthouse.
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
court system. Thanks to your support, this project received substantial
funding over a two-year period in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. At the
time, it was estimated by the GSA and independent construction
consultants that the renovation could be completed for this amount.
However, construction costs have skyrocketed because of market
conditions which are beyond our control as well as the phased funding
approach. Based on current market conditions, we now know that
appropriations to date ($76.5 million) will not permit the Courts to
complete the restoration as designed and approved by the Commission of
Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Historic
Preservation Review Board. The Courts completed the procurement process
last week and issued a Letter of Intent to the winning bidder. The
construction contract for the Old Courthouse restoration is $99
million. Therefore, the Courts are requesting that Congress provide an
additional $23 million in fiscal year 2007 to fully fund the
construction contract. The Courts have a history of completing capital
projects on time and within budget. We are confident that the Old
Courthouse restoration will be managed in the same manner.
The Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest
public 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 requires
extensive work to meet health and safety building codes and to readapt
it for modern use as a courthouse. 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 preserve a
historic treasure of our nation and impart new life to one of the most
significant historic buildings and precincts in Washington, D.C. 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.
Moultrie Courthouse
Investment in the restoration of the Old Courthouse not only will
improve efficiency by co-locating the offices that support the Court of
Appeals, but also will free up 37,000 square feet of space in the
Moultrie Courthouse which is critically needed 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. Built in 1978 for 44
trial judges, today it is strained beyond capacity to accommodate 59
trial judges and 24 magistrate judges in the trial court and 9
appellate judges, 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.
Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of 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 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. These projects culminated in the development of the first
Master Plan for D.C. Courts 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. Courts 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
related 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 the Courts' space requirements
through 2012; and plans 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; construction of an
addition to the Moultrie Courthouse; and reoccupation of Building C. In
addition, the Plan determined that all 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
The Facilities Master Plan incorporates an Interim Space Plan for
the Family Court that provides the facilities necessary to implement
fully the Family Court Act and to centralize the public face of Family
Court operations.\5\ It also incorporates a Long Term Space Plan for
Family Court that optimizes space and programmatic enhancements for the
Family Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ By public face we mean those offices, courtrooms and waiting
rooms that are used by children and families having business before the
court. Administrative space, such as file rooms, was not included in
the Interim Space Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Family Court Space Plan
The Interim Space Plan for Family Court was completed in the summer
of 2004 and procedural changes have been implemented within the Family
Court to meet the requirements of the Family Court Act. Recently
completed 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, the Small Claims and Landlord Tenant
Branches of the Superior Court's Civil Division, were relocated
in November 2003 to renovated space in Building B to free space
for the Family Court in the Moultrie Courthouse.
--Construction in JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse for the Interim
Space Plan of the Family Court was completed in the summer of
2004, and significant progress has been made toward
establishing a fully consolidated Family Court. The project
provided the Family Court with 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 were redesigned to create family-friendly
seating and waiting areas.
Given the Courts' commitment to meet the requirements of the Family
Court Act as expeditiously as possible, we decided to move forward with
consolidating as much of the Family Court operations and offices as
possible within existing space, pending the construction of an addition
to the Moultrie Courthouse.
Long-Term Family Court Space Plan
The long-term plan for the Family Court includes expansion of the
Moultrie Courthouse. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art
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 and D.C. government units
in one place to make it easier for families to access needed services.
The interim Family Court plan is designed to transition smoothly into
this long-term plan, and to maximize the efficient use of time and
money.
When the Family Court Act was enacted, the Courts studied the cost
and feasibility of consolidating all functions and services required to
meet the mandates of the Act in each of our facilities. After extensive
study, it was determined that only the Moultrie Courthouse had the
amount of space necessary to meet these requirements. Given that court
operations already exceeded the capacity of the Moultrie Courthouse, it
was apparent that certain court operations would need to be relocated
to other buildings to make room for Family Court. The approach adopted
in the Facilities Master Plan was developed with the overarching
objectives of keeping the court system continually operating
efficiently while carefully complying with the Family Court Act.
Capital projects related to the Family Court Act include the
renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse for the Court of
Appeals, to free space in the Moultrie Courthouse; renovation of
Buildings A & B for civil court functions (including Small Claims and
Landlord Tenant operations which have been relocated to Building B,
thereby making Family Court space available on the JM level of the
Moultrie Courthouse, and Probate and Multi-Door Dispute Resolution
operations which will be moved to Building A at the end of 2006 and in
early 2007); occupation and renovation of Building C for Information
Technology and alternative dispute resolution operations, providing
additional space in Moultrie for Family Court social services; leasing
of space for court support functions (such as budget, personnel,
procurement and contracts); 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 visitors daily and (2) to make
contiguous office space available for all related Family Court
activities.
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. Great care has been exercised in
designing the restoration of the Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the
square, to preserve the character not only of the building, but also of
Judiciary 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.
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. The
Moultrie Courthouse, although 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.
Judiciary Square Master Plan
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the
D.C. Courts develop a Judiciary Square Master Plan--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 approved in August 2003. The final plan was
approved in August 2005.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan resolves important technical
issues related to access, service, circulation, and security within a
rapidly changing and publicly oriented area of the District, while re-
establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ``City of
Washington.'' It provides a comprehensive framework for capital
construction for all local entities, including the D.C. Courts, as we
implement the Facilities Master Plan, and it 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 to house vehicles now parked in
surface lots; (2) integration of service areas, security features and
landscape concepts; and (3) coordination by the Memorial Fund, with the
Courts, as they plan to construct a museum within the Judiciary Square.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of
one of the last green spaces in the District of Columbia awaiting
revitalization, incorporating areas where the public can gather and
relax, 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, D.C.
COMPLETE BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
To build on past accomplishments and to serve the public in the
District of Columbia, the Courts require resources in fiscal year 2007
to invest in capital infrastructure; security; strategic management;
self-representation services; services for the most vulnerable;
enhanced and more timely customer service; financial, materiel, and
facilities management; and human resources. Without additional capital
resources, the courthouse and the District's historic buildings will
continue to deteriorate; without targeted investments in these critical
areas, the quality of justice in the Nation's Capital will be
compromised. The fiscal year 2007 request addresses these requirements
by:
--Investing in Infrastructure.--To ensure the health, safety, and
quality of court facilities and to address court space needs,
the fiscal year 2007 capital request totaled $173,460,000. The
fiscal year 2007 capital request incorporates a multitude of
projects. The request is a comprehensive, five-year plan, with
projects divided into phases to the extent practicable. To
avoid unduly increasing costs and disruptive delays in
completing construction projects essential to operations, it is
particularly critical that projects underway not be
interrupted. To keep on schedule and complete the Master Plan
in 2013, the Courts' capital funding request for fiscal year
2007 must be met.
The first part of the capital budget request identifies projects
to renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified
in the Facilities Master Plan, and totaled $112,160,000. (1) As
noted above, the main focus of our capital program is the Old
Courthouse restoration. The Courts' original fiscal year 2007
budget submission, which was prepared before the procurement
process for the restoration of the Old Courthouse was
completed, included $7.8 million for the Old Courthouse. We now
know that the construction contract for the Old Courthouse is
$99 million and, therefore the Courts will require $23 million
rather than $7.8 million in 2007. We will be submitting a
revised 2007 budget request, and are here today to request an
additional $23 million beyond the President's recommendation.
(2) In the Moultrie Courthouse, $36.7 million is requested for:
the renovation and expansion of juvenile holding for Family
Court, the Indiana Avenue expansion for security improvements,
and the renovations and reorganizations work to consolidate
Family Court operations. (3) To renovate Building C for court
use, $27 million is requested. (4) For construction in Building
A and Building B, $14.7 million is requested. (5) To design and
prepare signage to guide the public through the court complex,
which will become increasingly important as trial court
operations move out of the Moultrie Courthouse, $5 million is
requested. (6) To implement campus perimeter security features
around Judiciary Square court buildings including installation
of plinth walls, bollards, fencing, and security furnishings
and the widening of sidewalks, $16 million is requested. (7) To
begin design work on a new East Underground Garage project, $5
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 totals $61,300,000. The Courts have
expanded the scope of the Fire and Security Alarm Systems
project to include installation of a sprinkler system for the
entire Moultrie Courthouse. This is a significant health and
safety infrastructure upgrade for which $10 million is
requested in fiscal year 2007, as recommended by GSA and U.S.
Marshals Service studies. For HVAC, Electrical, and Plumbing
Upgrades $25 million is requested. To renovate restrooms used
by the public and court staff, $2 million is requested. In
addition, $5 million is requested for projects in courtrooms
and secure areas. For general repairs $16.5 million is
requested. To upgrade elevators and escalators, $0.8 million is
requested, and $2 million is requested for technology
infrastructure projects.
--Homeland Security.--To protect the 10,000 daily visitors to the
courthouse and meet increased security threats that face courts
nationwide and public institutions post-September 11, 2001, the
Courts' request includes $6,240,000 in operating funds.
($26,000,000 was requested above in capital funds for security
enhancements.) The Courts' ``Enhancing Public Security''
initiative in the operating budget would provide 95 additional
contractual security officers to protect the judges, staff, and
members of the public inside the court buildings.
--Investing in Information Technology (IT).--To achieve the Courts'
strategic goal of improving technology, including providing a
case management system with accurate, reliable data across
every operating area available to the judiciary, the District's
child welfare and criminal justice communities and the public,
the Courts request $2,378,000 in fiscal year 2007. This amount
includes staff and contractual services to enable the IT
Division to make optimal use of the new case management system
and to meet courtwide requirements for technological solutions
including a system to enhance service to District citizens
serving as jurors.
--Strategic Planning and Management.--To support long-range strategic
planning, performance measurement and reporting, and public
accountability, $645,000 is requested for the Office of
Strategic Management. This request builds on the Courts
successful strategic planning effort by coordinating
enterprise-wide projects and enhancing the Courts' performance
measurement capability. The request would finance performance
management software, training, and staff to analyze court
performance, direct strategic planning, and coordinate and
prioritize enterprise-wide projects, activities, and resources.
This will enable the Courts to more accurately determine how
well we are doing in meeting our objectives, serving the
public, and administering justice.
--Serving the Self-Represented.--To enhance equal access to justice
for the more than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to
the courthouse each year, especially in the Family Court, Civil
Division, and Court of Appeals, $1,724,000 and 10 FTEs are
requested for staff and facilities for a Self-Representation
Service Center. This initiative would utilize best practices
and build upon the limited pro bono services currently
available in the courthouse. It is particularly vital to the
public we serve, as a recent study found that local agencies
providing legal services to the poor turn away more than 50
percent of persons who seek assistance. These individuals
require assistance when they arrive in the courthouse with no
choice but to represent themselves.
--Services for the Most Vulnerable.--To enhance services to some of
the District's most vulnerable residents, $1,096,000 and 3 FTEs
are requested. This figure includes $940,000 and 2 FTEs to
provide statutorily-mandated advocates for mentally retarded
individuals who are wards of the District; $100,000 to provide
services to youths under court supervision, and $56,000 and 1
FTE to enhance monitoring of the cases of incapacitated adults.
--Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.--To enhance and provide
more timely services to the public, the Courts' fiscal year
2007 request includes $1,374,000 and 22 FTEs. Included in the
total is $619,000 to consolidate parties' identities in the new
case management system; $54,000 and 9 FTEs to enhance case
processing efficiency and accuracy; $104,000 to enhance the
reference materials in the library; and $57,000 and 1 FTE to
undertake community outreach.
--Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
and retain highly qualified employees and address the risks of
high retirement eligibility, $1,087,000 is requested, including
$800,000 for succession planning and tuition assistance and
$287,000 to enhance training for court personnel. Currently,
nearly 60 percent of the Courts' executives and nearly 45
percent of managers and senior staff are eligible for
retirement in the next five years, representing a potential
loss of experience and talent that the Courts must plan now to
address.
--Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.--To enhance
financial, materiel, and facilities management, $1,880,000 and
15 FTEs are requested. Included in the total are $652,000 and 8
FTEs to build upon financial and program management
improvements, including creation of an independent internal
audit function; $783,000 and 1 FTE for materiel management,
including warehouse space, equipment, and staff; and $445,000
and 6 FTEs to enhance facilities management and administrative
support, including building engineers and equipment leases.
--Built-In Increases.--The fiscal year 2007 request also includes
$4,139,000 for a COLA increase, $880,000 for non-pay
inflationary cost increases, and $1,753,000 for within-grade
increases. The Courts' request includes within-grade increases
for employees because, unlike typical agencies which may fund
these increases through cost savings realized during normal
turnover, the Courts have a very low turnover rate (7 percent
in fiscal year 2004) and do not experience such cost savings
opportunities. Due to our low staff turnover and increasing
personnel services costs as a result of cost increases for
retirement and health benefits, the Courts are beginning to
face difficulty filling positions due to budgetary constraints.
--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 to ensure that highly qualified
attorneys represent indigent defendants. In addition, the
Courts have developed a new Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect
(CCAN) Plan for Family Court cases, adopting attorney practice
standards and requiring attorney training and screening to
ensure that well-qualified attorneys are appointed in these
cases. The Guardianship Program for probate matters involving
incapacitated adults has also been revised, imposing a training
requirement on attorneys participating in the program.
In the Defender Services account, the Courts' fiscal year 2007
budget request represents an increase of $10 million over the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $44 million. Of the total
increase, $1 million is requested to cover projected increases
in the base program. The remaining $9 million reflects a
compensation adjustment for attorneys from $65 to $90 per hour,
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 2007 priorities is critical to our success, not
only in the next year but also as we implement plans to continue to
provide high quality service to the community in the future. We
appreciate the President's support for the Courts' funding needs in
2007 and the support we have received in the past 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 2007
budget request of the District of Columbia Courts.
Senator Brownback. Would Judge King III or others be making
comments, or is that the summation?
STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS G. KING III
Judge King. I am happy to just respond to questions. Maybe
I could get in two words, one hyphenated word and one stand-
alone word. The hyphenated word is ``twenty-three'' and the
stand-alone word is ``million.''
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Judge Rufus G. King III
Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you for
this opportunity to discuss the D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2007 budget
request. I am Rufus G. King, III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia. As you know, the Superior Court is the trial
court for the District of Columbia. It is a unified court of general
jurisdiction, hearing matters brought to court under all areas of
District of Columbia law.
Chief Judge Washington's testimony on behalf of the Joint Committee
on Judicial Administration details the Courts' complete budget request,
so my testimony will highlight specific budgetary needs of the Superior
Court as part of the larger D.C. Courts budget request and capital
project needs.
CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST
While we are most grateful that the President's 2007 recommendation
supported additional court security officers for Family Court, as Chief
Judge Washington has outlined, there are some significant capital
budget needs that were not included by the President. In order to stay
on schedule with our construction projects over the next several years,
our capital request must be funded. There are several Family Court
facility enhancements that are scheduled in 2007 and 2008, as well as
several court functions that are scheduled to move into the
consolidated Family Court space in the near future. I have included at
the end of my testimony a timeline that details the Family Court
projects scheduled over the next several fiscal years, as well as
relocations and enhancements have already taken place.
For the past several years we have focused on consolidating all the
public functions of the Family Court; the Centralized Intake Center, at
which all family cases are filed; the Family Court Self-Help Center,
which assists litigants without lawyers; the Mayor's Services Liaison
Office, which coordinates the provision of needed social services; and
family-friendly courtrooms, family waiting areas, and attorney-client
conference rooms. This summer we will complete a new entrance to the
Family Court on the John Marshall level of the Moultrie Courthouse,
with enhanced security, an ADA and family-friendly, stroller-accessible
entry, and improved public waiting space.
To complete consolidation of all Family Court Operations Division
and Social Services Division offices, programs, courtrooms and the
juvenile holding area on time, we need continued, long-term support for
our capital budget request, and we need $23 million beyond the
President's recommendation for 2007, to ensure that the Old Courthouse
restoration proceeds timely. I realize that the Subcommittee has a wide
array of competing budget priorities to address, but I urge you to
provide the funding we need to stay on schedule with the upgrade and
consolidation of the Family Court. I need hardly remind the Committee
that, in addition to the need for logistical continuity, the cost of
these renovations and additions goes up geometrically the more the
projects are delayed. We can assure you that all of the work has been,
and will continue to be, done in budget and on time, but even the best
contracting administrator and staff cannot do anything about spiraling
materials and construction costs. We urge the view that a dollar spent
timely buys more building than several dollars deferred.
Aside from the capital projects, the Superior Court has made great
strides with the Family Court in launching new initiatives to address
community needs. Let me review some of the highlights.
FAMILY COURT IMPLEMENTATION
The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 changed the way
the court handles family cases, most notably abuse, neglect and
juvenile cases. The Act authorized additional judges, a ``one family/
one judge'' case management approach, and numerous other procedural
changes that enable the Court to better serve our community.
The Family Court, ably led first by Judge Lee F. Satterfield and
now by Judge Anita Josey-Herring as Presiding Judge, examined best
practices around the nation and made changes where required by the Act
and where improvements could be made. Through close collaboration with
Executive Branch agencies in the child welfare system, the Family Court
is making great strides in improving the lives of children and families
in the District.
Let me provide an overview of just a few of the more significant
changes we have:
--Renovated and restructured the John Marshall level of the
courthouse as the Family Court level. It is now the ``family-
friendly space'' that Senators DeWine and Landrieu envisioned
several years back. It includes a one-stop shopping approach
for the public with a Centralized Intake Center, Mayor's
Services Liaison Office, and a Pro-Se Self Help Clinic where
persons without legal counsel can obtain materials about Family
Court processes and seek assistance with court forms. The space
presents a family-friendly environment with comfortable waiting
areas decorated with artwork created by children from the D.C.
Public Schools.
--Established the Benchmark Permanency Program for older youth in
foster care to help them make decisions and plans for the
future and to coordinate a full range of services necessary for
them to successfully make the transition to independent living.
Children 15 years of age or older make up 35 percent of
children under court supervision in the neglect system.
--Held annual training programs for judges and stakeholders on Family
Law and related topics, such as child development.
--Expanded operation of the Child Protection Mediation Program, which
has been found to result in significantly faster adjudication,
disposition, and permanency in children's cases and a
significantly lower rate of recidivism by parents and guardians
in neglect cases.
--Developed a Family Treatment Court Program that provides a
residential drug treatment program to mothers with substance
abuse problems, that allows their children under age 11 to
remain in their care while they undergo treatment, parenting
classes, counseling and other services. In this way the
children do not have to enter foster care. Inpatient,
residential care is followed by six-months of after care by
D.C.'s Addiction Prevention Recovery Administration (APRA).
--Launched the ``Hooked on Books'' program, which encourages literacy
by providing each child who visits Family Court with a book of
his or her own.
--Collaborated with the Metropolitan Police Department to create
Operation Prevent Auto Theft to address an increase in
unauthorized use of motor vehicle crimes by juveniles.
--Working with the city's Truancy Task Force, established two new
truancy initiatives:
--To heighten enforcement of the D.C. Compulsory School Attendance
Act, elementary schools refer to the Attorney General's
office the names of parents whose children have 15 or more
unexcused absences in a semester. These parents are brought
before a judge to address the issue and learn that it is
their responsibility to get their children to school or
face jail time. Community collaboratives work with the
family to determine whether services--such as parenting
classes--are needed and monitors the family's progress to
make sure the children are back in school. There was a 40
percent decrease in elementary school truancy in the fall
of 2004 compared with the fall 2003.
--To address the problem of teens who do not attend school
regularly, and intervene before the truancy becomes
ingrained and the child is too far behind to participate in
high school, we launched the first-ever D.C. middle school
truancy initiative at Garnett-Patterson Middle School.
Judge Satterfield conducted this program, which involved
weekly meetings with parents and students, and community
collaboratives working with the families. The first
graduation ceremony was held on January 24. Deputy Mayor
Brenda Donald Walker joined Judge Satterfield at the
ceremony to congratulate the students and parents who
completed the course. This semester the middle school
program will be operating at a second school, Kramer Middle
School in Southeast; Family Court Presiding Judge Anita
Josey-Herring will conduct that program.
As I mentioned earlier, we are very pleased that the President's
recommendation included support for some of our security initiatives;
specifically, funding in the amount of $3.8 million for additional
court security officers for the Family Court and $10 million for fire
and security alarm system enhancements. While we had requested $6.2
million for additional security officers to protect more of our
courtrooms, we are pleased to see that the President's recommendation
recognizes the increasing concern over court security threats in recent
years.
INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM
The Court's major information technology initiative to consolidate
19 different databases and provide comprehensive information to
judicial officers has now been implemented throughout the Superior
Court. The final stage was to bring the Criminal Division on line,
which happened in January. We are now making adjustments and enhancing
performance and report generation capabilities, but I am proud to
report that the system is fully implemented.
IJIS implementation has been a multi-year project that took place
while the District engaged in an effort to improve information
technology within and among the District's child welfare and criminal
justice agencies. The Courts' IJIS platform is designed to integrate
with the District's new system, and our database configuration has been
shared to ensure information sharing. Once the District's system is
fully implemented, it will allow participating agencies to store and
retrieve data electronically, to make information available to the
public, and to exchange vital information with law enforcement and
homeland security agencies much more effectively.
The Family Court was the first court division to go on line with
IJIS, and the new system has significantly enhanced our ability to
identify cases that should be consolidated before one judge under the
Family Court Act's ``one judge/one family'' approach and to track
compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I want to thank the
Subcommittee for its support over the past several years. It has
enabled the Superior Court to implement IJIS and enhance case
processing and judicial decision-making.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, the D.C. Courts are proud of our
efforts to serve children and families, to implement technology that
enhances our service to the public, to respond to the community and to
provide safe, secure, open facilities in which that can occur. We
appreciate the support you have shown in helping us carry out all of
those goals. In return, we believe we have been good stewards of the
taxpayers' hard earned funds.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
FAMILY COURT CONSOLIDATION TIMELINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Court Consolidation Activity Timetable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Built 9 chambers for new Family Court Fiscal year 2002
Magistrate Judges.
Built 4 hearing rooms for abuse and Fiscal year 2002
neglect proceedings.
Constructed 3 new courtrooms and 3 new Fiscal year 2004
hearing rooms for family matters.
Renovated JM-level of Moultrie for Family Fiscal year 2004
Court, including creation of: Central
case intake office, Family waiting room,
Mayor's Liaison Offices for provision of
social services, Self-Help Center for
unrepresented litigants, Attorney/family
conference areas, and Family friendly
environment (e.g., play area, couches,
carpet, toys and books, children's art).
Construct new Family Court entrance with Fiscal year 2006
accessible grade/ramping, welcoming
lobby with sculptures, enhanced
security, and improved signage.
Construct new holding facility for Fiscal year 2007
juvenile offenders.
Renovate Family Court 1st floor public Fiscal year 2007
hallways to create family friendly
environment (carpet, sofa, children's
art, family waiting area).
Renovate C Street level and relocate Fiscal year 2007
Social Services Division's Child
Guidance Clinic, Family Counseling Unit,
Juvenile Drug Court Program, and
Juvenile Diagnostic and Probation
Supervision Branch Staff from Building B.
Renovate northeast section of JM-level Fiscal year 2008
and relocate Paternity and Support,
Domestic Relations, Juvenile and Neglect
and Marriage Bureau Staff.
Renovate 1st floor secure corridors and Fiscal year 2009
adjacent offices to create family
friendly public space and relocate
remaining administrative Family Court
Offices (Director, Mental Health, CCAN).
Relocate Marriage Bureau to JM level..... Fiscal year 2009
Construct addition to Moultrie Courthouse Fiscal year 2010
(lamination); includes a new Family
Court entrance, courtrooms, judicial
chambers and staff offices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Brownback. Message received. I understand.
Ms. Buchanan, do you want to--would you care to go ahead
and make a brief statement?
STATEMENT OF AVIS E. BUCHANAN, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Ms. Buchanan. Yes, thank you. I am Avis E. Buchanan. I am
honored to serve as the director of the D.C. Public Defender
Service (PDS). As you know, I represent people who cannot
afford their own attorneys. We provide constitutionally
mandated defense representation to those individuals. We
practice under the Criminal Justice Act and we handle primarily
the most serious, most intensive cases that come through the
system. We represent people charged with the most serious
felonies, children charged with serious delinquency matters or
offenses, parole--we represent people in parole revocation
cases, and we represent people who are subject to involuntary
civil commitment proceedings in the mental health system.
For fiscal year 2007, PDS requests an increase of
approximately $3 million, for an overall budget request of
$32.7 million. PDS did not request or receive an increase in
its budget in fiscal year 2006. We used that year to improve
our internal operations and our performance measurement and
performance management. We also engaged in a compensation study
to support our staff and to support our clients.
We are asking for the increase so that we can absorb
inflationary cost increases and salary increases for our very
talented staff, who dedicate themselves to our clients on a
daily basis.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have done a number of things over the last fiscal year,
including engaging in reentry efforts. We organized an
expungement seminar for people who have an interest in getting
their records expunged. We also provided access to social
services organizations who could deal with housing and
employment needs and drug treatment and counseling needs that
this population has. We held a seminar for attorneys who
represent veterans, focusing on their reentry needs and their
specific housing and employment needs.
Senator Brownback. Ms. Buchanan, if I could interrupt, the
vote was called at 3:05 and we are going to have to close this
hearing down probably at about 3:20. So I have got about 10
minutes here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Avis E. Buchanan
Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Avis E. Buchanan, 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 2007 budget request.
We thank this Subcommittee for its support of our programs in previous
years.
In 2005, Public Defender Service marked its 35th anniversary by
continuing to build on its reputation of providing quality defense
representation to people in the District of Columbia. Since 1970, when
PDS was established as a model public defender serving in the newly
created District of Columbia Superior Court, PDS has developed and
maintained a reputation as the best public defender office in the
country--local or federal. PDS has become the national standard bearer
and the benchmark by which other public defense organizations often
measure themselves in a number of practice and administrative areas.
In fiscal year 2007, PDS plans to continue on its trajectory toward
better human capital management and better performance management.
PDS's fiscal year 2007 budget request supports these plans by seeking a
budget that loses no ground to inflationary pressures. PDS requests
$32.71 million, including an increase of $3.175 million, to permit the
office to absorb salary increases and the cost increases associated
with inflation. PDS's fiscal year 2006 budget remained at the level of
the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request; with this ``flat''
fiscal year 2006 budget, PDS has focused on increasing and improving
our internal efficiencies and has planned no increase to staffing
levels. Without an increase in its fiscal year 2007 budget, PDS will be
challenged to continue to evaluate its strategic direction for human
capital and the amount of support required by the legal divisions. The
increase sought will provide PDS with the flexibility to further
develop its data collection for quantitative and qualitative
performance measures as we continue to transition to performance-based
budgeting and management that assist in maintaining quality
representation for indigent persons in the District of Columbia courts.
BACKGROUND
In the District of Columbia, PDS and the local District of Columbia
courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally mandated
defense representation to people who cannot pay for their own attorney.
Under the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Act (CJA),\1\ 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 most of the
misdemeanor and traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350 pre-
screened private attorneys (``CJA attorneys'').\2\ Approximately 110
PDS staff lawyers are appointed to represent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ D.C. Code 11-2601 et seq. (2001 Ed).
\2\ An additional 75 CJA attorneys handle juvenile matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--the majority of people facing the most serious felony charges
--a substantial number of individuals litigating criminal appeals
--a significant number of the children facing serious delinquency
charges
--nearly 100 percent of people facing parole revocation
--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 person is
ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
representation to recovering substance abusers participating in the
highly successful Drug Court treatment program, and to children in the
delinquency system who have learning disabilities and require special
educational accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Defender Service, unique among local public defender
offices in that it is federally funded,\4\ 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. In
addition, PDS has developed innovative approaches to representation,
from instituting measures to address the problems of incarcerated
clients who are returning to the community 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 patterned their
approach to their work after ours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 legal organization
governed by an eleven-member Board of Trustees. 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. Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title X
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its statutory mission to promote quality criminal
defense representation in the District of Columbia as a whole, PDS
continues to provide training for other District of Columbia defense
attorneys and investigators who represent those who cannot afford an
attorney, and to provide support to the District of Columbia courts.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST
PDS seeks an increase of $3.175 million in order to keep pace with
inflation and salary adjustments. The additional funds, coming after a
fiscal year for which PDS requested no increase from its fiscal year
2005 funding, are vital if PDS is to sustain the level of quality
advocacy that trial and appellate judges are accustomed to seeing from
PDS staff.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As part of its human capital strategy, PDS recently engaged the
services of a consultant to assist in evaluating PDS's compensation and
performance evaluation practices with the goal of maintaining the
current culture of excellence and collaboration while updating and
expanding the options available to PDS managers and improving the link
between compensation and individual performance. PDS has also
contracted with a new payroll service provider, vastly improving record
keeping and access to ``real-time'' information. In addition, PDS has
improved its data collection capacity in support of its first-ever
strategic plan and annual performance plan, establishing more baselines
for use with future performance assessment.
GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Collaborative Work
While well-respected and widely known for zealously advocating on
behalf of clients in the criminal justice system's adversarial process,
PDS also works closely with criminal justice agencies (e.g., the
Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Attorney's Office,
the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Corrections, and
the Superior Court) and the courts to make the criminal justice system
function more efficiently and fairly.
Collaborative work, essential to an efficient and fair criminal
justice system, can be difficult for a legal entity such as PDS. PDS
must always be mindful of its professional obligation to individual
clients. PDS cannot waive any current or future client's right to
assert a particular position or challenge a procedure. This can be
frustrating to other criminal justice agencies that are not similarly
constrained. In addition, PDS's collaboration is often with traditional
adversaries that view PDS with suspicion. Nonetheless, PDS continues to
collaborate, producing both large and small changes that improve the
criminal justice system.
Support for District of Columbia Family Court's Authority.--In
fiscal year 2002, PDS successfully argued on behalf of an individual
client that under District of Columbia law, Superior Court judges lose
their authority to monitor delinquent children committed to the custody
of the District's youth rehabilitation agency once the judge orders the
commitment.\5\ Following this win in the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, PDS provided support to the District of Columbia Council as it
developed legislation for an appropriate role for judges following a
commitment order. As a result, legislation has been enacted allowing
judges to respond to post-commitment changes in circumstances or to
enforce conditions imposed by the Court at the time of the commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In re P.S., 821 A.2d 905 (D.C. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtview Access.--The District of Columbia Superior Court very
recently converted to a new information system for maintaining its
criminal case docket. This change has a direct impact on PDS. PDS used
the previous system to upload information into its case management
system and to efficiently determine each arrestee's financial
eligibility for counsel on a daily basis. PDS has established the
ability to obtain limited electronic information from the Court's new
system, and we are beginning discussions with the Court concerning
whether it will grant PDS greater access for more efficient eligibility
determinations and case management.
The Court, in combination with law enforcement agencies, is
developing a robust data repository for all criminal cases. In addition
to providing law enforcement with more coordinated data, the system
also has the potential to provide all agencies with data relevant to
performance. PDS's access to this information is the subject of some
debate within the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). PDS
will continue to work with the CJCC to develop access commensurate with
its role as the institutional defender in the District of Columbia.
Crawford Litigation.--During its previous term, the Supreme Court
decided a case, Crawford v. Washington,\6\ that revived the common law
right to confrontation adopted by the Sixth Amendment, establishing a
rule that categorically requires confrontation for all ``testimonial''
hearsay. Unfortunately, the Court did not provide any firm definition
of what constituted ``testimonial'' hearsay. This led to great
confusion in courts around the country, including the District of
Columbia courts, about when the defense would be able to confront
witnesses in criminal cases, and when the government could try their
case based solely on paper accusations in what were often described as
``witnessless'' trials. Because witnessless trials are common in the
District of Columbia, and because the Supreme Court is the only court
that can clearly resolve whether Crawford continues to permit these
trials (which were forbidden in 1791 when the Confrontation Clause was
adopted), PDS searched the country for good cases for the Court to use
to provide a definition of testimonial hearsay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDS identified two such cases: Hammon v. Indiana and Davis v.
Washington. After identifying the cases, PDS (working with our private
bar counterpart, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers)
filed a brief as a ``friend of the court,'' explaining to the Supreme
Court why these cases were good vehicles to use to resolve the
definition of ``testimonial'' hearsay. PDS drafted the brief on behalf
of our office and the NACDL and urged the Court to grant review in
Hammon and Davis in order to end the confusion around the country on
the issue. The PDS brief was the only friend of the court brief filed
at the certiorari stage of the case, and the only brief that identified
why review should be granted in both Hammon and Davis out of the
literally dozens of cases last year in which the Court was asked to
resolve this ``testimonial'' hearsay question. In response, the Supreme
Court did exactly as PDS suggested, granting review in both cases--and
only those cases--and ordering that they be argued in tandem. Following
the grants of review, dozens of friend of the court briefs have now
been filed from around the country, including additional briefing by
PDS and NACDL. The oral arguments are scheduled for March 20, 2006.
Faith-Based Regional Directory.--Working with the D.C. Jail
Ministries, Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, a church
member who is the former director of the D.C. Department of
Corrections, and a ministries group, PDS is participating in developing
a regional directory of social services resources for use by the
greater community, including regional church leaders and staff and
church members.
Other Program Accomplishments
PDS engaged in a number of activities during the past year that had
significant implications for individual clients or that improved the
overall administration of justice.
Individual Clients
The core work of PDS is the representation of individual clients
facing a loss of liberty. As you know, the criminal justice system is
premised on an adversarial system, and PDS has able adversaries in the
District's Attorney General's Office and the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia. A fair criminal justice system
depends on having all components (judges, government, and defense)
fulfill their respective roles. PDS plays a pivotal part in ensuring
that all cases, whether they result in pleas or trials, involve
comprehensive investigation and thorough consultation with the client,
and that the trials constitute a full and fair airing of reliable
evidence. As it has every year since its inception, PDS won many trials
in fiscal year 2005, fought a forceful fight in others, and found
resolution prior to trial for many clients. Whatever the outcome, PDS's
goal and achievement for each client was competent, quality
representation.
All of these cases and their outcomes are far too varied and
numerous to recount here, and the ethical rules that protect all
clients' confidences, regardless of their economic circumstances,
preclude me from providing detailed examples. Instead, the following
cases, absent identifying information, are a small sample of how
competent, quality representation can change lives.
Unlawful Detention.--In a case of mistaken identity, PDS obtained
the release of a Latino man who was unlawfully held at the D.C. Jail
for three months, in part because of a language barrier, for an offense
he did not commit. The man had been brought to court on a probation
matter that had been resolved previously. On that same day, another
individual with the same name but a different date of birth was
sentenced in court in two cases. The Latino man was mistakenly
transferred from the court to the D.C. Jail without ever having seen a
lawyer or a judge. Three months later, during a presentation by PDS for
Latino inmates at the D.C. Jail, the innocent man approached
Institutional Services Program bilingual staff and urgently pleaded for
assistance. In researching the circumstances, PDS learned of the
mistaken identity and instantly notified the U.S. Marshals Service, the
D.C. Department of Corrections, and the Superior Court. The Chief Judge
of the Superior Court signed a release order, ending the man's unlawful
incarceration.
Ensuring Fairness.--Following a trial attorney's allocution during
a sentencing proceeding, a judge imposed a sentence harsher than the
trial attorney thought appropriate. As a result, when the judge
inquired whether counsel had any additional comments to make to the
court, trial counsel asked the court to reconsider its sentence. In
response to trial counsel's continued allocution on behalf of his
client, the court doubled the sentence. PDS promptly filed a notice of
appeal, and within weeks, PDS's Appellate Division filed a brief
challenging the decision of the judge to impose a harsher sentence
after the attorney's protest. PDS argued that the second sentence was
arbitrary and capricious, was based on improperly vindictive motives,
and exceeded the court's authority to revise an already pronounced and
otherwise lawful sentence. After reviewing the PDS brief, the
government agreed that the trial court had erred. As a result, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order vacating the
illegal sentence and directing the trial judge to reduce the sentence.
Because the PDS Trial and Appellate Divisions took immediate action,
the client did not spend any extra time incarcerated due to the illegal
sentence.
Defending the Public's Access to Courtrooms.--During a public
proceeding, a Superior Court judge apparently heard an individual
talking in his courtroom. The judge inquired if the man had a matter
before the court. The man informed the court that he was waiting for a
relative's case to be called. Apparently hearing the man talking again,
the judge, sitting on the bench before a crowded courtroom, told him to
leave the courtroom. When the man did not leave immediately, the court,
rather than asking the deputy U.S. Marshal to escort him from the
courtroom, or asking the deputy to personally instruct him not to talk
while in the courtroom, ordered the individual stepped back into the
holding cell. In addition to incarcerating the spectator, the judge
also ordered that he be subjected to drug testing. While in the holding
cell, the man asked a PDS staff attorney present in the area for
assistance. Within hours, the client was released, and no testing was
performed.
Discovery Litigation.--Over the past year, PDS lawyers have engaged
in lengthy litigation over discovery issues in Superior Court. A hotly
contested area of litigation involves Brady \7\ evidence--evidence
that is favorable for or tends to exculpate the client. What
constitutes Brady evidence and when that evidence must be disclosed to
the defense are strenuously disputed issues in Superior Court. PDS is
at the forefront of this litigation. PDS has filed dozens of pleadings
in trial cases over the past year and was asked to file a ``friend of
the court'' brief in an appellate case addressing Brady and the
government's conduct in a specific case. While the appellate case has
not yet been decided, the trial level litigation has resulted in a
number of acquittals and, on occasion, determinations by the government
that the charges should be dismissed. Examples of evidence produced
through litigation include evidence that a detective was under
investigation for pressuring witnesses to change their testimony;
evidence that the complaining witness was drunk at the time of the
alleged incident; evidence that a detective had interviewed two
witnesses claiming that someone other than the client had committed a
homicide; evidence that a police officer had provided sworn testimony
before the court that was contradicted by the complaining witness's
sworn testimony before the grand jury; and evidence that the
complaining witness left the government a voicemail message recanting
her complaint. Evidence of this nature can and does affect juror views
of a case. In a homicide case in which PDS represented a 16-year-old
client with no prior contacts with the criminal justice system,
discovery litigation led to disclosures that another individual had the
opportunity and motive to commit the offense. Following a trial in the
matter in which the jury acquitted the PDS client of all the charges,
defense counsel had an opportunity to speak with members of the jury
and to learn firsthand how the exculpatory evidence played a
significant role in the jury's decision to acquit the client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education Services.--In recognition of our efforts to
ensure that children of the District of Columbia receive the
appropriate educational services instead of being labeled delinquent,
two Superior Court judges referred two separate special education
students to PDS. We represented these two students successfully against
D.C. Public Schools for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities
in Education Act. As direct result of our representation, each student
received full-time special education private school placements within
the community after facing expulsion from their public schools. Once
appropriately enrolled in these schools, the court closed their cases.
Appellate Division
The Appellate Division's appellate litigation has an impact
throughout the District's criminal justice system as decisions in its
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
does not lack.
Properly Instructing the Jury.--Following briefs and oral argument,
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a PDS client's armed
manslaughter conviction. In this case there was evidence the client had
acted in self-defense and no evidence that the client had provoked or
started the fatal fight. Nonetheless, the trial judge, over the
objection of the trial attorney, advised the jury that someone cannot
defend on the ground of self-defense if he or she instigated the fatal
confrontation. As a result, even though the evidence showed many
reasons to conclude that the client justifiably defended himself with
deadly force, he was unfairly deprived of the right to have the jury
determine if he acted in self-defense.
Fairness in Jury Selection.--The District of Columbia Court of
Appeals held that PDS made out a prima facie case of racial and gender
discrimination in jury selection by the prosecutor, who removed a
markedly disproportionate number of black women from the jury pool in a
case in which our client--whose mother and sister are black--defended
himself against criminal charges on the grounds that he was protecting
his sister from the person who had just hit his mother with a metal
pole--the client's mother and sister are black. The Superior Court
erroneously believed that peremptory strikes aimed at black women did
not offend either Batson (the Supreme Court case that forbids racial
discrimination in jury selection) or J.E.B. (the Supreme Court case
that forbids gender discrimination in jury selection). On the contrary,
said the Court of Appeals: ``By definition, discrimination against
black females in jury selection is both discrimination against certain
female jurors solely because they are black and discrimination against
certain black jurors solely because they are female. It thus is both
racial discrimination of the kind condemned in Batson and gender
discrimination of the kind condemned in J.E.B.'' Moreover, the Court of
Appeals refused to remand the case to allow the prosecutor to
demonstrate that he had been motivated by a non-discriminatory purpose.
Instead, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction outright,
concluding that ``the explanations for the prosecutor's seemingly
discriminatory strikes could [not] be tested fairly and adequately at
this late stage.''
Special Litigation Division
The Special Litigation Division litigates systemic issues in the
District of Columbia criminal justice system 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:
Fairness in Parole Procedures.--In Fletcher v. Reilly,\8\ PDS led a
lawsuit filed in federal court challenging new guidelines issued by the
U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) that refused to allow for the
consideration of post-incarceration conduct--education and skills
training--in inmate reparole hearings. (Reparole hearings are held when
an inmate is paroled, violates, serves a significant amount of time in
prison, and seeks ``reparole.'') The challenge was brought on behalf of
an inmate, Thaddeus Fletcher, who, following a parole violation in
1995, had obtained a bachelor's degree while incarcerated, completed
hundreds of hours of jobs and skills training (including values
development, woodworking, insect extermination, food preparation,
computer skills, business practices, and stress and anger management),
accepted meaningful responsibility, and demonstrated a genuine
understanding of his past actions. In fact, the USPC hearing officer
who heard Mr. Fletcher's case in 2004 noted Mr. Fletcher's ``sincere
remorse'' for his criminal conduct, and described Mr. Fletcher's
rehabilitative behavior in prison as ``phenomenal,'' noting that ``it
is rare to see a case with this many accomplishments.'' The USPC
officer also noted that Mr. Fletcher had ``consistently received
excellent work reports and had also received numerous commendations.''
Mr. Fletcher also has never had a disciplinary infraction during his
time in prison, which is very unusual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fletcher v. Reilly,_F.3d_(D.C. Cir. January 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the USPC guidelines, adopted in 2001, all of this post-
incarceration conduct was irrelevant at Mr. Fletcher's reparole
hearing. The new guidelines instead focused the hearing on the
application of mechanical sentencing guidelines in determining whether
he would be released to parole, and those guidelines did not account at
all for rehabilitative post-incarceration conduct. Mr. Fletcher
challenged these guidelines on the basis of the Ex Post Facto Clause of
the U.S. Constitution, arguing that application of the old D.C. Parole
Guidelines in effect at the time of his offense would likely have
shortened his sentence, because they would have not only allowed
consideration of his behavior in prison, but would have focused on that
conduct, making rehabilitative efforts the primary factor in the
decision whether Mr. Fletcher should be reparoled. The D.C. Circuit
agreed, in a 21-page opinion that made very clear that the USPC's
reparole regulations cannot be retroactively applied to D.C. inmates,
since doing so creates a significant risk of increased punishment for
any inmate with a history of good conduct in prison. This decision will
not only affect many D.C. inmates covered by the reparole guidelines in
a positive way, but it will encourage those inmates to behave in
prison. It will also encourage inmates to improve themselves through
education, since doing so can again result in a shortened sentence,
just as it did under the D.C. Parole Board regulations in effect at the
time of their offenses. The decision will also force the USPC to pay
more attention to individual characteristics of the offender in
reparole cases, rather than rely solely on mechanical guidelines.
Special Education for Incarcerated Youth.--The Special Litigation
Division challenged the failure of the D.C. Department of Corrections
and the D.C. Public Schools to provide special education services to
eligible youth incarcerated in the District of Columbia Jail. This
year, the parties in the case, J.C., et al. v. Vance, et al., agreed on
a resolution of the lawsuit, and the United States District Court has
approved the settlement agreement. Facts developed in connection with
the lawsuit, including sworn testimony from the special education
teacher at the jail, demonstrated that the District had made virtually
no progress in establishing a working special education program at the
jail despite its claims to the contrary to the federal district court.
The settlement terms call for the District to develop a special
education manual within a year and to complete and implement a special
education system within two years.
Incarcerated Children.--For 20 years, PDS has litigated the lawsuit
challenging the juvenile detention system in the District, Jerry M., et
al. v. District of Columbia, et al.,\9\ and we are closer to a
resolution than we have been in many years. The lawsuit and the
resulting consent decree focus on the conditions of the juvenile
detention facilities and on the treatment and rehabilitation provided
to youths at the facilities to reduce their risks of recidivating and
increase their opportunity of becoming productive members of the
community. Last year, the Division's Jerry M. lawyers asked the court
to appoint a receiver to oversee the District's Youth Services
Administration (now the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services)
until the consent decree's mandates could be met. While the request was
pending, the court held the District in contempt for violating several
consent decree provisions. The District then agreed to the appointment
of a special arbiter to resolve disputes and formulate a new model for
juvenile justice in D.C. The Special Litigation Division and the
District are now well on their way toward the formulation of a
comprehensive work plan to address the systemic issues that have
plagued the District's juvenile justice system for years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Civil Action No. 1519-85 (IFP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, the lawsuit has led to:
--The passage of legislation by the D.C. Council creating a cabinet-
level position for the YRS director with its own independent
budget authority.
--The hiring of a child-friendly director with extensive juvenile
justice experience committed to the care and rehabilitation of
the District's children.
--The hiring of additional trained, qualified youth correctional
officers to fill the gaps at Oak Hill, the District's main
youth detention facility, and provide a safer environment for
the children.
--The closure of the girls' unit at Oak Hill and the transfer of all
detained girls to a newly constructed Youth Services Center.
--The fulfillment of the consent decree's requirement of single cells
for boys by reducing the male population.
--The improvement of fire safety, suicide prevention, mental health,
environmental health, and safety measures at Oak Hill.
--The transformation of a unit at Oak Hill into a model unit to
create incentives and merit-based programs for children to earn
their release into a less restrictive environment when
appropriate.
--The opening of the pre-release unit for children who are to be
released within 30 days from Oak Hill to establish school and
job placement in the community.
--The redrafting of the intake criteria for arrested children and the
focus on diversion programs for children not meeting those
criteria.
--The initiation of an assessment of the District of Columbia
juvenile justice system to be performed by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. The assessment will include a detailed analysis of
the YRS population in secure and community settings, as well as
the programs and services needed for the full continuum of
care, including both community alternatives and secure
confinement.
Unbiased Judicial Officers.--SLD challenged the District's mental
health commissioners' practice of hearing cases involving the
District's Department of Mental Health while simultaneously having
ongoing contractual relationships with the Department, a practice the
Superior Court deemed impermissible in 1971. This challenge is pending
before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Community Defender Division
The Community Defender Division provides services through four
programs: the Juvenile Services Program, which focuses on children
confined to the Oak Hill Youth Detention Center in Laurel, Maryland and
placed in residential facilities across the country; the Community Re-
entry Program, which responds to the legal and social needs of newly
released D.C. parolees and assists them in making a successful
transition back into the community; the Institutional Services Program,
which serves as a liaison to D.C. Code offenders in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the Community Outreach and Education
Program, which educates members of the community about their legal
rights and responsibilities in the criminal justice system.
Expungement Summit.--In September 2005, PDS worked with several
service providers to host an Expungement Summit. Modeled on a similar
effort in Chicago, the Expungement Summit offered assistance to
individuals with criminal records, determining whether the individuals
might be successful in seeking to seal their arrest records, and
providing them with social services resources. PDS's Community Defender
Division coordinated and hosted the event. Approximately 250
individuals attended, obtaining information about housing, child
support, public benefits, and other legal services issues from staff
and volunteers from the D.C. Employment Justice Center, the
Neighborhood Legal Services Program, the Washington Legal Clinic for
the Homeless, and D.C. Law Students in Court. In addition, a number of
programs were present to help with employment, housing, substance
abuse, and other non-legal needs that complicate the lives of those who
have been involved in the criminal justice system. Another
approximately 150 individuals who had scheduling conflicts or who were
concerned about privacy called the Division before and after the day of
the Summit to seek PDS's assistance. The Summit was so successful that
PDS has already begun planning a second such event.
Truancy Initiative.--The Community Defender Program is working
closely with the Family Court, the D.C. Public Schools, and the D.C.
School Board to address the truancy problem by developing a program
modeled after one in Louisville, Kentucky. The initiative is a family
intervention program created to address the root causes of truancy. A
community team of judicial officers, school personnel, social services
providers, mental health providers, and substance abuse rehabilitation
providers would work together to identify families for whom intensive
services would help resolve barriers to school attendance. The program
is based in the schools, rather than in the courts, allowing the team
to make weekly visits to the school, with regular contacts between the
case manager and the family in between the school visits. Twelve of the
first 15 students enrolled in the program have ``graduated,''
demonstrating significantly improved attendance as a result of the
program's intervention. The truancy initiative is an ongoing program;
plans are being made for a new group of students to participate in it.
PDS Legal Services at the New Juvenile Detention Center.--The
District's Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services has provided
space to PDS in the newly opened Juvenile Detention Center. The
facility replaces the long-closed Receiving Home for Children as a
short-term detention facility for children alleged to be delinquent.
PDS will replicate at this new facility some of the services, such as
representation at disciplinary hearings, that PDS currently provides to
children detained at the Oak Hill Youth Detention Facility, the
District's longer-term detention facility Maryland.
Re-entry programs.--In fiscal year 2006, the Community Re-entry
Program sponsored a day-long conference, ``Representing Combat Veterans
in the Criminal Justice System,'' on providing assistance to veterans.
The conference, which placed a special emphasis on veterans of the
U.S.-Iraq war who are charged with criminal offenses, focused on the
defenses and sentencing options available to them, and on the resources
that are available for the health, employment, and education problems
most encountered by veterans.
Parole Division
The Parole Division provides required representation to parolees
facing revocation before the United States Parole Commission.\10\ This
Division represents nearly 100 percent of the D.C. Code offenders
facing parole revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Revitalization Act shifted responsibility for D.C. parole
matters from the D.C. Board of Parole to the United States Parole
Commission. 28 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2.214(b)(1) and 2.216(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working with the Parole Commission.--PDS's Parole Division
continues to monitor closely the work of the U.S. Parole Commission and
to seek out areas of collaboration. Most recently, a pilot program
using expedited plea offers has been instituted, and the Division is
providing feedback and suggestions for improving the process in a
manner that allows clients to make fully informed decisions. If
successful, this program could help reduce the current population
levels at the D.C. Jail and the Central Treatment Facility.
TRAINING
PDS conducts and participates in numerous training programs
throughout the year. The annual Criminal Practice Institute and the
Summer Criminal Defender Training Program address the training needs of
the court-appointed CJA attorneys and investigators. In fiscal year
2006, PDS attorneys and investigators also taught sessions at many D.C.
law schools. PDS attorneys were also invited to teach elsewhere
locally, including at the D.C. Bar, the National Legal Aid and Defender
Association, the Defender Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, and at D.C. law firms offering pro bono
services in Superior Court cases.
Forensic Science Conference.--In September 2005, PDS sponsored its
third forensic science conference; this one focused on developing
defense attorneys' cross-examination skills in challenging DNA
evidence. The conference built on the expertise PDS's Trial Division
has developed in challenging nuclear DNA evidence, mitochondrial DNA
evidence, and cases arising out of database searches. The innovative
design of the conference gave attorneys an opportunity in small group
sessions to practice cross-examining experts from around the country
using a specially prepared case and to receive immediate feedback from
experienced attorneys. The conference--the first of its kind in the
country--was planned in anticipation of the President's initiative to
reduce the backlog of DNA cases and to better educate lawyers and
judges about DNA evidence. By all accounts the conference was a
success. A number of public defender offices have contacted PDS to
explore ways of reproducing the training in other parts of the country,
and participants gave the conference very high marks, with the most
common score being a 5 on a 5-point scale.
In the face of growing evidence that most wrongful convictions are
based on erroneous eyewitness identifications, the 2006 Forensic
Science Conference will bring the latest social science research and
experts in the field to Washington, D.C. The conference is designed to
provide defense attorneys with the information and tools necessary to
properly investigate cases to guard against erroneous identifications
and to educate jurors and judges about pitfalls surrounding eyewitness
identification procedures currently in use by many law enforcement
agencies.
The Criminal Practice Institute Manual.--The only comprehensive
criminal practice manual for the District of Columbia is produced by
PDS. Judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors practicing in Superior
Court rely on this two-volume treatise. The 2005 edition of the
Criminal Practice Institute Manual has been substantially rewritten to
reflect recent changes to the law and the most current and developing
practice areas. All relevant District of Columbia and federal case law
and statutory changes through August 2005 have been included. Most
chapters underwent substantial revision, including the chapters on
sentencing, civil commitment, immigration, search and seizure,
investigations, voir dire, jury issues, insanity, hearsay, and
discovery. PDS's emphasis on the use of experts and the growing need
for defense attorneys to understand DNA science and other types of
scientific evidence led to the addition of a new chapter devoted
entirely to expert testimony.
PDS Attorney Training Program.--PDS's training program for its new
Trial Division attorneys is well-respected, and it is often cited by
attorney applicants as one reason they are interested in working at
PDS. The attorneys participate in a rigorous six- to eight-week
training program that starts immediately upon their arrival and before
they are assigned to any cases. The training includes lectures and
demonstrations given by PDS attorney alumni, as well as mock hearings
over which actual Superior Court judges preside. When the U.S.
Department of Justice's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
conducted a study of PDS's operations and designated PDS as an
``exemplary project'' in the mid-1970s, the training program was cited
as contributing substantially to the quality of our program.
PDS recently directed its attention toward improving the training
that occurs after those new attorneys begin representing clients. All
attorneys are placed in ``trial practice groups'' or ``TPG's,'' based
on their practice level--felony I, juvenile, etc.--for regular, ongoing
training sessions led by a Trial Division deputy chief. PDS recently
revamped the TPG program to move away from conducting it as a set of
more informal sessions planned independently by each deputy chief
toward having a more coordinated set of training modules. PDS
identified all the major advanced skill sets and substantive knowledge
areas an attorney should acquire as he or she gains experience and
transitions from one practice level to another and organized them into
a ``tiered'' or ``sequenced'' TPG program. Supporting materials are
being developed to accompany the sessions so that the TPG program, like
the first-year training program, is self-sustaining, yet adaptable. We
are reviewing the revised TPG program to assess its efficacy and its
ability to meet the needs of the staff and the office.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Relying more extensively on technology, PDS continues to strive to
be a model public defender in its administrative operations as it is in
its client representation. PDS has created greater links between its
payroll and finance operations, and has responded to emphasis from
Congress on continuity of operations plans and telecommuting by
exploring ways of supporting employees away from their offices. PDS has
invested in new technology in the form of both hardware and software
that allow key staff to have access to electronic files and databases
from remote locations.
Continuity of Operations.--PDS has acquired the capacity (e.g.,
Blackberrys and docking stations) to provide staff with access to their
case files and to relevant databases from locations other than the
office. Currently, key managers can access electronic files and
databases from remote locations. In fiscal year 2006, PDS's IT staff
will be developing the capacity to support this technology for all key
staff, using a combination of existing staff and contractors.
Government Performance and Results Act.--PDS has expanded the use
of Atticus, PDS's self-created case management system, within the
organization. More staff now are able to enter case and performance
data into the system, better positioning PDS to report on performance.
``Duty Day'' representation.--PDS has reorganized its approach to
providing walk-in and call-in services to the public. PDS traditionally
assigned a staff attorney on a rotating basis to be available to answer
questions or handle matters from individuals who walked into the office
or called. PDS's paralegals have now been trained to serve as the
first-line point of contact on ``Duty Day'' matters--without providing
legal advice. This filters the calls, reducing the number that are
ultimately forwarded to an attorney and freeing the attorneys to
concentrate more exclusively on legal matters.
CONCLUSION
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 Brownback. If I could, Mr. Quander. I do not mean
to cut you off, but I have got to if I am going to hear from
the others. A brief summation, Mr. Quander?
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR, COURT
SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY
ACCOMPANIED BY REVEREND DONALD ISAAC, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST OF THE
RIVER CLERGY-POLICE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Quander. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback,
and good afternoon, Senator Landrieu.
The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOA)
supervises approximately 15,500 men and women who are on adult
probation and parole. The Pretrial Services Agency on any given
day supervises about 7,000 defendants. These individuals are in
the criminal justice system and we are responsible for their
supervision.
One of the major undertakings that we have is a reentry
initiative. In any given year, there are approximately 2,000
men and women who are returning to the District of Columbia
from a place of incarceration. Reentry is a major focus of how
we re-integrate them back into the District of Columbia. We
have a partnership with the faith community. Donald Isaac,
Reverend Donald Isaac, is here to talk about those things that
we have done in the partnership.
But what our needs are for those men and women who are
coming back is education, housing, substance abuse. We have to
figure out a way to help those individuals to maintain their
sense of involvement and to be embraced by society as they try
to make that transition from a criminal lifestyle to a pro-
social lifestyle.
With that, I will defer to Reverend Isaac to talk about
housing and some of the partnerships that we have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Quander, Jr.
Chairman Brownback and Members of the Subcommittee: It is my
privilege to appear before you once again this year to present the
fiscal year 2007 budget request of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency (CSOSA), which includes the D.C. Pretrial Services
Agency (PSA).
Let me begin by thanking the subcommittee for your continued
support of our agency and our initiatives. It has been truly gratifying
to me that our efforts to build a model supervision agency, grounded in
the field's best practices, here in the nation's capital, have
continually met with your interest and enthusiasm, and that you have
worked to make as many resources available to us as possible.
CSOSA's total budget request for fiscal year 2007 is $214,363,000,
an increase of 8 percent over our fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. Of
this, $135,457,000 is for the Community Supervision Program,
$46,196,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency, and $32,710,000 is for
the Public Defender Service, which is funded as part of CSOSA's
appropriation. The majority of our requested budget increase consists
of adjustments to base, with the reduction of PSA's extensive
supervision caseload being our sole new initiative. We believe these
requests are essential to our mission, and we look forward to your
continued support as we implement strategies to achieve that mission.
When we think of community supervision, we tend to visualize a
fixed period of time: six months of probation, two years of parole,
etc. The offenders pass into, through, and out of our system. They
either succeed or they fail. But for the offender, CSOSA supervision is
often just one in a series of episodes that, taken together, constitute
a lifetime of contact with the criminal justice system. I recently
asked our Office of Research and Evaluation to take a look at parolees
whose supervision was revoked in fiscal year 2005. These men and women
had spent very little of their lives outside the justice system. Nearly
half had been arrested for the first time as juveniles. Nearly 60
percent had six or more prior arrests. Eighty-eight percent had failed
at supervision at least once before, with nearly a third failing three
or more times. And nearly 90 percent had a history of substance abuse,
the reoccurrence of which plays a central role in their failures.
Maya Angelou once wrote of herself, ``You did what you knew how to
do, and when you knew better, you did better.'' The challenge of
community supervision is to provide offenders with the knowledge and
tools to do better. Imparting knowledge is as essential to CSOSA's
public safety mission as drug testing or home visits, and it's much
harder to achieve. We can count the number of drug tests and home
visits. It's much more difficult to measure the amount of effort needed
to empower one individual to say, ``My future does not have to be the
same as my past.''
Our community supervision model places public safety as its number
one priority, but it also stresses programming and support services
that help the offender move toward this realization. In particular, our
partnership with the faith community connects offenders to permanent
sources of inspiration and support. During this past year, our Faith
Community Partnership continued to move forward with both video
mentoring and post-release services.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget supports both prongs of CSOSA's
approach to successful supervision: accountability and opportunity. We
know that we need to monitor the individuals we supervise closely
enough to enforce the rules. We also know that for those rules to be
anything other than a temporary interruption of criminality, we must
provide the information and the opportunities for meaningful change.
Our budget puts in place key strategies to address both challenges.
First, our proposed budget would fund the implementation of a
program that we have planned for five years, and that we believe will
greatly expand our ability to supervise and assist the highest risk
offenders and defendants: chronic substance abusers. As you know, we
have been renovating Karrick Hall to house our Reentry and Sanctions
Center. This initiative will enable us to expand our successful
Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) program. The program model
combines intensive assessment with substance abuse treatment readiness
programming to improve the likelihood of successful supervision. The
clients sent there will leave with a prescriptive plan to guide future
treatment, increasing the prospect of success, as well as the personal
insight and motivation needed to stay drug and crime free.
In fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2006, Congress funded the staff
positions for five of the six units that will comprise the completed
Reentry and Sanctions Center. This year, the Community Supervision
Program requests an adjustment to base of $3,428,000. This will fund
operation of all six units, which will provide programming to 1,200
individuals annually.
We have long anticipated opening the Reentry and Sanctions Center
as a national model for best practices in the areas of assessment,
treatment readiness, and intermediate sanctions. The fully operational
facility will enable us to expand the AOC's services to special
populations, including female offenders and individuals with dual
mental health and substance abuse diagnoses, who could not be served
within the existing AOC. The AOC program has already made a difference
to the 1,500 individuals who have completed the program. Over the next
five years, full operation of the Reentry and Sanctions Center will
quadruple that number.
On any given day, the Pretrial Services Agency supervises
approximately 6,000 defendants. Over 3,000 of these defendants are
classified as needing extensive supervision--that is, regular drug
testing, face-to-face contact, and referral to treatment or other
support services. These cases constitute 55 percent of all General
Supervision caseloads with release conditions. Currently, 26 Pretrial
Supervision Officers are assigned to monitor these cases, with a
resulting caseload of 124 defendants per officer. This is too high to
provide the level of contact that the courts expect and the defendant's
risk necessitates.
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 2005, only 56 percent of
defendants were in compliance with their release conditions at the end
of the pretrial period. Currently, PSOs often cannot respond quickly to
violations of release conditions, despite the statutory requirement
that every violation be reported to the prosecutor and the Court. This
is particularly troubling with high-risk felonies pending indictment.
In these cases, the first court date after the preliminary hearing is
often many months after the defendant has been released to PSA. During
that time, because PSOs are managing their caseloads on the basis of
court dates rather than violations of release conditions, warrant
checks and criminal records checks are not done regularly to see if
defendants have been arrested again in a neighboring jurisdiction while
on release.
PSA requests 12 positions and $1.7 million to provide additional
Pretrial Supervision Officers for extensive supervision cases. This
request will lower caseloads to 100 per officer, and while still high
in relation to neighboring jurisdictions, 100:1 is a more manageable
level that will allow for closer monitoring and quicker responses to
violations.
PSA also requests three positions and $768,000 to implement Global
Positioning System-based electronic monitoring for high-risk
defendants. This will augment PSA's electronic monitoring capability to
include defendants who do not have a ``land line'' phone or whose
movements must be monitored more closely than traditional equipment
allows.
GPS-based monitoring has proven to be a successful tool for CSOSA's
Community Supervision Program, particularly for high-risk sex offenders
and domestic violence cases. Currently, approximately 100 offenders are
on this type of monitoring, which is used both routinely and as a
sanction for noncompliant behavior. Since the program began in fiscal
year 2004, approximately 300 offenders have been placed on GPS
monitoring. We would like to expand the use of this technology to the
pretrial population.
In closing, Chairman Brownback, I want to thank you for your
efforts last year to provide funding for more transitional housing. I
am pleased to report that we recently signed a contract with East of
the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership (ERCPCP) to refer
offenders who have completed substance abuse treatment to its new
transitional housing facility. This facility was developed, in part,
with the funding you provided ERCPCP in the fiscal year 2005 bill. Our
community needs more resources and collaborations of this kind in order
to address the critical need for safe, stable housing for offenders
returning from prison or treatment.
During the year ahead, I will be working closely with other
criminal justice system stakeholders to link the use of available
transitional housing resources to vocational training and career
development opportunities. I am confident that once our clients can see
and believe that they hold in their hands the promise of a better
future, they will take the path that leads to it.
Finally, I want to respond to last year's inquiry about our
recidivism rate. We recently concluded a study of offenders who entered
supervision in fiscal year 2003. Among these offenders, the two-year
rearrest rate was 65 percent. However, many of these rearrests were for
traffic offenses or public order charges, or were the result of
warrants we issued because the offender had violated his or her release
conditions. If we look at the types of crime that constitute the most
significant threat to public safety, the story is somewhat different.
For violent crime, the rearrest rate is 19 percent. For drug-related
crime, it is 35 percent. While the offender is under CSOSA supervision,
the rearrest rates are significantly lower--14 percent for violent
crime and 22 percent for drug-related crime.
CSOSA's strategic plan emphasizes reducing recidivism for violent
and drug-related crime. While our research shows that community
supervision is effective in achieving this, the benefit does not
necessarily extend beyond the supervision period. In other words, once
the offender is ``off paper''--once there is no more close
supervision--he or she is more likely to get rearrested. In our study,
35 percent of the offenders who entered supervision in 2003 were
rearrested shortly after entering ``off paper'' status.
Perhaps the greatest challenge we face during each offender's
supervision is to provide some reason for him or her to continue
following society's rules after supervision ends. We must help each
offender to know better how to succeed, so he or she can do better long
after we're out of the picture. This involves both monitoring current
behavior and providing tools to shape future behavior. Mr. Chairman,
and members of the subcommittee, in bringing this budget request before
you, we ask for your continued support of both aspects of our work.
______
Prepared Statement of Reverend Donald Isaac
Good afternoon Senator Brownback and the members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
My name is Reverend Donald Isaac and I am the executive director of
the East of the River Clergy Police Community Partnership, a faith-
based organization that serves the needs of adjudicated youth and
previously incarcerated adults. I also serve as the chairman of the
CSOSA Faith Advisory Council.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the innovative
efforts undertaken by CSOSA in stemming the tide of recidivism among
the re-entry community in Washington, DC.
First I want to take this opportunity to personally thank you for
your sincere commitment to serving the needs of re-entrants by ensuring
funding of programs that are so critical to the population that my
organization serves and in particular for recognizing the importance of
housing in setting the foundation for a positive reintegration back
into the community of those previously incarcerated. Ex-offenders risk
relapsing into a life of homelessness, drugs and crime unless
additional transitional housing and supportive services becomes
available in Washington, DC.
Your efforts last year in securing funding for ERCPCP have helped
us to begin operations of a 15 bed transitional housing facility and
jumpstarted the development of a 14 unit apartment building for ex-
offenders. These facilities will house re-entrants referred by CSOSA
for 90 days of transitional living, 90 days of independent living, and
90 days of after-care services while the re-entrants are in permanent
housing.
This is a significant first step in helping us serve the critical
need for housing. However, there is more work to be done, which is why
we have returned to you this year for your support. We have created a
strategy to strengthen our existing efforts and expand our programs to
develop transitional housing for ex-offenders city-wide. Your
assistance is indispensable in making our re-entry housing strategy a
success--and will ultimately help the re-entrant population become
stable, self-sufficient members of the community.
As you know, CSOSA has been in partnership with the faith community
for about 5 years now. We have jointly set up programs which serve the
holistic needs of those seeking to transition back into their home
community.
Under CSOSA's faith-based re-entry initiative, faith institutions
have served as the community complement which ensures that the re-
entrants get connected to social service providers, drug rehabilitation
services, counseling, employment training and job placement.
We began the program by providing mentors from the faith
institution of the re-entrants' choice, then moved to providing job
readiness services under ``Ready 4Work'' and now are launching a city-
wide housing initiative under a housing task force which was
established last year by the faith-based re-entry initiative. Together
with CSOSA, faith institutions want to fulfill a commitment to put a
real dent in the re-entry housing problem. As chairperson of the Faith
Advisory Council I stand ready to serve as a resource to you and the
committee in understanding the needs of the re-entrant community.
ERCPCP can organize meetings, schedule tours and visits to program
sites and serve as the fiscal agent for other faith-based partners.
In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity now to extend an
invitation to you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee to visit
our programs to see first hand the work that we are accomplishing in
the re-entrant community.
The CSOSA partnership with the faith community has proven to be a
sound one and one that is continuing to grow in its impact. As such, we
urge you to provide the strong financial backing that this partnership
needs to continue to make a significant impact in reducing recidivism
and transforming the lives of those who want to be contributing
citizens.
Again, thank you for your time and attention.
Senator Brownback. Reverend Isaac.
Mr. Isaac. Yes, I am Reverend Donald Isaac and I am the
chairperson of the CSOSA/Faith Advisory Committee. I certainly
want to thank both you and Senator Landrieu for the support
that you expressed last year and to report that we were able to
really organize and bring on line about 30 beds of housing,
transitional housing, through the support that was shown last
year. The need for housing is obvious. We work in mentoring. We
have done the Ready4Work program, but we have found that
housing is the major underpinning of a successful reentry
program.
So we are here today to offer our expertise and our
availability as a resource to you and other members of the
subcommittee, to organize meetings and visits within our
community, or to even serve as a fiscal agent to be able to
empower and bring other members of the faith community to the
table who want to be engaged in this work.
Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. I was over last night at the
Gospel Rescue Mission and was talking with some of the people
there. They were wrestling with the housing issue and how
important that was for reentry in this critical time.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you all so much, and I am sorry our
meeting is going to be cut short, but we have scheduled seven
votes starting in just a few minutes.
But I wanted to ask a question. I see that the recidivism
rate is higher nationally than in the District and I think you
need to be complimented for getting that number down. But what
specific steps are funded in this budget to further reduce that
recidivism rate? I know, Reverend, you just spoke about the
real need for housing and a partnership with churches and the
benefits of mentorship as we are moving people back in and
trying to get them in a very positive track, productive
positive track, to keep them out of jail or from going back.
So could you name one or two things that are in this budget
that perhaps the chairman and I could focus on that really you
are seeing some real good results from? I do not know, Mr.
Quander, if you want to take this.
Mr. Quander. I will start. One of the main initiatives is
the Reentry and Sanctions Center, which is located on the
campus of the hospital, D.C. General Hospital. That facility is
brand new. Members of this subcommittee have been very
supportive. We have opened that facility. That facility will
allow us to provide assessment, treatment readiness,
motivational services, for a core group of offenders who will
be returning from periods of incarceration. It is a core group.
These individuals have had on average nine prior arrests, six
prior convictions, a documented history of substance abuse.
They have been violated for either probation violations or
parole violations. They represent the typical individual who is
recycling through the system.
It is our desire to get these individuals into this program
where we can concentrate on the services that they need, get
them ready to be followed up by in-patient drug treatment, and
then to be followed through aftercare, and a specialty unit
that will help them and to supervise them. That is one of the
initiatives.
The other initiative of the Pretrial Services Agency is the
caseload for their extensive supervision program. The current
caseload is approximately 124 to 1. This budget will allow, if
approved, to reduce that caseload. We are asking for additional
positions there and additional money for global positioning
system technology to help the pretrial population.
Senator Landrieu. And I see it will reduce it from 124 to
100. But is it still higher than Maryland and Virginia? What
are the jurisdictions around us?
Mr. Quander. It is difficult to actually put a one to one
because in Northern Virginia, if you are looking at the Federal
numbers, it just is not a direct correspondence. It is still
going to be high. In I believe Northern Virginia in the Federal
system, it is probably about 80--sorry, about 60 to 1.
Senator Landrieu. Sixty to one, and we are 100 in the
District.
Mr. Quander. If we can get down to 100 to 1. We want to
take steps that will get us there. We know we will not be able
to get everything. But if we can get it down to 100 to 1, that
gives us something more to work with. We can provide the
service that we need to provide to ensure public safety.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think
this is a very important program and if we can get that
caseload as low as possible so that these professionals can do
their job, we can keep people when they get out of prison from
going back and keep the community safe and try to get people on
a more productive life track, which would be important.
So I know our time is short. The chairman may have a
question.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Landrieu. I
think this is a really important issue, too, if we could do a
lot more in working on getting that recidivism rate down. We
have got a big bill on the Second Chance Act to try to do this
more nationally, and if we could model some of the successful
ways to do this in the District of Columbia. I would love to do
it, want to do it.
This year is going to be a tight budget year. The numbers
we are working on, that is the votes we are going to right now.
So I do not know how much we will have for any new initiatives.
It is probably going to be mostly maintenance of current
efforts to move those and try to keep them on track. We will
look at things on recidivism, and I am particularly interested
in the housing aspect, where we can try to get people in
situations where they can most likely thrive, because I know it
is just a really tough circumstance for a lot of people. When
they come back in and are reentering the system, they have got
to get someplace they can land on their feet and work on
through.
Judge Washington and Judge King, thank you very much for
your parts in this process and the capital campaign efforts
that you are doing. We will see if we can maintain that. Again,
as I say, it is a tight budget year. I do not know how much we
are going to be able to do in that category, but we will see.
We will see what we can do with the overall budget areas, and
we appreciate your work in it as well.
I apologize for this being short. Perhaps you like it that
way. You will not be drilled as much. We have got these seven
stacked votes that we are already about a minute or two from
closing the first vote. I do appreciate your effort, do
appreciate your work. This is a key, key area that we have got
to keep on track and you are doing a great job.
The record will remain open for the requisite number of
days. Your official statement will be entered in the record.
Any closing?
Senator Landrieu. No, thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Brownback. A record short hearing. Recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Brownback, Allard, and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK
Senator Brownback. We'll call the hearing of the cannonball
express to order. I was saying I would give this dive about a
6.5. Now, the tilt is the only reason I got a little off the
score on this one. But, Mayor, that's just about as good as it
gets. You know, I wouldn't have taken my shirt off; I would
have been embarrassed. But you've got pretty good form. You're
looking pretty good.
Dr. Gandhi, maybe next year you can join him, Dr. Janey,
and we'll do a triple.
Dr. Gandhi. I cannot match the Mayor.
Senator Brownback. Well, few of us could. Thank you all
very much for being here. We're doing the extraordinary, and
we're going to start on time. We have a series of votes
starting at 11, and so time is short. I'm going to put my full
statement into the record and ask that it be presented that
way. I do want to welcome the Mayor on his eighth and final
budget that he is putting forward. I do want to congratulate
you, Mayor. I've very much enjoyed working with you. It's been
a good relationship, it's been a congenial relationship, and
it's been a successful one. And I also look forward to working
with you more, as you round out your time in this position, on
some of the welfare reform topics that we've talked about. Good
progress is being made on supporting and encouraging family
formation.
The District's had good news, been creating new jobs.
Unemployment in the District, we've had some problems on
increasing of unemployment. I think there's been a lot of
things that have been working right in the District.
I do want to talk about the schools some today with Dr.
Janey, because that continues to be an area all of us are
watching and concerned about. I want to hear what progress we
are making in that particular field as we move forward,
particularly on test scores. I'd like to hear about that and
about the allocation of space for charter schools. I know my
colleague, Senator Landrieu, is particularly interested in
that. We just want to talk about what's the plan and how we're
moving forward with this altogether.
With that, I'll put the rest of my statement in the record
and turn to my colleague, Senator Landrieu.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Sam Brownback
Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today we will hear
testimony regarding the District of Columbia's fiscal year 2007 local
budget request. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, Council Chairman Linda
Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi will present the
city's budget and will discuss the District's requests for Federal
resources. In addition, D.C. School Superintendent Clifford Janey will
discuss the D.C. Public Schools' local budget request and his plans for
using the $13 million in federal funds that have been requested of this
subcommittee.
This is the eighth and final budget that Mayor Williams is putting
forward. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Mayor, for making
dramatic improvements in the District's financial condition. When the
Mayor took the helm in 1999, the District's bond rating was in ``junk
bond status.'' Now the District is enjoying an ``A'' rating from all
three credit rating agencies and is also maintaining a cash reserve
balance of over $250 million, which is among the largest in the
country. The city is enjoying an impressive commercial real estate boom
and has been creating jobs at a rate that is twice the national
average.
But tempering these positive facts is a very troubling reality.
Only one-third of the jobs that the District is creating are going to
city residents. In fact, even as the District has been creating new
jobs, unemployment in the District has been increasing. One reason for
this persistent unemployment problem is the adult illiteracy rate in
the District. District-wide the rate is 37 percent, but in lower-income
wards, the illiteracy rates are much higher. The District is also
losing population, even as the populations of surrounding suburbs
continue to grow at rapid rates.
The adult illiteracy rates and the outflow of residents can be
largely attributed to the poor public school system. For years District
schools have been failing generations of students and now the city is
reaping the sad consequences of illiteracy, unemployment, and the
flight of residents who just cannot bear to send their children to
neighborhood schools. I do not believe money is the problem. Funding
for the District's school system has increased 83 percent since fiscal
year 1999, even though overall enrollment has actually dropped 5
percent during that same time period. The per-pupil spending rate is
the highest in the nation. Despite huge funding increases and
extraordinarily high per-pupil spending, only 32 percent of 4th graders
are reading at a basic level, compared to 62 percent nationally. And
only 36 percent of these same students are performing at a basic level
in math, compared to 77 percent nationally. Clearly the children in the
District are not being prepared to take part in the American dream that
is occurring right in their own city.
A few months ago the Department of Education labeled the District's
public schools ``high risk'' because of serious recurring problems with
its financial and grant management. Clearly, the situation is dire and
I would like to hear from city leaders about how they plan to reign in
school spending and improve student performance.
Unfortunately, it seems like we have this conversation year after
year. I believe that when we fail to teach our children to read and
write, we condemn them to lives of poverty, crime, and hopelessness. We
must act swiftly and aggressively to change course for the sake of our
children's futures.
Regarding the federal portion of the D.C. budget, I know that the
District has a number of programs and capital projects that may merit
funding through this subcommittee. Today I would like to hear more
about those project requests from our panel. Although our resources are
always limited, as Chairman of this subcommittee, I look forward to
partnering with city leaders to find ways to make life better for those
who live, work, and visit this Capital City.
Because of time constraints, we ask witnesses to limited their oral
remarks to 3 minutes. Copies of all written statements will be placed
in the Record in their entirety and the hearing Record will remain open
for the requisite number of days. Senator Landrieu.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will put
my statement in the record, because our time is short because
of these stacked votes in just about 45 minutes, and we do want
to hear from the distinguished panel.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good morning, thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this final hearing
regarding the fiscal year 2007 budget in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee. I appreciate our witnesses joining us
today to discuss the budget and your priorities for this year. We
welcome back Mayor Anthony Williams and his Chief Financial Officer
Natwar Gandhi for the final hearing of their Administration. I would
also like to welcome the Chairman of the Council of the District of
Columbia, Linda Cropp, who has ably led that body and Dr. Clifford
Janey, the Superintendent of D.C. Public Schools, who are testifying
again before the committee--but hopefully not for the last time.
As the committee and witnesses are aware, the primary purpose of
the D.C. subcommittee is to ensure the immediate and long term economic
health of the District. There are many ways we can do that. I brought
to the attention of this committee and my colleagues in Congress that
we should examine what GAO has identified as a structural imbalance
between the cost of providing city services and its ability to take in
revenue. But at the same time, we must focus on other tools to bring
greater prosperity and long term stability to the District. At a time
of limited Federal resources I would like this committee to partner
with each of the offices represented here today--the Mayor, Council
Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, and Superintendent of public
schools--to leverage our funding to the best opportunities for growth
and stability. Cities that have good public schools, safe communities,
and strong families are cities that have strong economies. If we focus
ourselves on providing these things in the District, we will go a long
way toward strengthening the economic independence the city needs and
deserves.
Our witnesses have dedicated significantly to reforming public
education in the District. On May 15th the Superintendent of Schools,
Dr. Janey, released a plan outlining the first steps in making the
system more efficient and dedicating more resources to students in
classrooms. The Superintendent's recommendation for the first phase of
school consolidations, or rightsizing, recommends closing six public
school facilities and making space available in seven additional public
schools for co-location, in all 1 million square feet of un-used space.
At least 5 million square feel of excess space has been independently
identified by the Council of Great City Schools, the Brookings
Institute, and the 21st Century Schools Fund. This committee has raised
concerns, in our annual committee report and in several hearings in
2005, that it is a highly inefficient use of public funds to maintain
at least five million square feet of under-utilized space in DCPS
facilities. The Board of Education's decision to consolidate 3 million
square feet of space in 2 years is a major recognition that resources
can, and should, be used to directly improve student achievement rather
than maintaining unused facilities. I congratulate Dr. Janey for taking
the lead and for the Board of Education for working so hard to have a
fair process that benefits students and families to consolidate the
first 1 million square feet of space. I am encouraged that the Board
has agreed to consolidate an additional two million square feet of
space by school year 2007-2008.
Making better use of the resources you have is significant progress
to improving public education for all. But the process that each of you
here today, and other public officials, continue over the next few
months and years will be the true message to families in the District
whether the education of their children is valued or not. I urge you in
the strongest possible way to establish a fair and transparent process
to make any schools closed available first to public charter schools.
The D.C. School Reform Act requires a right of first refusal to public
charter schools for any public school property not used by the city.
You must adhere to this law.
The expansion of public charter schools is one of the driving
forces making public education more accountable to the community. In
the District, charter school students now make up 25 percent of the
public school population, some 20,000 students. There are 52 charter
schools on 64 campuses and the upcoming school year welcomes 58
charters on 71 campuses, as 7 new charters and one expansion open.
When people ask me why I support charter schools, I tell them it is
because I believe in public education. I firmly believe that if we work
to modernize the system of delivery for public education, allow greater
opportunities for innovation and hold schools accountable for results,
then we can provide a high quality public education for every child in
America. One size does not fit all, and if we give our parents choices,
they will choose what is best for their child.
Until now, the focus of the charter school movement has been to
increase the quantity of charter schools. But if we expect this to be
more than a movement, we must shift our focus from quantity to quality.
As the Washington Post wrote last year, ``The District's experiment
with charter schools has proved hugely popular with parents, but the
schools vary widely in quality and have yet to demonstrate that they
are doing better than the city's regular public schools in raising
student achievement.'' I also look forward to working with you to
improve accountability for individual schools and programs and hold all
recipients of public funds accountable to the highest standard.
This committee is gravely concerned about recent allegations where
the use of public funds for charter schools has been in question and
investigations have ensued. The committee is examining closely the
performance of public funds provided to finance the purchase or
renovation of public charter school facilities. It appears that the
program has met its objectives--schools have received loans or credit
enhancement, buildings have been purchased and renovated, with the
ultimate goal that children are studying in better facilities. Twenty-
two public charter schools have received financing from these funds.
The primary concern is how, if the press is true, were contracting laws
circumvented and public funds invested in a questionable company? I
hope that the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi can provide some insight. I
understand there are four investigations ongoing, and I strongly hope
that these are expedited and come to a conclusion as soon as possible.
My priority is that public funds are returned to the city as soon as
possible. Any wrongdoing must be prosecuted and all the public funds
must be returned. Responsible public officials will not wait months and
years for investigations to wind their way to on conclusion while
children languish in substandard facilities because there are no funds
to improve school buildings. We will not stand for it and I hope that
none of the witnesses here today will either.
Another area which I hope the committee and the witnesses will
address today relates to a request by Mayor Williams to remove the
water and sewer authority (WASA) from the financial oversight of the
independent Chief Financial Officer of D.C. I understand that for many
months the CFO and WASA have been in negotiations to resolve
differences in the authorizing statutes that require independence for
both. I would like to work with the District's elected leaders to
develop a reasonable resolution to this issue.
As you know, as Chairman of this subcommittee I lead the effort in
Congress to maintain the independence of the CFO when the Financial
Control Board was retired in 2001. And I have worked with Chairman
Brownback and his predecessor, Senator DeWine, to continue this
provision each year on the D.C. Appropriations bill. We do not take
lightly the Congressional direction in establishing the Control Board
to have an independent CFO with oversight of all financial offices in
every District agency. Unless WASA is not a District agency, we need to
find a way forward for appropriate oversight of its finances while
maintaining a strong District CFO. I hope that the Council will take up
this important issue and work with Chairman Brownback and me to address
this conflict.
In closing I would like to take a moment to commend each of our
witnesses for their stead-fast and superior commitment to the District
of Columbia. When I became the ranking member, and soon after the
chairman, of this subcommittee in 2001 the federally imposed Control
Board was coming to a close. The city had turned from junk bonds to
credit worthy status on Wall Street and the city services that all
residents depend upon were on a path to functioning as residents
demand. This Congress, the city, and really the nation have one man to
credit for that path--Anthony Williams. As the CFO who turned the city
around, and then the Mayor, you have set the course for a brighter
future for this city. Dr. Gandhi has continued the same high standard
of financial security and Chairman Cropp has guided the Council's work
to secure this path. Dr. Janey has been with us little over a year, but
I am hopeful that his record will surpass even that of the other city
leaders with us here today as he works to improve the learning and
achievement of the District's children. I congratulate each of you on
your work and appreciate your service.
Senator Landrieu. But I would like to follow up
specifically on our focus of this subcommittee, which I think
is warranted, on the progress of the improvement of the school
system for the District. The Nation's capital is not only a
place of residence for the people that live here in the
capital, but as the Nation's capital, it's an opportunity for
us to really showcase what's best about our democracy. And
having a strong and vibrant school system--and, Dr. Janey,
you've made some significant steps in your tenure as
superintendent, with the Mayor's support and the Council's
support, but we want to focus some of our encouragement to you
on the continuation of reducing excess space, on making the
system more efficient, and giving more opportunity and choices
for students and their parents and their families, and
answering the call of the business community that sees skill
development and education development as a real key to the
economic development of this city and this region and it's
growth and expansion.
This excess school issue, Mr. Mayor, the city sent this
letter last night. As you can tell, it's quite long. I haven't
had a chance to review it, but will before too long, and have
more specific questions relative to that.
I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, one incident that's not in
my written testimony, but something that's been in the paper
that's quite concerning, And I know it's not the job of this
subcommittee to micro-manage the first responder situation here
in the city. But, Mr. Mayor, the incident regarding a resident
that was robbed and beaten and then died subsequent to the poor
response time is extremely concerning to me, not just because,
again, the residents of this city deserve a strong police force
and first responders--and Chairman Cropp, as well for you--but
the thousands and millions of visitors and school children that
come into this District deserve to know that that first-
responder system is as strong as it can be.
I know that you have this under investigation, so I don't
want to go into too much detail, but I want you to know that I
and many members here have expressed concern about making sure
that people are held accountable, that systems are changed, and
perhaps in your testimony you could give a couple of updates
about that situation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, panel.
Senator Brownback. Thank you Senator Landrieu.
Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make my full
statement a part of the record, and I would just second many of
the comments you made. I would just say to the Mayor that while
you are departing after your second term, I think you can hold
your head high. And I think you have done a great job, and we
are looking forward to continuing to work on issues that are
important to the District. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
look forward to the testimony of our panel today regarding the District
of Columbia's budget request for the next fiscal year.
I would also like to reiterate the ``congratulations'' to Mayor
Williams; I think he deserves it. While you are preparing to depart
after your second term as Mayor of the District of Columbia, I hope you
leave with your head held high. I have noted that from the time I first
arrived here in D.C. there has been a remarkable change in this city
for the better. You certainly deserve your fair share of credit for
that turn-around.
That said, I look forward to hearing the panel's testimony
regarding the federal payments to the District. It is a very tight
budget year for all of our federal expenditures. I know that there are
many initiatives in the District that this committee has supported in
the past, and I hope to hear an update on many of this educational
activities and capitol improvements which have been appropriated for in
prior years.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the witnesses'
testimony, and thank them for appearing before us today.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Allard. Mayor
Williams, welcome. The floor is yours.
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Chairman Brownback, for holding
this hearing. Ranking member Landrieu, thank you as well.
Senator Allard, I haven't had a chance to work with you, but I
am looking forward to working with you as we move through this
budget process. And, Mr. Chairman, in light of your time
constraints, what I will do is abbreviate my remarks wherever
possible, understanding that my full remarks have been entered
for the record.
Senator Brownback. All of your presentations will be placed
in the record as if presented, so I would ask if you could to
summarize, because I think all of us would like to get to some
questions and answers if we could.
Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, regarding any budget
questions, I also have with me Kevin Clinton who is my Senior
Advisor for Budget and Finance, as well as Kate Jesberg, who
has worked very closely with your staff in developing a number
of initiatives that we've been working on in terms of
strengthening our families in the District of Columbia, so
she's also available to answer questions that you may have
today.
I'm pleased to be joined by Council Chair Cropp, who has
been a partner in the success that we have achieved in the
District; I'll stand alone on all the problems, but she's been
a partner in all the good things; and Dr. Gandhi, my friend and
colleague now for a long, long time, since I've been CFO of the
District; as well as Dr. Janey, with whom I meet with weekly,
understanding, as you do, Mr. Chairman, the importance and
primacy of our schools.
In our budget for fiscal year 2007, Mr. Chairman, we
continue our program with new communities, which is an attempt
to try to decrease the concentration of poverty in our city and
create, using our own resources, and wherever possible
partnering them with Federal resources, mixed-income
communities in this city that are more conducive to healthy
lives and neighborhoods in our city for all of our citizens.
Another initiative last year, Great Streets, brought
physical improvements and additional business to some 22 miles
in the District. Affordable housing, including, but not limited
to, the new communities project I just talked about, as well as
increasingly strengthening our housing in our city using the
housing production trust fund that we have created now over the
last 5 or 6 years to not only build housing, but to work with
tenants and residents to preserve affordable housing. Because
Washington, DC, like many cities in the country, is a city
where you have a number of section 8 contracts and other
housing contracts that are expiring, many residents are likely
to lose their homes if the city doesn't step in and work with
them.
There's more mileage to be gained in preserving affordable
housing through preservation than you're going to get through
production of new housing, due to the scarcity of land and the
scarcity of housing at an affordable price in terms of cost
production. You'll be hearing from Dr. Janey, but I was pleased
to have worked with Dr. Janey, and Council Chair Cropp and the
Council to provide an allocation of $223 million to support
rehabilitation and modernization of school buildings.
I'm pleased that the District continues to be a leader in
healthcare coverage in our city, offering health insurance
coverage to all residents, up to 200 percent of poverty. And
the 2007 budget demonstrates our continued commitment to this
by expanding health coverage for children from 200 to 300
percent of the Federal poverty level. The trick now is to see
to it--and it's pretty much the case in everything we do--to
see to it that this coverage is translated to better health
outcomes, and there's been a snag there, a much bigger snag
than I would like.
We've also asked for funding for critical projects. I
mentioned, Mr. Chair, that the President's budget, I was
pleased, contains $30 million to launch the recommendations of
my blue ribbon library task force. I assembled major
philanthropists, nationwide experts in the field. I would urge
that the subcommittee support the President's mark. The $30
million in the President's budget will help fund three
neighborhood branch libraries and a new central library, and
these four library projects will help us transform the entire
library system. In fact, the District is united in transforming
our library system into a world-class system.
You should know, Mr. Chairman, in the past year's budget
the Council and I have put $170 million into improving our
library system to show our own local support for this effort. I
expect that philanthropy will also play a part in this. And I
would also note, Mr. Chair, as I have with you in private
conversation, that this isn't just about building a library
building or even building or re-modernizing buildings in the
neighborhoods. It's really about using the library system as a
way to improve literacy in our city, because, as you know, our
city struggles in a situation where some 37 to 38 percent of my
constituents are struggling at a low level of reading ability.
So every tool we can use for education, in this case libraries,
that tries to address that problem, we want to do that.
We asked for $10.5 million for continued support of the
emergency planning and security cost fund to reimburse the
District for the costs incurred in activities associated with
Federal activities: The inauguration is an example.
In the area of education, there is substantial investment
in three areas; a tuition assistance grant program, and a
three-sector initiative. The tuition assistance grant program,
as you know, is a marquee Federal initiative that continues to
be a success. It compensates the District for the lack of a
State university system, as you know.
In 2005, our students were enrolled in universities and
colleges in 45 States across the country, the District, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. This budget includes funding of $40.8
million--excuse me. This budget includes funding for this
tuition assistance program, but I've pledged to you, members of
the subcommittee, and other Members of the Senate, that the
District is committed to holding these costs down in future
years, recognizing that there are number of things that we can
do under our own power to do that, but also accepting the fact
that the cost pressures in this program are really either
things that are outside of our control, the cost of tuition is
rising in colleges across the country, or things that the
Senate and the Congress should be proud of, for example the
number of students who are using the program. The number of
students who are using the program continues to increase and
actually has led to one of the signal achievements in our
education system that I think the Congress can be proud of, and
which is to say that there's been a some 35 to 40 percent
increase in college matriculation now that can be traced back
to this program. So that's a good thing, and Congress should be
proud of it. And we would want to encourage the Congress, and
particularly the Senate, to continue it.
You know, Mr. Chairman, my strong support for the three
sector initiative. This budget includes funding of $40.8
million for that initiative, funds provided to D.C. Public
Schools, the charter schools, and scholarships for private
tuition throughout the District. It continues to perform as
designed by expanding choice for District parents and teachers.
I'm very, very proud and pleased that mothers, parents of
lowest income in some of the most struggling situations, have
chosen this option to provide a better education for their
children.
On the Anacostia Waterfront, to be brief, Mr. Chairman,
we're asking in the President's budget for $20 million in
funding for improvements to the Navy Yard Metro Station. It's
modeled on transit investments the Federal Government has made
in the District and elsewhere. It will help the Federal
Government improve capacity for expanded Federal workforce
needs at the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters in
the Southeast Federal Center. The House has provided for this
funding within the Transportation appropriations bill, and we
would request that the Senate also support this investment.
This investment also will have a positive effect on the new
baseball stadium, but I want to insist it's not solely for that
purpose, because there is a large Federal presence there with
the Southeast Federal Center and the new U.S. Department of
Transportation.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up my last budget
testimony in 8 years as Mayor and I forget how many it was as
CFO, I would urge the members to be supportive of the bill now
moving through the House that would allow a congressional
vote--I'm not talking about a vote in the Senate, but a vote
within the Congress--for the District Representative. It's
supported on a bipartisan basis, and I think it's the right
thing to do to provide democracy in our capital.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
provide you this testimony. I stand ready to answer any
questions you or the subcommittee may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony A. Williams
Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Landrieu, and other
distinguished members of this subcommittee, it is my great pleasure to
testify before you today regarding my proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
and Financial Plan: The Citizens' Budget. As the last budget that I am
presenting to the Congress as Mayor of the District of Columbia, I want
to express particular appreciation for the support and commitment that
this committee has provided to our efforts to improve the District of
Columbia as a place to live, work, and visit. I am preparing my budget
in an environment where the economy is strong and the District's fiscal
standing is respected across the country. However, as I developed my
local budget, I focused first on my responsibility as Mayor to fulfill
our current commitments to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
This budget fulfills our commitments by containing the growth of
government through fiscal discipline. It maintains our pledge to
provide tax relief for all District residents, and it follows through
on the landmark initiatives we launched last year. In this budget, I
also responded to the priorities that citizens have expressed in
summits, public hearings, and community meetings.
A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
This budget takes the responsible approach with a local fund budget
of $5.09 billion, representing a 2.6 percent growth rate over last
year's funding level, in part by scaling back $205 million in baseline
growth. This belt tightening effort also allows us to invest in a
modest amount of new services. I chose to make the most significant
investments in education and housing because residents told me those
are their highest priorities.
Another way that this budget reflects fiscal responsibility is by
taking the final step towards completing tax reductions associated with
the Tax Parity Act of 1999. This will save taxpayers $51 million in
fiscal year 2007 and $64 million during fiscal year 2008 and beyond.
This final phase of tax parity implements reductions for individuals at
lower income levels as compared to earlier phases of tax parity. For
taxpayers with taxable income under $10,000, tax rates fall from 4.5
percent to 4.0 percent. For taxable income from $10,000 to $40,000, tax
rates fall from 7.0 percent to 6.0 percent. And for taxable income
above $40,000, tax rates fall from 8.7 percent to 8.5 percent.
This last phase of tax parity caps a three-year period in which the
District has provided more than $350 million in tax relief to residents
and businesses--mostly in the form of property tax and income tax
relief.
FOLLOWING THROUGH ON LANDMARK INITIATIVES
Last year, we launched the ``New Communities'' initiative. It is
designed to decrease the concentration of poverty and crime by creating
mixed-income neighborhoods with one-to-one replacement of affordable
housing. This District-sponsored redevelopment of the physical and
human architecture will transform distressed neighborhoods into
healthy, mixed-income communities that offer families better housing,
employment and educational opportunities.
In the past year we have made progress in our first targeted
community, Northwest One. This budget proposes an investment of $4
million in social supports in Northwest One, Barry Farms, and Lincoln
Heights. These social supports will include launching adult learning
partnerships, expanding youth serving programs, and implementing
intensive self-sufficiency case management support for residents.
Another initiative we launched last year, Great Streets, aims to
transform under-invested corridors into neighborhood centers through
physical improvements and new business development. The total corridor
distance is 22.5 miles and the corridors pass through over 50
neighborhoods. In fiscal year 2007 I will invest $6 million in
development assistance, small business development and land use
planning along selected corridors. In addition, in the fiscal year
2005-fiscal year 2009 spending plans, we allocated $100 million in
local and federal funds for transportation, streetscape, and transit
improvements.
Through the Way-to-Work initiative, we leverage the economic
development activity that has transformed the District by refocusing
its impact on specific neighborhoods and targeted communities. We have
developed strategies to ensure that employment and business
opportunities associated with the District's booming economy are
available to all residents in every ward. I propose continued funding
of $21.6 million for the Way-to-Work Initiative in fiscal year 2007,
with more than $12 million targeted for the District's youth. In my
plan I propose $7.7 million for summer jobs for 10,000 district youth;
$3.1 million for year-round youth employment; $1.8 million for the
Youth Leadership Institute and $8.4 million for transitional
employment. Should additional funds become available, I propose
increasing summer jobs funding by $2 million to serve an additional
1,400 youth.
CITIZEN PRIORITIES
Affordable Housing
This budget proposes a new housing initiative based on the
recommendations of my Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force, which
conducted a comprehensive, year-long review of the housing landscape in
the District of Columbia. This initiative is designed to protect and
expand affordable housing so that the District is better equipped to
address housing challenges including: a lack of affordable housing for
those working at low to mid-level salaries; a need for housing for our
most vulnerable residents, and the need for central coordination of the
District's housing agencies.
Based on the Task Force recommendation, I proposed an increase in
the residential deed and recordation tax rates from 1.1 percent to 1.5.
This will generate roughly $47 million in fiscal year 2007 and I
propose that this revenue be devoted to a new dedicated fund for the
implementation of the recommendations of the task force.
Education
I am proposing an historic investment in capital funding for the
District of Columbia Public Schools, with a total allocation of $223
million to support rehabilitation and modernization of school
buildings. This includes full funding of $100 million in sales taxes as
passed by Council and an additional $123 million from other
modernization resources.
The operating budget includes a total of $1.1 billion in local
funds for public education, including $811 million for DCPS and $264
million for public charter schools. This fiscal year 2007 budget level
includes increases to the Per-Pupil Funding Formula as recommended by
the State Education Office. This increases base funding for education
by $402 million and results in an additional $25.1 million for DCPS and
$9.5 million for the D.C. Public Charter schools. This funding level
also includes $4.9 million to hold DCPS harmless from the impact of
students transferring from the school system to private schools as part
of the federal voucher program.
Health
The District continues to be the only jurisdiction in the United
States offering health insurance coverage to all residents up to 200
percent of poverty. The fiscal year 2007 budget demonstrates our
continued commitment to providing health services to residents by
expanding health coverage for children from 200 to 300 percent of the
federal poverty level and, for the first time, adding dental coverage
within the Medicaid program for adults.
This budget augments primary health care services with the goal of
creating an electronic health record system ($2.2 million) for
community health centers, along with a bricks and mortar investment in
community health centers that serve low-income populations ($13
million). We have also added $1 million for the operating costs of my
Medical Homes initiative. We will expand the hospital uncompensated
care fund by $4.25 million, which will generate $14 million additional
dollars for our hospitals.
I am proposing health care improvements for residents in the
currently under-served east side of the District. These improvements
will ensure proper citywide distribution of emergency, trauma,
inpatient, and specialty services, and will be funded through Tobacco
Settlement Trust Fund bond revenues.
To address HIV/AIDS, I am calling on a citizen task force to
identify improvements to our HIV prevention strategies and HIV/AIDS
treatment in the District.
Libraries
In this budget, I propose significant new investments into our
District library system to elevate the quality of life by providing
access to information and literacy services, while serving as a
community gathering place.
The District is committing $16.25 million in fiscal year 2007 as
part of a $167 million investment in major construction and renovations
to neighborhood branches over the next six years. This will meet the
needs of community residents, provide attractive gathering places for
neighbors, and support neighborhood economic development. We also are
investing $5.5 million to enhance key library services including
updated collections and expanded operating hours.
I am proposing a new, central Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial
Library that will attract library patrons and serve as the symbolic,
administrative, and technological hub of the system. The cost will be
covered with the proceeds of the disposition of the existing central
library, the PILOT payment, and federal funding, including a portion of
the $30 million that President Bush recently committed to the District
to support my library initiative.
Youth
We are proud that we have developed the first ever Children's
Budget for fiscal year 2007. Our challenge now is to reexamine what
results we are getting from our investments and whether we are
investing in the right things. The Youth Development Strategy offers a
framework to realign current youth investments with effective,
evidence-based programs and services.
The budget includes seed funding for the Mayor's Youth Development
Strategy is to reduce youth violence and improve the quality and
effectiveness of youth programs throughout the District. This budget
includes $1 million to support interagency violence prevention efforts
in addition to the resources for core initiatives already within agency
budgets. I am also proposing, in partnership with Major League
Baseball, an investment of $1 million in a summer youth baseball
academy.
Safety and Justice
This budget includes an increase of $4 million to provide local
support to compensate for the loss of $4 million in federal funding
that supported 81 officers. This budget includes $500,000 to support a
third round of our ``civilianization'' initiative which will result in
over 150 sworn officers moving from desk jobs back onto patrol. I have
provided $800,000 for additional forensics lab services, which is
complemented by an additional $5 million investment in the new
Consolidated Laboratory Facility. This budget also includes $11 million
in rehabilitation and construction of fire stations.
PRIORITY FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS
In addition to the investments I am making locally, I ask you to
continue to partner with me to improve the District of Columbia for our
residents, workers and visitors. The committee's targeted investments
in joint initiatives have had a tangible impact on quality of life in
the District of Columbia over the course of my two terms in office.
This year, the President's budget reflects a particularly strong
commitment to several of the initiatives that I have targeted
throughout my term and those that I believe will have a rebounding
impact on the District of Columbia for decades to come.
Library Initiative
Over the past few years, I have turned to the D.C. Public Library
system as a vehicle to address the low literacy rate among the
District's children and adults. In many major metropolitan areas around
the country, new libraries have revitalized many distressed
neighborhoods. For this reason, I have reconstituted the Library Board
of Trustees and established a Blue Ribbon Task Force comprised of local
and national experts. The Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended that we
create a state of the art library system to add multi-lingual support,
add hundreds of new computers with broadband technology, and add deep
reference materials and children programs. This will help create a
brighter future for D.C. residents.
The estimated cost of rebuilding the D.C. Library System will be
approximately $450 million. The $30 million in the President's budget
will help fund three neighborhood branch libraries and the new Central
Library. These four library projects will help us transform an entire
library system and provide the necessary leverage to raise money from
private sources.
First, $14 million of the Federal contribution will help fund the
initial stages of building a state-of-the-art Central Library. A new
Central Library will provide the technological and administrative
capacity to support the 26 neighborhood branches throughout the city.
Second, $5.3 million will be allocated to rebuild the Washington
Highlands Library; approximately 30 percent of the population over 25
in this serving area did not graduate from high school. The third
project is $5.3 million to upgrade the Petworth Library which serves
nearly 32,000 residents. Finally, $5.3 million will expand and renovate
the Southeast Library. This branch serves over 25,000 residents and
serves a socio-economically mixed population. Half of the adults over
25 did not graduate from high school.
Public Safety
I am requesting $10.5 million for continued support for the
Emergency Planning and Security Cost Fund. This fund is available to
reimburse the District for costs incurred as a result of activities
associated with the federal presence such as major events and
demonstrations. Based on our current projections, this request, while
lower than in previous years, will be adequate to support the
foreseeable need in fiscal year 2007.
Finally, in the area of public safety, I am requesting continued
funding of $1.3 million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
The CJCC provides a forum for the District and federal agencies that
make up the District's criminal justice system to plan strategically
and resolve problems to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
overall system. The CJCC has achieved improvements in areas ranging
from information sharing to halfway house placement to ex-offender re-
entry. This year, the CJCC's focus also includes reducing gun violence,
reducing juvenile violence, and better connecting social services to
those in the criminal justice system that need them. The complex nature
of the District criminal justice system demands a forum such as the
CJCC to ensure coordination, collaboration, and improvement.
Education
In the area of education, this budget includes substantial public
investment in education in three areas: the D.C. Tuition Assistance
Grant Program and the three-sector initiative. I also request
partnership with the Congress on a new tuition assistance program in
cooperation with the D.C. National Guard.
The District of Columbia's Tuition Assistance Program (DCTAG) is a
marquee federal initiative that was established by Congress in the 1999
District of Columbia College Access Act and has been and continues to
be a tremendous success. This Program compensates the District for our
lack of state university system that the entire country enjoys by
allowing our high school college-bound students to attend out-of-state
public universities at in-state tuition rates and providing them grants
for attending selected private universities. Unfortunately, program
costs have continued to grow rapidly due to rising tuition costs
nationwide and rising program participation.
TAG currently provides grants up to $10,000 annually for
undergraduate District students to attend eligible four year public
universities and colleges nationwide at in state tuition rates. It
provides grants up to $2,500 for students to attend a private
institution in the D.C. metropolitan area and private historic black
colleges and universities as well as public 2 year community colleges.
In 2005, our students were enrolled in universities and colleges in 45
states across the county, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
The Tuition Assistance Program has had many successes. In June,
2004, the program graduated its first class. The second class graduated
June of last year. For 75 percent of the students surveyed at Woodson
High School in the District, TAG affected their decision to pursue
post-secondary education and 65 percent have said that the program has
affected their school choice. Also gratifying to me is that 55 percent
of participants are the first members of their immediate family to
attend college.
My budget request also includes, for the first time, a request for
tuition assistance for the D.C. National Guard. This funding will match
funding that I am providing in my local budget and allow the Guard to
improve recruitment.
This budget also includes funding of $40.8 million for the three
sector education initiative, with funds provided to D.C. Public
Schools, charter schools in the District of Columbia, and scholarships
for private tuition throughout the District. This initiative continues
to perform as designed by expanding choice for District parents and
teachers and providing support to all our public schools.
Anacostia Waterfront
I would also like to discuss the tremendous work being conducted
along the Anacostia Waterfront. First, let me thank you for your
partnership thus far and ask for your continued partnership.
As you know, the District's authorization committees are currently
considering the Federal and District Governments Real Property Act of
2005. This is a landmark initiative between our respective governments
to rationalize land usage and set in motion projects that are to have a
profound impact on public space and quality of life in the District of
Columbia.
The President's budget includes $20 million in funding for
improvement at the Navy Yard Metro Station. This investment, which is
modeled on other transit investments the federal government has made in
the District, will help the federal government improve capacity for
expanded federal workforce needs at the new U.S. Department of
Transportation Headquarters and the Southeast Federal Center. The House
of Representatives supported this initiative by providing funding
within funding from the Transportation appropriations and I ask that
you support this funding proposal, although it is now outside your
Committee's jurisdiction, as it shifts to the Senate.
Improving public access and for the tremendous natural amenities
along the Anacostia River is a driving priority of my administration,
but my vision for the revitalization of the Anacostia River will not be
possible unless we clean up the river by fixing our combined sewer
system that currently deposits waste into the river throughout the
year. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority is embarking on a 30-year plan
to fix this system in order to drastically reduce pollution in our
waterways. I ask that you support this critical program in the amount
of $7 million.
DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL
Having outlined our budget objectives, it is important to keep in
mind a District priority whose value is beyond fiscal measure, and that
is our democratic rights. 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 promote, sacrifice, and invest
to spread democracy worldwide, 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
a personal outrage for all Americans.
In recent years, this subcommittee has successfully resisted
efforts to add undemocratic social riders to our appropriations bill.
No matter what any Senator's opinion may be on the topic at hand, we
hope this body will respect the right of District residents to decide
local matters, just as the residents do in our 50 states. We also hope
this body will repeal riders that restrict our ability to make
decisions about spending local funds on needle exchange programs and
lobbying.
While the relationship between the Congress and the citizens of the
District of Columbia is a unique and sometimes very challenging one, I
very much appreciate the committee's willingness to work closely with
us and to respect our local sovereignty.
This concludes my remarks today. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and over the past several years. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Brownback. You might get more support for that
congressional vote if you announced your candidacy.
Mayor Williams. Oh, no, I think Eleanor--Congresswoman
Norton is doing a great job for us.
Senator Brownback. She has. And if Eleanor is listening,
I'm not backing the Mayor for this, and I'm not opposed to
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is a tenacious advocate for the
District. I've been the recipient of her tenaciousness over
many, many a session, and she does a great job for the
District.
Chairwoman Cropp.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIR, COUNCIL OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Chairman Brownback and to
Senators Landrieu and Allard. It's indeed a pleasure for me to
be here and testify on behalf of the citizens of the District
of Columbia, and, of course, our Council. Thank you for
submitting the entire testimony for the record, and I will just
highlight a few points.
This year I asked Council members to apply certain goals in
the fiscal year budget. Some of the main ones continue our
fiscal discipline and look for efforts to revitalize our
neighborhoods and looking for affordable housing as a way for
us to strengthen the workforce and the middle class in the
District of Columbia and to promote continued economic
stability and growth in the District of Columbia.
As we look at certain issues, certainly the Mayor has
mentioned many of them in which we have joint concerns and
interests as opportunities for us to improve the District of
Columbia. Education is probably the major issue, and the major
one that needs to be strengthened as we continue the progress
that we've experienced in the District of Columbia. Our budget
reflects that, with quite a bit of budget increase in the area
of education, whether it's in the programming aspect of it, or
looking at our school facilities and recognizing that when you
have facilities where the Herculean share of those buildings
are 75 years in age or older, that we needed to have an
infusion of support to modernize.
The tuition assistant grant program has been very
successful since its inception 5 years ago. Almost 5,000 young
people have had an opportunity for higher education. We ask the
subcommittee to approve the dollars that are in the budget for
that program.
Another aspect of the city's education initiative is to
improve and repair our library systems. This is a high priority
for the city. Many of our libraries are in need of extensive
repair. There's also a need for improvement and upgrades in our
services. We look at that as being one of the major components
of making sure that the District continues its good progress
that we've made over the past several years.
In support of major economic development efforts proposed
in the 2007 budget, we continue to seek support from the
Federal Government for development initiatives along the
Anacostia Waterfront. It will in doing that help to bring life
to a body of water and an area of the city that needs it,
whether or not we're talking about our ward 6, our ward 7, and
our ward 8 communities that abut the waterfront. And it would
provide tremendous economic growth and development for those
neighborhoods and for the city as a whole and just revitalize a
whole area. So I would ask that the subcommittee include the $5
million that is part of the District's request.
The Council also strongly supports the proposal for Federal
funding of expanding and upgrading the Navy Yard Metro rail
system. While the expansion of this station is essential to the
new development programs, including the stadium that's going
there, Federal funding for this expansion is especially
justified due to the stadium's proximity to the 10,000 Federal
employees who will be relocated to the new U.S. Department of
Transportation headquarters there, and it would play a major
role. Just as the Federal Government fully funded the expansion
of the Mount Vernon Square Metro Station at the site of the new
convention center, we ask for your support in this Navy Yard
Station also.
I would also like to ask for continued Federal payment for
the consolidated laboratory. This laboratory would allow the
District to operate its own facility, conducting forensic
testing for crime scenes. It also would provide a facility for
analyzing evidence associated with bioterrorism activities. The
District has used the FBI laboratory for a number of years.
However, when there is a high level usage of the laboratory by
the Federal authorities, the District's work is delayed. This
has a direct impact on the resolution of crimes in the District
of Columbia, including the identification of the criminals. The
city continually works to reduce crime, and the ability to
complete forensic analysis in a timely manner would aid the
city in resolving crimes and putting criminals behind bars.
As the Nation's capital, the District is the prime target--
or a prime target for terrorist activities. With the ever-
increasing threat of these activities, the need for a forensic
laboratory in the District that is readily available becomes
more and more important. Therefore, I would ask this
subcommittee to support the District's request for funding of
the laboratory. The District, also as a primary target,
particularly since we sit as the seat of Government for this
great country, that we should not have a reduction in our
Homeland Security budget. The threat level continues, and as
the Nation's capital, we are a prime target.
One area where this subcommittee can help us address a
health issue is to grant us the authority to expend our local
funds on needle exchange. Such programs have resulted in
reducing HIV transmissions without increasing drug use. In
addition, such programs have had a positive impact on hepatitis
infections. Other State and local governments across the
country provide funding for needle exchange programs, and
therefore have benefitted from the improved health statistics.
While D.C.'s rate of HIV/AIDS infection is deplorable, we must
use every avenue possible to protect our citizens. Our rate of
infection is increasing, and as the Nation's capital it
certainly is not acceptable. The District government would like
to add these improvements to its health program, but we do need
your help. I ask the subcommittee not to include any rider
preventing the use of local funds for needle exchange programs.
And as the Mayor stated, it is extremely important that we
get passage of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting
Representation Act. As we attend funerals for many of our
neighbors and our relatives who are off fighting in a war to
protect this country--in some instances, D.C. citizens have had
more--the District has had more deaths of our citizens than
some States, yet we do not have a vote to make a determination
on whether or not we go off and fight that war. I would ask
that you support the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting
Representation Act so that the citizens of the District of
Columbia would be franchised as every other citizen in this
great country.
In closing, I would ask that you pass this year's budget
request in time for the start for the new fiscal year, and that
no extraneous riders be placed on the bill.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to thank you, Chairman Brownback, for this
opportunity to share the Council's thoughts on the District
budget and other issues important to this city. I look forward
to working with you again on this year's appropriations
legislation, and as always, we're available to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Cropp. I
appreciate that, and I appreciate your kind demeanor as well.
It's always appreciated.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Chairman Brownback, Senator Landrieu and members of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I
am pleased to speak to you today about the District's appropriations
and other operational items.
BUDGET GOALS AND FISCAL DISCIPLINE
This year I asked the councilmembers to apply the following goals
in establishing the fiscal year 2007 budget: Fiscal Discipline,
Revitalize Our Neighborhoods, Invest in Our Youth, Protect our
Vulnerable Residents, Commit to Affordable Housing, Oversee Executive
Performance of Service Delivery, Promote Continued Economic Stability
and Growth, and Expand Home Rule and Democracy.
I would like to mention that the District Government, through the
efforts of the Council and the Executive Branch, has continued its
commitment to containing the growth of government through fiscal
discipline. The Council has utilized various tools to achieve this
discipline such as rainy day funds, economic triggers, to Pay-As-You-Go
Capital Financing, financial safeguards, and the application of
insurance and investment policies. These tools have yielded significant
financial returns for the District including a growth in revenues,
which are expected to yield a $52.7 million surplus at the end of
fiscal year 2006.
Through the efforts of the Council and the support of the Mayor,
the District Government continues its commitment to its citizens to
reduce taxes by implementing the final phase of the Tax Parity Act of
1999. Personal income tax will be reduced in fiscal year 2007 bringing
a savings of $51 million to citizens. In addition, further reductions
in property taxes will be implemented in the next fiscal year bringing
residents an additional savings of $$51.9 million.
BUDGET PROCESS AND HIGHLIGHTS
The total budget as approved by the Council is $9.018 billion.
Local dollars represent 56 percent or $5.079 billion of the total
budget. The federal portion of the District budget totals $2.047
billion or 22.7 percent of the total budget. The budget process
included 314 hours of public hearings. Citizens from across the city
participated in these hearings as well as by contacting the Council via
other communications to express their positions on the funding of
programs.
Funding for Human Service programs was increased by $94 million and
$50 million in additional funds were provided to implement
recommendations from the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force.
Funds were also provided to hire an additional 100 police officers in
our neighborhoods and $81 million for road repair, school
rehabilitation, recreation center improvements and other capital stock
upgrades. In addition, the Council continued its commitment to our
employees by allocating funds now for pay raises in fiscal year 2008
and setting aside additional funds for employee health and retirement
benefits. This budget represents a reinvestment in the city and its
future.
EDUCATION
The Council is committed to continuing to support improvements to
the educational system in the District through its approval of the
city's budget and other legislative proposals. The budget amount for
public schools and public chartered schools for next fiscal year is
$1.2 billion. This represents nearly 17 percent of the proposed budget.
Overall funding for public education for fiscal year 2007 was increased
by $104 million.
In addition, I introduced legislation, which is currently law that
established a school modernization fund that dedicates revenue for the
construction and modernization of school buildings. The law mandates
the development of a master plan that would outline how the funds would
be used in conjunction with requirements to consider consolidation and
co-location of public schools and public charter schools, and
development of special education and vocational education programs. In
March the Council gave final approval to the School Modernization
Financing Act of 2006. This act provides $100 million in dedicated
capital budget funds for the public school system for fiscal year 2007
with increases in the following four fiscal years.
The Tuition Assistance Grant Program has been very successful since
its inception 5 years ago. It has provided 4,754 young people with an
opportunity for higher education. As of the 2004/2005 academic year the
program carried its first full five cohorts. I want to thank the
President and the House Appropriations Committee for including full
funding for next fiscal year in their fiscal year 2007 proposed
budgets. I ask this Committee to also approve the $35.1 million for the
program.
The Council supports the continuation of the federal payment for
school improvement. The payment has been an important source of funds
for improvements in curriculum, educational systems and training. The
payment is essential to continuing the enhancements that both the
District and Federal Governments want to see in the District schools.
Another important aspect of the city's education initiatives is to
improve and repair our library system. This is a high priority for the
city. Many of our libraries are in need of extensive repair. There is
also a need for improvements and upgrades to our library services
including updated collections and expanded operating hours. In
addition, there are plans for construction of some new libraries, most
specifically our main library. To help the city address these needs the
President included $30 million in his fiscal year 2007 budget. It is
imperative that these funds be provided in order for the city to
upgrade its library system. I would ask this Committee to include the
$30 million in funding in its District budget proposal.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Last year the Mayor launched the New Communities and Great Streets
initiatives. These initiatives are designed to decrease poverty and
crime by creating mixed income neighborhoods that include affordable
housing, and to create thriving neighborhood centers of business
development along main corridors in the city. Over the last year the
city has made progress under both of these initiatives. The Mayor has
proposed in his fiscal year 2007 budget to continue these initiatives
by enhancing the delivery of human and social services to the
neighborhoods, and by providing business development funds for
businesses that want to start or expand their operation. To support
these initiatives the Council approved $128.5 million in economic
development funds, an increase of $19.7 million over fiscal year 2006.
In support of the Mayor's economic development efforts the proposed
fiscal year 2007 budget continues to seek support from the Federal
Government for development initiatives along the Anacostia Waterfront
and at the site of the new baseball stadium. The Anacostia Waterfront
is one of the city's major projects for providing both business
development, which includes the proposed baseball stadium, but also the
park areas including the pedestrian and bicycle trails. This
development also provides for the beautification of the city and its
waterways. I would like to request that this Committee include the $5
million included in the District's request.
The Council strongly supports the President's proposed federal
funding for expanding and upgrading the Navy Yard Metrorail Station.
While the expansion of this station is essential to the development of
the new baseball stadium, Federal funding for this expansion is
especially justified due to the station's proximity to the 10,000
Federal employees who will be relocated to the new U.S. Department of
Transportation headquarters building, on top of the thousands of
existing Defense Department employees currently employed at the Navy
Yard. The expanded station will also be needed to service the other
major commercial, retail and residential developments that are planned
in the area, including the 5.2 million square foot mixed use community
that is proposed for the Southeast Federal Center site. These are key
development projects for the city that will provide many economic
enhancements. Just as the Federal government fully funded the expansion
of the Mount Vernon Square Metro station at the site of the new
convention center, we ask your support for full funding of the expanded
Navy Yard Metro Station.
One of the ways for the District to address its ongoing structural
imbalance--which as you know was validated by the Congress' own
Government Accountability Office--is to initiate development projects
that will bring additional revenues to the city through an increased
number of residents and businesses living, working and producing in the
city. In his fiscal year 2006 budget the President proposed the
transfer of certain vacant or underutilized federal land to the
District as a way to begin to address the structural imbalance. Some of
the land is along the Anacostia Waterfront, which would help the city
build a world class recreational park, enhance access to the river and
become a tourist attraction. Other parcels would provide additional
park space as well as locations for housing and commercial development.
The transfer of the proposed land would provide economic development
opportunities consistent with the city's plans and assist the Mayor and
the Council in moving the city forward. S. 1838, ``Federal and District
of Columbia Real Property Act of 2005,'' is currently pending before
the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
While this legislation is not before this Committee I would like to ask
for your support of it when it does come up for a vote. The passage of
this legislation would have a major impact on the city's structural
imbalance and financial stability.
Congress and the President have approved the BRAC recommendation
for the closing of Walter Reed Army base. The GSA and the Department of
State have requested the base for an office park and a new chancery
enclave. While the District feels these proposed Federal Government
uses provide much less economic benefit to the District, the Council
supports the allocation of some portion of the land to the city for
retail development that is needed for that area of the city.
OTHER FEDERAL PAYMENT ITEMS
I would like to ask for the continued federal payment for the
consolidated laboratory. This laboratory would allow the District to
operate its own facility for conducting forensic testing from crime
scenes. It will also provide a facility for analyzing evidence
associated with bioterrorism activities. The District has used the
FBI's laboratory for a number of years. However, when there is a high
level of usage of the laboratory by the federal authorities, the
District's work is delayed. This has a direct impact on the resolution
of crimes in the District, including the identification of the
criminal. The city continually works to reduce crime. The ability to
complete forensic analysis in a timely manner would aid the city in
resolving crimes and putting criminals behind bars.
As the Nation's Capital, the District is a prime target for
terrorist activities. With the ever-increasing threat of these
activities the need for a forensic laboratory in the District that is
readily available becomes more and more important. Therefore, I would
like to ask this Committee to support the District's request for
funding of the laboratory.
Because the District is a prime target for terrorist activities it
is important that our allocation of Federal homeland security funds not
be cut. The cut of $31 million in this year's allocation for urban
areas will put the District and the National Capital Region in sever
jeopardy in the event of future terrorist attacks. I ask that money be
restored to both the National Capital Region's allocation and to the
District's state allocation.
One area where this Committee can help us address health issues is
to grant us the authority to expend our local funds on needle exchange.
Such programs have resulted in reducing HIV transmission without
increasing drug use. In addition, such programs have had a positive
impact on hepatitis infections. Other state and local governments
across the country provide funding for needle exchange programs and
have therefore benefited from improved health statistics. The District
Government would like to add these improvements to its health program,
but we need your help. I ask that the Committee not include any rider
preventing the use of local funds for needle exchange programs.
VOTING REPRESENTATION
I would like to end my testimony with a final request for support
of H.R. 5388, ``District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights
Act of 2006.'' This bill would give the District a seat in the House of
Representatives with full voting rights. The bill would maintain
balance in the House by also giving Utah an additional congressional
seat.
Voting representation in Congress is a right to long denied to the
residents of the District of Columbia. It continues to be
unconscionable to the citizens of the District that they are denied the
basic right held by every other citizen of the United States, that is,
the constitutional right to be represented--to have a voice--a vote--in
the Congress of the United States. While our residents fight for the
freedom and right of representation for people in other countries like
Iraq and Afghanistan our citizens are denied that same right here in
the nation's capital. As a leader of the free world we should set an
example for providing all citizens the rights of citizenship. This
Congress should rectify the denial of this basic right.
CLOSING
In closing I would like to ask that you pass this year's budget
request in time for the start of the new fiscal year and that no
extraneous riders be placed on the bill.
I thank you Chairman Brownback for this opportunity to share my
thoughts on the District's budget and other issues important to the
city. I look forward to working with you again this year on the city's
appropriations legislation. I am available for any questions you may
have.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Gandhi, you're up, and I'm afraid
you guys are batting at the bottom of the order, and I really
hope you can just summarize things so we can get to some
questions, because with these stacked votes starting at 11,
we'll be able to go until probably about 11:15, and then I'm
going to shut the hearing down.
STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. Gandhi. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to read at all
anything. I just wanted to draw your attention, sir, to the
chart that I have brought with me. And it is quite fitting that
we are here with this chart, this being the Mayor's last
testimony here. This basically had happened, this dramatic
financial recovery that has happened since 1995, is entirely
under the Mayor's watch, since he was a Chief Financial Officer
appointed in 1995 and after that, the Mayor. Obviously, the
great credit goes to the Mayor and also to the Council headed
by Council Chairman Cropp, and the congressionally mandated
Control Board.
The only point that I would like to suggest here is that in
the mid-1990s we had about $518 million deficit in our fund
balance. Today, we are enjoying $1.6 billion surplus in our
fund balance. That's about a $2.2 billion turnaround. Other
cities that have gone through such experience, Philadelphia,
New York, and other cities, none has been able to come back as
fast and as well as this city has. So it's a great, great
credit to our elected leaders and the Congress that made it all
possible. We were rated junk bonds in the mid-1990s; today we
enjoy an A plus rating from all rating agencies, and with a
positive outlook, meaning that it will go up again.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This is remarkable. And one last factoid here is that we
enjoy currently about $300 million of cash reserve for the
foreseeable future in terms of our financial plan. No other
city, State, or jurisdiction has that level of reserves, cash
reserves, as a percentage of budget. So this is a remarkable
recovery on the part of the District. And again, credit goes to
the Mayor, our Council, the Control Board, and the great
attention that the Congress has devoted to the District,
particularly this committee.
We appreciate your interest, Senator Landrieu, Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Natwar M. Gandhi
Good morning, Chairman Brownback and members of the subcommittee. I
am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the District of
Columbia, and I am here to offer brief remarks about the Fiscal Year
2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan for the District.
First, I will summarize the fiscal recovery over the past decade
and discuss some of the highlights of the fiscal year 2007 budget
request and the 5-year plan. I will also address our capital spending
needs and the continuing structural imbalance--that is, the mismatch
between capital spending needs and the ability to raise local revenues
sufficient to fund those needs. Finally, I will address our on-going
commitment to remain fiscally balanced in the future.
FISCAL RECOVERY 1996-2005
The chart that appears as Attachment A to my testimony and that
appears here before you is a history of the remarkable fiscal comeback
achieved by the District over the past decade. Our fiscal low point
occurred in fiscal year 1996, when the General Fund balance hit a
negative $518 million. Through the efforts of Mayor Williams, the
District Council and the Congressionally-mandated Control Board, we
were able repeatedly to balance the District's fiscal operations, and
the Control Board was de-activated in 2001. Between fiscal year 1996
and the end of fiscal year 2001 there had been a $1.1 billion increase
in the fund balance, to a positive $562 million by the end of fiscal
year 2001. The real test for the District was the challenge of
sustaining fiscal stability in the post-control period. As you can see,
at the end of fiscal year 2005, the General Fund balance had risen
another $1.0 billion, to $1.6 billion total. Of the $2.1 billion
increase in General Fund balance between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 2005, the amount of gain since the control period ended was about
equal to the gain during the control period, demonstrating the
commitment of the District's leadership to ongoing fiscal restraint.
The measure of this success is reflected in the District's bond
ratings. All three rating agencies--Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors
Service, and Standard & Poor's--recognize the improved creditworthiness
of our bonds by raising the District's bond ratings from ``junk bond''
status during the control period to ``A'' category ratings--the highest
level ever achieved by this jurisdiction. It is notable that compared
to other major cities that experienced periods of financial stress,
including New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit, this
turnaround is the fastest in terms of both the time it took to return
to investment grade, and the time to achieve their highest ratings
(helped in part by our strong local economy, which added tax revenues
that were used to provide essential services to our population).
A great deal of the increase in fund balance was driven by the
growth in local revenues, specifically by real estate, income and sales
taxes resulting from the strong regional economy. Table 1 below shows a
comparison of tax revenues, General Fund balance and reserve funds in
fiscal year 1996 compared to fiscal year 2005 that reflects the revenue
growth and prudent financial management that contributed to the
increased General Fund balance.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF KEY FINANCIAL MEASURES
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Revenues........................... $2,402,521 $4,052,087
Operating Surplus/(Deficit)............ ($33,688) $369,668
General Fund Balance................... ($518,249) $1,584,683
Reserves Available for Operations \1\.. ($332,357) $428,900
Operating Reserves as percent of ............... 8.5
Expenditures (percent)................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Congressionally-mandated Emergency and Contingency Reserves
plus unreserved undesignated General Fund balance.
REVENUE OUTLOOK
The current economic outlook for the District similar to that
projected for the nation as a whole is that of steady growth in
employment, wages, and income. Continued high levels of federal
spending and contracting benefit the District because so many of these
dollars are spent here. Retail activity will continue to improve, as
the number of retail outlets in the District continues to grow and as
shoppers increase their spending.
In fiscal year 2007, District general fund resources are forecasted
to be $5.565 billion, an increase of $167 million above the fiscal year
2006 approved budget. These amounts include local fund revenue, special
purpose fund revenue, as well as proposed revenue enhancements and
appropriated fund balance.
The direction of the market for real property is a key question for
the District in fiscal year 2006 and on into fiscal year 2007. Rising
real estate assessments and transactions were major sources of revenue
gains in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. The fundamentals affecting the
District's real estate markets remain strong; the District's economy is
growing, individuals and businesses both continue to demonstrate a
desire to locate in the District, and the supply of housing and land
for commercial development cannot increase very rapidly. Accordingly,
the contributions of the real estate sector are expected to be
significant in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, as well, but the
greater strength will be in the real property tax that is based on
property valuation with a 2-year lag. Deed recordation and transfer
taxes are expected to drop a bit, in keeping with the moderation in the
volume of current year transactions in real property.
HIGHLIGHTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR 2007-
FISCAL YEAR 2010 FINANCIAL PLAN
The fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2010 Financial Plan appears as
Attachment B. Each of the four years is balanced. Tax revenues are
projected to increase an average 5.8 percent per year and total local
fund recurring revenues an average 5.4 percent. Total local fund
resources are projected to increase an average 4.2 percent per year and
total local fund expenditures an average 4.0 percent per year.
Incorporated in the plan is the final phase of ``tax parity'' that the
Mayor and Council initiated in 1999 to lower income tax rates and
achieve better balance between D.C. and its neighbors. The plan also
accommodates a major new expenditure starting in fiscal year 2008,
namely, the required actuarial payment for post employment retirement
benefits, thereby complying with the GASB requirement. It should be
noted that the District was among the forefront of municipalities to
recognize and provide for this liability. It put aside approximately
$140 million in 2006, about two years earlier than required.
The District's fiscal year 2007 proposed budget includes $5.022
billion in local-funds spending supported by $5.020 billion of local
revenues, with an operating margin of $1.8 million. (See Attachment C.)
The Council's approved total local fund operating expenditures for
fiscal year 2007, not including Paygo capital, Enterprise Funds or
transfers to OPEB, is $4,927.8 million, an increase of $377.2 million
or 8.3 percent over fiscal year 2006 approved expenditures of $4,550.6
million.
GROSS FUNDS BUDGET
The proposed fiscal year 2007 gross funds operating budget is
$7.608 billion, an increase of $255.7 million, or 3.5 percent, over the
approved fiscal year 2006 gross funds budget of $7.352 billion. The
fiscal year 2007 appropriation is primarily due to higher funding
levels for federal grants ($98.9 million) including Medicaid, and in
programs supported by user fees, fines, the dedicated portion of deed
recordation and transfer taxes transferred to its own separate fund
(for housing production), and other special purpose revenues ($29.5
million). The local and non-local funding components of the proposed
fiscal year 2007 gross funds budget and the changes from fiscal year
2006 are summarized in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2007 GROSS FUNDS BUDGET BY FUND TYPE
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Fund Type ---------------------- Change Percent
2006 2007 change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local............................................................. $4,949.5 $5,086.2 $136.7 2.8
Federal........................................................... $1,939.1 $2,038.0 $98.9 5.1
Private Grants.................................................... $16.2 $6.8 ($9.4) (58.0)
Special Purpose................................................... $447.1 $476.6 $29.5 6.5
---------------------------------------------
Total Gross Funds........................................... $7,351.8 $7,607.6 $255.7 3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL FUND BALANCE USE
It is the function of government to provide badly needed services.
With this in mind, the fiscal year 2006 budget included provisions for
spending a portion of the funds that had accumulated over the years as
a result of unprecedented growth in local revenues. This drawdown of
fund balance was largely driven by one-time spending on capital needs
and programs. As approved, the fiscal year 2006 budget uses $467
million of local fund balance, and we currently estimate a net
reduction by September 30, 2006 of roughly $544 million in the General
Fund balance. It should be noted that despite this reduction in
cumulative fund balance, the District will still retain about $350
million in operating reserve every year throughout the 5 year budget
and financial plan. (See Attachment G.)
The fiscal year 2007 proposed local funds operating budget includes
a proposal to use another $176 million of fund balance. The use of
these monies is for non-recurring expenditures: $46.5 million for
school modernization in fiscal year 2007; $88.0 million for Paygo
capital to fund various capital projects; and $41.9 million for various
one-time operating program enhancements.
CAPITAL SPENDING
The District continues to face a wide variety of infrastructure
needs, placing great demands on its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
The total proposed expenditures in the fiscal year 2007-2012 CIP is
$3.193 billion (excluding the Highway Trust Fund, Local Streets Fund,
and special financings). This six-year plan includes a net increase in
budget authority of $2.341 billion from all sources.
The fiscal year 2007 capital program includes $662.5 million in
planned capital expenditures financed by $399.7 million in newly issued
G.O. bonds, $188.0 million of pay-as-you-go (Paygo) transfers from the
general fund balance, and $74.8 million of Master Equipment Lease
financing.
Despite this effort to fund the District's considerable capital
needs, I must again point out to the Committee that this government
continues to struggle to function under a structural imbalance. This
means that D.C.'s revenue capacity, under national norms, falls far
short of the cost of delivering services assuming average efficiency,
again as measured by national norms. The reasons lie in high regional
costs for labor, land, and other resources; in a large population in
need; and in accumulated infrastructure deficiencies. D.C.'s fiscal
stress is confirmed by the GAO in its 2003 study of the District's
finances. This study is an extensive analysis comparing D.C.'s revenue
and expenditure bases to those of state and local jurisdictions all
across the United States. From every perspective on structural
imbalance examined by GAO, the District is at or near the top of the
most burdened jurisdictions in the nation.
Although the District has made great strides in fiscal management
and in providing better services, two difficult consequences of the
structural imbalance between the District's revenue base and its
spending requirements remain. These are: (1) a high per capita tax
burden with some of the highest tax burdens in the region and the
country; and (2) the highest per capita borrowing. D.C.'s tax burden on
households ranks in the upper one-third when compared to the largest
cities in the United States (for total state and local burden of sales,
income, property, and automobile taxes) according to a highly-regarded
annual study, prepared by my office, comparing tax burdens in D.C. to
those of the largest city in each state.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens in the District of
Columbia, A Nationwide Comparison, various years. This annual study is
the basis for many public uses, such as an annual analysis by Money
Magazine, and has been cited in the New York Times, Wall Street
Journal, CNN, and many other places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The burden is greater on businesses. The District's tax rate on net
business income is 9.975 percent (compared to 7.0 percent in Maryland,
6.0 percent in Virginia, and exceeded by only 2 states, Alaska and
Iowa); the gross receipts tax on public utilities used by businesses is
11 percent (compared to 2 percent in Maryland and 1 percent in
Virginia); and the real property tax on commercial property is $1.85
per $100 of value as compared to a range of $0.92 to $1.16 in
neighboring suburbs.
The GAO ranks the District's tax burden among the very highest in
the country:
``The District's tax burden (actual revenue collected from local
resources relative to their own-source revenue capacity) is among the
highest of all fiscal systems . . . . The District's actual tax burden
exceeded that of the average state fiscal system by 33 percent, based
on our lower estimate of its own-source revenue capacity, and by 18
percent, based on our higher estimate of that capacity.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO-03-666, District of Columbia, Structural Imbalance and
Management Issues, May 2003, page 41.
There is no way for the District to tax its way out of structural
imbalance-indeed, higher taxes simply make the problem worse.
The District's very high per capita borrowing reflects the city's
effort to sustain infrastructure generally provided by multiple
jurisdictions. The District's per capita tax-supported debt burden
exceeds $8,000, the highest of any major city in the nation. Clearly,
we cannot borrow our way out of the structural imbalance.
Challenges may arise, however, adding to D.C.'s structural
imbalance in coming years. First, all state and local revenue systems
are stressed by the changing nature of the economy, as it evolves more
into a service oriented economy. Because state and local tax systems
were developed around the manufacturing and sale of goods, the old ways
of gathering tax revenue are increasingly inadequate to the newer
economy. The revenue challenge is made even greater in the District by
the Federal prohibitions against taxing incomes earned by non-residents
workers and incomes earned by certain professional services.
Additionally, a recent court finding challenges the District's capacity
to tax any unincorporated business income generated in the District
except as reported on the individual returns of residents. Already the
partnership income of residents that is earned elsewhere is exempt from
taxation here.
Second, the District has a large urban population that needs help.
Census data for 2004 estimate the D.C. poverty rate at about 19
percent, the fourth highest in the nation when compared to states,
after Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico. Of D.C.'s 248,563
households, 18 percent have income of less than $15,000.\3\ Median
household income is about $46,600--in a metropolitan area with median
household income of about $70,400.\4\ Only about a third of D.C.'s
households are at or above the metropolitan median. Like other cities,
D.C. is accountable for greater efforts to help the less advantaged in
the city's population. Unlike other cities, however, the District does
not have a State or suburbs that share in its overwhelming costs. The
proposed fiscal year 2007 budget works hard to manage the expenditure
needs and fiscal requirements of the District's lower income
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Community Survey, 2004.
\4\ American Community Survey, 2004 and Economy.com, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The leadership provided by the Mayor and the Council, along with
the hard work of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, allowed us
to produce this balanced budget for fiscal year 2007. As a result, we
are certifying that the fiscal year 2007 budget and financial plan, as
proposed, is balanced for fiscal year 2007 and beyond. I would like to
thank this committee for its diligent and continuous oversight work on
the District's finances during this sustained recovery period. We look
forward to continuing to work with you and the subcommittee during the
forthcoming budget deliberations.
attachment a
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ATTACHMENT B.--FISCAL YEAR 2007-2010 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN: GENERAL FUND
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2005 Actual Approved Adjusted Proposed Projected Projected Projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues:
Taxes.................................................... 4,052,087 4,101,533 4,157,782 4,412,599 4,676,088 4,949,484 5,224,222
General Purpose Non-Tax Revenues......................... 352,427 340,522 315,226 317,277 317,138 325,336 325,095
Dedicated Taxes--Housing Production Trust Fund........... ........... ........... ........... 50,587 53,255 58,103 64,005
Special Purpose (O-type) Revenues........................ 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639
Transfer from Lottery.................................... 71,450 73,100 72,000 72,100 72,100 72,100 72,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Fund Revenues.................................. 4,787,753 4,779,409 4,899,675 5,221,220 5,483,329 5,766,853 6,059,061
==========================================================================================
Effect of Tax Changes.................................... ........... ........... (908) (276) (307) (346) (388)
Gross Sales Tax Dedicated for School Modernization....... ........... ........... ........... (100,000) (106,000) (112,360) (119,102)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted General Fund Revenues......................... 4,787,753 4,779,409 4,898,767 5,120,944 5,377,022 5,654,147 5,939,571
==========================================================================================
Bond Proceeds for Issuance Costs......................... 4,935 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000
Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes from WASA....................... ........... 1,576 1,576 1,551 ........... ........... ...........
Transfer from Federal and Private Resources.............. ........... 6,502 6,502 6,502 6,646 6,807 6,979
Transfer from HPTF Special Revenue Fund for Debt Service. ........... ........... ........... 6,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Transfer from Capital Funds (Bus Shelter Revenue) for ........... ........... ........... 2,091 17,526 18,097 18,465
Debt Svc................................................
Fund Balance Use......................................... 80,781 591,642 605,662 284,287 65,385 8,399 ...........
Transfer to Capital...................................... ........... (30,000) ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Revenue Proposals........................................ ........... 8,729 ........... 113,268 137,307 139,470 145,228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Resources........................... 4,873,469 5,397,858 5,552,507 5,564,643 5,645,886 5,858,920 6,142,243
==========================================================================================
Expenditures (by Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction and Support....................... 294,778 340,858 344,033 384,759 378,512 388,375 400,497
Economic Development and Regulation...................... 193,456 328,156 347,356 288,974 254,273 256,226 263,870
Public Safety and Justice................................ 805,471 827,037 838,654 943,295 961,120 990,839 1,023,552
Public Education System.................................. 1,082,177 1,189,302 1,189,051 1,223,971 1,245,784 1,277,734 1,311,343
Human Support Services................................... 1,258,537 1,307,530 1,357,342 1,423,138 1,475,718 1,545,283 1,621,441
Public Works............................................. 328,997 366,101 366,100 405,318 412,268 426,723 443,714
Financing and Other...................................... 421,070 561,276 552,287 586,296 670,135 710,075 758,932
Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency)...................... ........... 50,000 48,400 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Lease Purchase Costs..................................... 22,058 27,441 27,441 43,955 46,320 49,320 51,320
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating Expenditures....................... 4,406,544 4,997,701 5,070,664 5,349,706 5,494,131 5,694,574 5,924,669
==========================================================================================
Paygo Capital............................................ 20,550 207,083 208,523 87,987 ........... ........... ...........
Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits...... ........... 138,000 138,000 4,700 81,000 86,200 91,800
General Fund Contribution to Capital Fund Balance........ ........... 53,800 53,800 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Transfer to HPTF Special Revenue Fund.................... ........... ........... ........... 120,418 69,255 75,644 83,424
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Expenditures........................ 4,427,094 5,396,584 5,470,987 5,562,811 5,644,386 5,856,418 6,099,893
==========================================================================================
Operating Margin, Budget Basis........................... 446,375 1,274 81,520 1,832 1,500 2,501 42,349
==========================================================================================
Beginning General Fund Balance............................... 1,215,015 1,584,683 1,584,683 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304
Operating Margin, Budget Basis........................... 446,375 1,274 81,520 1,832 1,500 2,501 42,349
Projected GAAP Adjustments (Net)......................... 4,074 (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)
Deposits into Reserve Funds (From Fund Balance).......... ........... ........... ........... ........... (34,524) ........... ...........
Deposits into Reserve Funds (To Cash Reserves)........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 34,524 ........... ...........
Fund Balance Use......................................... (80,781) (591,642) (605,662) (284,287) (65,385) (8,399) ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending General Fund Balance............................ 1,584,683 974,315 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304 650,653
==========================================================================================
Composition of Fund Balance:
Emergency Cash Reserve Balance (2 percent, formerly 4 70,532 84,622 70,532 73,001 102,004 103,154 103,452
percent)................................................
Contingency Cash Reserve Balance (4 percent, formerly 3 182,905 169,244 182,905 189,307 204,008 206,308 206,904
percent)................................................
Fund Balance not in Emergency & Contingency Reserves..... 1,331,246 720,449 787,104 475,779 348,189 318,842 340,297
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending General Fund Balance............................ 1,584,683 974,315 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304 650,653
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT C.--LOCAL FUNDS COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Actual Approved Adjusted Proposed Projected Projected Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues:
Taxes................... 4,052,087 4,101,533 4,157,782 4,412,599 4,676,088 4,949,484 5,224,222
General Purpose Non-Tax 352,427 340,522 315,226 317,277 317,138 325,336 325,095
Revenues...............
Transfer from Lottery... 71,450 73,100 72,000 72,100 72,100 72,100 72,100
Local Fund Revenues..... 4,475,964 4,515,155 4,545,008 4,801,976 5,065,326 5,346,920 5,621,417
Effect of Tax Changes... .......... .......... -908 -276 -307 -346 -388
Gross Sales Tax .......... .......... .......... -100,000 -106,000 -112,360 -119,102
Dedicated for School
Mod....................
Adjusted Local Fund 4,475,964 4,515,155 4,544,100 4,701,700 4,959,019 5,234,214 5,501,927
Revenues...............
Bond proceeds for 4,935 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000
Issuance Costs.........
Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes .......... 1,576 1,576 1,551 .......... .......... ..........
from WASA..............
Transfer from Federal .......... 6,502 6,502 6,502 6,646 6,807 6,979
and Private Resource...
Transfer from Enterprise .......... .......... .......... 6,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Fund (HPTF) for D......
Transfer from Capital .......... .......... .......... 2,091 17,526 18,097 18,465
Funds (Bus Shelter R...
Fund Balance Use: To .......... .......... .......... 46,477 65,385 8,399 ..........
Replace Dedicated......
Fund Balance Use: .......... 390,700 390,700 87,987 .......... .......... ..........
Transfers to Capital
and....................
Fund Balance Use: One- 67,325 76,230 79,542 41,866 .......... .......... ..........
time Expenditures......
Transfer to Special .......... -54,395 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Purpose Revenues.......
Transfer to Capital..... .......... -30,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Revenue Proposals--Tax .......... .......... .......... 49,000 70,000 66,000 64,250
Compliance Initiati....
Revenue Proposals-- .......... .......... .......... 49,117 51,307 55,928 61,558
Council actions incl. d
Revenue Proposals/One- .......... 4,976 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
time Revenue...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Local Fund 4,548,224 4,950,744 5,062,420 5,022,291 5,211,883 5,421,445 5,685,179
Resources............
===================================================================================
Expenditures (by
Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction 272,404 296,632 299,807 330,101 331,262 341,504 352,096
and Support............
Economic Development and 84,178 101,629 120,829 128,468 115,521 118,584 121,736
Regulation.............
Public Safety and 782,797 769,785 781,402 888,003 913,322 943,423 974,589
Justice................
Public Education System. 1,074,120 1,177,599 1,177,348 1,203,492 1,228,081 1,260,172 1,293,208
Human Support Services.. 1,229,443 1,273,676 1,323,488 1,369,566 1,429,407 1,499,342 1,574,001
Public Works............ 317,426 316,374 316,373 351,396 365,654 380,482 395,964
Financing and Other..... 421,070 537,452 528,463 562,791 649,816 689,918 738,117
Cash Reserve (Budgeted .......... 50,000 48,400 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Contingency)...........
Lease Purchase Costs.... 22,058 27,441 27,441 43,955 46,320 49,320 51,320
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating 4,203,496 4,550,588 4,623,551 4,927,772 5,129,383 5,332,745 5,551,031
Expenditures.........
===================================================================================
Paygo Capital........... 20,550 207,083 208,523 87,987 .......... .......... ..........
Transfer to Trust Fund .......... 138,000 138,000 4,700 81,000 86,200 91,800
for Post-Employment....
Local Fund Contribution .......... 53,800 53,800 .......... .......... .......... ..........
to Capital Fund Bal....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Local Fund 4,224,046 4,949,471 5,023,874 5,020,459 5,210,383 5,418,945 5,642,831
Expenditures.........
===================================================================================
Operating Margin, 324,178 1,273 38,546 1,832 1,500 2,500 42,348
Budget Basis.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT D.--HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND: DEDICATED TAXES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Actual Approved Adjusted Proposed Projected Projected Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues:
Dedicated Taxes--HPTF... .......... .......... .......... 50,587 53,255 58,103 64,005
===================================================================================
Revenue Policy Proposals .......... .......... .......... 15,151 16,000 17,542 19,420
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Dedicated Taxes-- .......... .......... .......... 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424
HPTF.................
===================================================================================
Expenditures (by
Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
and Support............
Economic Development and .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Regulation.............
Public Safety and .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Justice................
Public Education System. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Human Support Services.. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Public Works............ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Financing and Other..... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Expenditures.........
===================================================================================
Transfer to HPTF Special .......... .......... .......... 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424
Revenue Fund...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Dedicated Taxes-- .......... .......... .......... 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424
HPTF Expenditures....
Operating Margin, Budget .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Basis..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT E.--SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Actual Approved Adjusted Proposed Projected Projected Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues:
Special Purpose (O-type) 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639
Revenues...............
General Fund Revenues... 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639
Fund Balance Use........ 13,456 124,712 135,420 109,875 .......... .......... ..........
Fund Balance Certified .......... .......... .......... -1,918 .......... .......... ..........
but not used...........
Transfer from Local .......... 54,395 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Revenues...............
Revenue Proposals/One- .......... 3,753 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
time Revenue...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund 325,245 447,114 490,087 476,614 364,748 361,829 373,638
Resources............
===================================================================================
Expenditures (by
Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction 22,374 44,226 44,226 54,658 47,250 46,871 48,401
and Support............
Economic Development and 109,278 226,527 226,527 160,506 138,752 137,642 142,134
Regulation.............
Public Safety and 22,674 57,252 57,252 55,292 47,798 47,416 48,963
Justice................
Public Education System. 8,057 11,703 11,703 20,479 17,703 17,562 18,135
Human Support Services.. 29,094 33,854 33,854 53,572 46,311 45,941 47,440
Public Works............ 11,571 49,727 49,727 53,922 46,614 46,241 47,750
Financing and Other..... .......... 23,824 23,824 23,505 20,319 20,157 20,815
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating 203,048 447,114 447,113 421,934 364,748 361,829 373,638
Expenditures.........
===================================================================================
Transfer to HPTF Special .......... .......... .......... 54,680 .......... .......... ..........
Revenue Fund...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund 203,048 447,114 447,113 476,614 364,748 361,829 373,638
Expenditures.........
===================================================================================
Operating Margin, Budget 122,197 .......... 42,974 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Basis..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT F.--FEDERAL AND PRIVATE RESOURCES FINANCIAL PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Actual Approved Adjusted Proposed Projected Projected Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues Actual:
Federal Grants.......... 1,633,406 1,911,042 1,911,041 2,008,024 2,131,370 2,263,395 2,405,741
Federal Payment/ 89,166 34,500 62,617 36,400 37,258 38,099 38,960
Contribution...........
Private Grants.......... 5,677 16,213 16,213 6,850 7,070 7,292 7,521
===================================================================================
Federal & Private 1,728,249 1,961,755 1,989,871 2,051,274 2,175,698 2,308,786 2,452,222
Resources..............
Fund Balance Use........ 43,420 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Transfer to General Fund .......... -6,502 -6,502 -6,502 -6,646 -6,807 -6,979
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal & 1,771,669 1,955,253 1,983,369 2,044,772 2,169,052 2,301,979 2,445,243
Private Resources....
===================================================================================
Expenditures (by
Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction 120,489 171,976 171,976 157,746 161,608 165,408 169,301
and Support............
Economic Development and 91,671 118,312 118,312 133,742 137,261 140,745 144,325
Regulation.............
Public Safety and 9,724 10,577 10,564 7,398 7,629 7,860 8,099
Justice................
Public Education System. 200,469 240,194 265,601 226,462 232,468 238,417 244,529
Human Support Services.. 1,300,169 1,405,819 1,407,551 1,500,033 1,610,111 1,728,991 1,857,830
Public Works............ 13,728 8,375 9,365 19,391 19,975 20,558 21,159
Financing and Other..... 16,697 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal & 1,752,947 1,955,253 1,983,369 2,044,772 2,169,052 2,301,979 2,445,243
Private Expenditures.
===================================================================================
Operating Margin, Budget 18,722 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Basis..................
===================================================================================
Beginning Federal & 139,607 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947
Private Fund Balance...
Operating Margin, Budget 18,722 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Basis..................
Projected GAAP 3,038 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Adjustments (Net)......
Fund Balance Use........ -43,420 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Ending Federal & Private 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947
Fund Balance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
attachment g
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Brownback. So we're going to be able to cut our
Federal contribution to the city then, Dr. Gandhi?
Dr. Gandhi. No, sir. That is part of the testimony that I
would love to read. We still enjoy----
Senator Brownback. Maybe we should put you in charge of the
OMB for the Federal Government?
Senator Landrieu. Now, that's an idea. If you're available
after this term, maybe you could help us out, because we're
going in the opposite direction.
Dr. Gandhi. I am waiting for an offer I cannot refuse.
Senator Brownback. It's a great report. That's good news.
Dr. Janey.
STATEMENT OF DR. CLIFFORD B. JANEY, SUPERINTENDENT,
D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Dr. Janey. Yes, sensitive to the time factor, I am not
going to read excerpts of my testimony, just give you a sense
of the summary in terms where we are, and where we are headed.
So I'll put this aside. It's available for the record, of
course.
Chairman Brownback, Senator Landrieu, I am pleased to be
here to advance our portion of our city's budget, just over $1
billion. I can report to you that we are still driven by three
major objectives. A relentless pursuit to advance our student
achievement. We've created a new assessment process this past
spring and used it for the first time. Typically, the States
take 3 to 5 years to do so. We did this in less than 1 year. We
have seen some progress on our SATs, and the number of students
scoring three, four, or five on the advanced placement. And
looking at the previous assessment we used to compare 2003 to
2004, we advanced the number of schools making AYP District-
wide from 63 to 72.
With respect to goal number two which we are driven by, and
that is to repair, restore, and rehabilitate, in some
instances, our anemic business systems, in cooperation and
collaboration with Dr. Gandhi's office and Suzeane Peck's
office in the area of technology, we have completed the
automation of all of our procurement system as part of a major
program that we advanced in the last 18 months. It means
particularly that schools can order supplies now in full cycle
in about 8 days, and typically in the past it would have taken,
just for the complete cycle of ordering, 30 to 45 days.
We are now moving forward to modernize our human resource
department and our payroll system. As you know, we have made
some advancement in reducing the excess space in our buildings.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And, thirdly and finally, we continue to stay focused on
connecting schools, families, and communities. We will be
opening up parent resource centers strategically located
throughout the District of Columbia, creating greater access of
information and, tying to the point that Mayor Williams
mentioned, connecting our efforts, not only in the area of
early childhood, with the city, but also in terms of waging
what we think is an important war on adult illiteracy. And that
gives you some context without actually reading my testimony.
And I sit here along with my colleagues to respond to
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Clifford B. Janey
Thank you very much, Chairman Brownback, ranking member Landrieu
and members of the committee. I am Clifford B. Janey, Superintendent of
Schools for the District of Columbia Public Schools.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
progress being made in the District's public schools and how that
progress will be supported by the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget.
The District of Columbia Public Schools has a diverse student
population with equally diverse academic needs. Twelve percent of our
students come from homes that represent more than 135 countries, and
where more than 121 languages are spoken.
Our student population ranges from children with special needs, to
those who are advanced learners who need progressive academic
challenges in order to keep them motivated to move to higher
achievement levels.
The fiscal year 2007 proposed budget for the District of Columbia
public school as advanced by the city includes a total operating budget
of over $1 billion, comprised of $808.3 million in local funding,
$156.1 million federal, $4.7 million private, $10 million in revenue
generating accounts and $52.2 million in intra-District funding which
represents a two percent (2 percent) decrease from the fiscal year 2006
approved budget. While the proposed funding levels will allow us to
continue making progress in creating a sound and stable foundation for
academic success in the District of Columbia Public Schools, this does
not come without tough choices. I will discuss later the many efforts
that are underway to better align our funding with our strategic goals
as we continue to look for opportunities to maximize our resources.
Over the last fiscal year, we have implemented new and more
rigorous academic standards in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Within the next month, we will release the results of the new student
assessment based on those standards, and early results are encouraging.
We have also recently adopted standards for science and social studies
are pending final approval by the board.
As it now stands, last year:
--The number of schools meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) in
both reading and math increased District wide; increasing from
63 schools in school year (SY) 2003-04 to 72 schools in SY
2004-05. At the elementary level, the number of schools meeting
these targets increased from 55 to 58 and at the secondary
level from 8 to 14.
--Student attendance also increased, rising from 85 to 89 percent
district wide.
--Additionally, English language learners dramatically improved their
proficiency in both reading and math; rising from 30.8 percent
to 50.4 percent in reading; and from 50.8 percent to 56.4
percent in math.
We are also moving in the right direction on national benchmarks.
--DCPS is one of 11 Districts to participate in the national
assessment of educational progress (NAEP) trial urban District
assessment (TUDA).
--As illustrated in the recent report from the council of great city
schools, titled ``Beating the Odds,'' we have reduced the gap
between students performing below basic and those scoring at
proficiency on the NAEP: the percentage of students scoring
below basic decreased by 9 percent. And the percentage of
students scoring at proficient levels increased by 3 percent.
We also continue to make progress in our ability to prepare
students for success in postsecondary experiences.
--The number of students taking advanced placement (AP) courses has
increased from 818 to 832. Moreover, the number of students
scoring 3, 4 or 5 on AP exams has increased from 531 to 549;
with a 17 percent increase among males alone.
--In addition, we have seen a slight increase in student performance
on the scholastic achievement test (SAT), with average verbal
scores increasing from 412 to 414 and math scores from 402 to
404. To help students gain experience in taking the SAT, we
have begun to strongly encourage all eligible 9th graders and
all 10th and 11th graders to take the PSAT since studies
clearly show that students who take the PSAT score higher on
the SAT.
Over twenty-one of our schools have recently been identified as
high-performing schools. These are schools that met AYP in all academic
and non-academic indicators and had 70 percent of their students
scoring at or above proficient levels. Because of our desire to provide
positive reinforcement, and to encourage innovation, these schools will
receive additional money from our school incentive fund. They will set
up demonstration sites of instructional best practices for other
schools to model. A number of other schools have received awards for
significant improvement. This effort was made possible with the support
of this committee's $13 million investment for school improvement. We
look forward to utilizing these funds in fiscal year 2007 to continue
this successful program.
To support academic progress, in the past year we have been
fortifying our business systems. Recently, DCPS became the first school
District in the country to partner with a municipality in operating a
state-of-the-art procurement automated support system (PASS). PASS
allows us to order supplies, equipment and instructional materials more
quickly and more efficiently; as well as, helps leverage our buying
power as a system. As a next step in improving our business operations,
we will be tackling our human resources and payroll systems to ensure
that they too, effectively support the work we have ahead.
We are ever mindful of the need to have an efficient business
system, given the fiscal realities we face. And because of those fiscal
realities, we welcome effective partnerships that can help us reach our
goals.
Our recent partnership with the World Bank, for example, will
assist us in our ability to recruit and train 100 teachers a year, for
the next five years, in order to achieve national board certification
for all teachers, which, in turn, will fortify the quality of teaching
in our classrooms.
I mentioned earlier the partnership with the city of the District
of Columbia that resulted in our new procurement system. We are hoping
for similar partnership opportunities as we improve our human
resources, budget and technology infrastructure.
Using the ``Declaration of Education,'' which is our strategic plan
for change, as a foundation, we have developed a ``Master Education
Plan'' that spells out the academic goals we have set for the children
of the District of Columbia. These academic goals necessarily inform
how our facilities will be used and so, we have also developed a
``Master Facilities Plan'' which articulates our vision of having fully
modernized state-of-the-art campuses for all of our children.
This groundwork creates a clear-thinking approach to our current
efforts to strategically plan for effective use of our buildings to
support our academic mission. We have advanced to the board of
education a set of recommendations on how to right size our facilities
and maximize their use through educational consolidations, operational
efficiency and co-locations with community-based organizations, city
agencies and public-private partnerships.
In short, we are making significant progress, both academically and
programmatically.
We have not--and cannot in the future--do this work alone. We have
been fortunate to have the support of the mayor and the City Council of
Washington, D.C.
While their financial support has been significant, there still
remains critical funding gaps in the current fiscal year 2007 proposed
budget. We look forward to receiving contingency funding for special
education related transportation, which has left us with a shortfall of
approximately $10.3 million and confirmation of the availability of a
$14.7 million reserve account for non-public tuition payments as
indicated by the CFO. I share the sentiment of many of our stakeholders
about the unusually high costs in these areas. As a result, we have
begun implementation of an aggressive multi-year plan and I am hopeful
that we will be able to reduce these costs over time with the
appropriate policy and legislative support. The board and council have
demonstrated a high level of commitment toward supporting some of the
heavy handed strategies that will be needed to realize these goals.
There also remains a need for significant additional financial
support to fund elements of the master education plan which are
critical to building on the success attained thus far. For example,
additional funds will allow us to:
--Expand our use of the DIBELS assessments for early elementary
school students. This will increase our opportunity to identify
potential special needs in children sooner.
--Expand our Career Technical Education program and develop themed
high-schools that will better prepare our students for the
workforce and will help them identify careers that may interest
them.
--Develop more rigorous graduation requirements so that our students,
whether furthering their education or entering the workforce
after graduation, will have diplomas that open more doors for
them.
We anticipate your thoughtful consideration of how this committee
can support the work that we are doing, which is anchored in our
commitment to create a world-class education system that is reflective
of this capitol city and that recognizes the untapped potential of our
youth.
Specifically, we look for your support in changing the DCPA fiscal
year to July-June. While we recognize that this will necessitate
changes to the appropriations calendar and that there may be other
obstacles to implementation, we are willing to work with the city
leadership and this committee to resolve those obstacles. We believe it
is critical to improved operations to have a fiscal year that is
aligned with our academic year.
The ability to adopt multi-year budgeting and to carry forward our
financial condition will also be a significant relief. This would help
to eliminate the fiscally imprudent ``use it or lose it mentality'' of
many of our schools, and to strengthen our capacity to more
strategically and programmatically plan.
And, we anticipate your support of our efforts to obtain CFO which
reports directly to the superintendent. Although our current
relationship with the CFO is better than it has been in the past, as a
system, we cannot manage effectively based on a good working
relationship as opposed to having a sound organizational structure of
our own. As a school system, our mission is clearly different from that
of other city agencies, and we should not be treated as just another
District agency in this or other regards.
I would now like to turn my attention to another major
responsibility of the school system. As you are aware, DCPS serves as
both a local education agency (LEA) and as a state education agency
(SEA).
Over the last year, we have begun to critically examine our state
functions and to more clearly separate them from those of the LEA. For
example:
--We separated our federal grants and local grant personnel into two
discrete offices.
--We recently conducted a time and effort study which would allow us
to track our other staff based on the time they dedicate to SEA
vs. LEA responsibilities.
--The fiscal year 2007 budget was a first step in more accurately
separating our state and local budget by organizational units.
--We have created a technical advisory committee to oversee our
efforts in developing the new state assessment and other areas
of accountability.
--We also have created a state advisory committee for federal grants
and we are active participants in the mayor's state advisory
panel for special education.
As you are aware, the District of Columbia Public Schools state
education agency recently received a ``high risk'' designation by the
U.S. Department of Education. This designation has provided a vehicle
for much needed support and technical assistance from the department as
the SEA continues to address some of the long-standing challenges that
we have had.
I am happy to report that my staff and I continue to meet regularly
with the staff of the department and we are moving in a productive and
promising direction.
I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to talk
about where our schools are, where they need to be, and how we will get
there in order to provide the kind of public education the children in
our nation's capital deserve.
This concludes my testimony. I will answer any questions that you
have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. We'll run the time
clock at, let's do it at 4 minutes, so that'll give us each a
little bit of quick time.
Mayor Williams, I want to start on--we've got--and this is
a school issue as well--a problem--it's a narrow problem, and I
think you've been advised about it--about a number of students
earning out of the scholarship program. This year we're
projected to have 144 students lose their scholarships because
they earned out, sometimes by just a few dollars. I don't know
if you've been made aware of this. This is something Senator
Landrieu has just recently been made aware of. I talked to
Senator Feinstein. I would hope that we could fix that in the
law to allow students that once they get into this, they're
allowed to stay into it. It would have a zero impact. It
wouldn't increase the budget, and it wouldn't decrease it
either. A number of people think this would actually decrease
it. And I don't know if you have been made aware of this
situation, and if you had a particular thought about it.
Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of it, and I am
supportive of efforts to try to correct it, understanding, as
you do, that it would have a net zero fiscal impact on the
program, and I think it's a great program.
Senator Brownback. It also helps us to measure whether this
program works or not, if we can keep people in it.
Mayor Williams. Right. I totally agree. I think the whole
idea behind it, one of the merits of the program, is you're
going to for the first time have--you know, a fancy word--
longitudinal study comparing the students in the three
different schools for the first time. If you start changing the
cohort, then you start polluting the results, and then you end
up with the same arguments you started with, you know, everyone
challenging the results. So for that reason, among many good
reasons, I think it's a good thing to do.
Senator Brownback. We've been working with your staff on
family formation issues in the District. You had the successful
launch of the marriage development accounts. We've identified a
couple of areas that need improvement. The D.C. tax code has a
marriage penalty within it. If you file as an individual, you
have a $2,500 standard deduction; as a couple, it's $1,250.
This is something we looked at in the Federal code, and I'm
hopeful that's something you can look at. I'm told it would be
a $2 million revenue hit to the District to do that, but I
would urge you to look at it just from the standpoint that
these are clear economic signals that are sent.
There's a second one I understand we're not going to be
able to work through now and that's to use some of the TANF
funds to provide additional cash supplements to cover those in
the first 2 years of marriage. We're pushing from the Federal
end to get a grant to cover any cost of that to the District. I
think that would really help us in sending a positive signal.
And then there was also--you were talking about, and I
think you're doing this as well--making low-income housing
benefits higher priorities for married couples. Thank you, and
we'll continue to work with you on this. I don't know if you
had a particular comment on those programs.
Mayor Williams. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is something that,
you know, we talked about. And we went back and talked to our
people in Housing and to Kate Jesberg--who has, I think, done a
great job with TANF before her time heading up DHS and now is
head of DHS--and looked at a number of different incentives
that we could provide in partnership with the Federal
Government to try to strengthen family formation, recognizing
that the District has--we have one of the highest
concentrations of poverty in the United States. And as everyone
knows, there is a huge correlation between poverty and family
situation.
Senator Brownback. Well, thanks for working with me. My
next question is about schools, but I want to turn to my
colleague, Senator Landrieu, just to make sure we give adequate
time, because I know she'll drill into that area, so I will
join her questioning via Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, a question, Dr. Gandhi, or perhaps the Mayor, either
one that wants to address it. There were some concerning
reports, very concerning, about $20 million that has been
either lost or misplaced or unaccounted for through a contract
that was let for investments relative to financing for charter
schools.
This subcommittee has worked very closely with the Mayor
and with the Council trying to fashion--and with Superintendent
Janey--trying to fashion some strategic new investments in
promoting excellence in education through a limited voucher
scholarship program, through a limited charter school
initiative, and through limited additional funds to traditional
public schools, Dr. Janey, to give you some flexibility and
some opportunities. It's not a lot of money, we understand,
relative to the budget, $200 million over 5 years compared to
your billion dollar budget a year, but still $20 million to
taxpayers is a lot of money. So where is it, what is the
investigation showing, are we going to be able to recover any
of it, and what are your words to this subcommittee about if
there's anything we could do to assist you in getting to the
bottom of this situation?
Dr. Gandhi. All right. We appreciate your concern about
that. Since 2005 when the Congress transferred that particular
program from our so-called Office of Banking and Insurance and
Securities to the Mayor's Office and State Education Office,
and suggested that the funds should be managed by the Chief
Financial Officer, we immediately took care of the assets that
were there, and made sure, one, that a proper audit is done of
the amount that was spent from 2000 to 2005; two, do initial
audit on our own. And as we discovered some irregularities and
some probable mismanagement, we immediately alerted the
Inspector General's Office and the Attorney General's Office.
We wanted to seize the funds that are available so far. So as
of now, as I sit here, there are full investigations ongoing.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into that.
The inspector general is looking into that, the U.S. Attorney's
Office, and my own office. So as of now we are managing the
funds, and we want to be absolutely sure, with the Mayor's and
the Council's cooperation, that the charter schools that do
need money and credit enhancement, they will be provided that
funding. And from now on, we will manage the funds.
Senator Landrieu. I appreciate that, but if there's a time
line for the finality of those investigations, we would like to
have it, and then a final report on either how much money was
lost and is not retrievable, or how much we can retrieve,
because people have to have confidence, of course, in the
financial systems that underpin everything we're trying to do
in education. So, I know it's again not a huge amount of money,
but it's not pocket change either. So, let's get to the bottom
of that.
Dr. Janey, are you having any success----
Dr. Gandhi. May I just add, Senator, that July, next month,
we will have a final report from an external auditor, and the
IG is also looking into these issues. But by next month we'll
have a much clearer idea as to what had happened before the
funds came to us.
Senator Landrieu. One final question. The co-location
effort that you have been spearheading, do you have any
concrete successes on co-location as this school year starts to
open up?
Dr. Janey. Yes, we do. I proposed a collaboration and a
partnership between Scott Montgomery Elementary School and Kipp
Academy, and the Board of Education voted favorably on my
recommendation. And that co-location will commence school year
2006-2007. So we are in the planning process to bring those two
school communities together. Ultimately, Scott Montgomery will
have a pre-K through 4, and Kipp, as you know is a grade 5
through 8. It will be in the same building, a pre-K through 8
experience for families and students in that area. And I'm very
pleased with that.
Senator Landrieu. Because one of, Mr. Chairman, the
solutions for excess space is to use it more effectively and
efficiently, for the charter schools that are having to go out
to commercial space and lease at high rates to come back into
the public school buildings and to co-locate these facilities,
which is a more efficient way to use that space. I won't take
any more time, but I do want to just say that the Seed school
just continues to be the model of hope, not just for this city
but for the Nation. I can't tell you how many mayors have come
from Louisiana to go to the Seed school, the first urban
residential school for poor, moderate, and low-income children
in this Nation, that's having extraordinary results.
And, Mr. Mayor, you've taken a particular interest in that.
And I want to just commend you, Mr. Mayor, for your fight for
these kids to have equal opportunities, because their
acceptance to Princeton or Columbia have not gone unnoticed.
And we're going to continue to press the expansion of models
like that.
Senator Brownback. That's good.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
congratulate you on your surpluses and your bond rating. By
having a higher bond rating, it does mean that you don't have
to have to pay as much interest on your bond, which is
obviously more money available for your program.
In looking at some of your testimony, I've been impressed
with the 5-year balanced budget plan, but you did refer to some
obstacles in there. One of them was the notable housing market
impact. I wonder if you would go into a little detail as to
what's happening in our housing market that is going to have an
impact on your budget.
Dr. Gandhi. That is correct, sir. We see some softening of
the housing market. However----
Senator Allard. My property tax bill doesn't reflect that.
Dr. Gandhi. Right. Because we have a 5-year plan, we have
to make projections as to how does it look for 5 years. Our
expectation is that going forward, the growth in our tax--real
property tax revenue would not be as robust as it has been in
the past. The past few years we had almost 10 to 11 percent a
year growth in real property taxes. We don't expect that to
happen, or to continue. However, we do not expect any downturn
in our real property market, so the growth would be somewhat
moderated, but we do not expect that that would be a big bust
over there.
There are three particular reasons as to why our real
property market is going to stay strong. One is the Federal
Government, and the amount of the money that is being spent, we
in the region, and particularly in the District, are quite the
beneficiaries of that. The second issue here is that the
commuting issue is a nightmare, and people want to stay closer
to where they work and very likely in the city. And third is
that the city's image under Mayor and Council Chair Cropp
fundamentally has changed over what it used to be 10 or 15
years ago. We are a place now to be in.
So currently we are the hottest real property market in,
residentially, in the country; commercially, we are among the
hottest in the world. People want to come here, invest money
here. And great credit goes to our elected leaders,
particularly the Mayor, for achieving that level of prestige
for our city.
Senator Allard. Thanks for that analysis.
Dr. Janey, there's an article in The Washington Post
stating that the D.C. School Board has recently halted charter
school applications indefinitely until it decides governance
issues surrounding these schools. And it's been brought to my
attention that this is the second moratorium in as many years.
We have a great deal of money invested in the charter school
program and want to continue the choice program. Would you like
to comment on those issues in The Washington Post? And should
we be trying to expand the choices that parents have rather
than restrict new charter school openings?
Dr. Janey. Yes. As a nonvoting board member, I would like
to comment. I think the members of the board want to take
additional time in looking at their governance role with
respect to charter schools. My own view is there's probably a
mixed sentiment on the board. I think there are some members
who would like to opt out of that governance responsibility,
and there are other members who would wish to retain it, but
find a better way to exercise their oversight responsibility
for charter schools.
Quite frankly, there is a problem in the way charter
schools are managed, from my point of view. You have an
executive director, and irrespective of the person, the model
calls for an executive director reporting directly to a
legislative body. And the way by which you can oversee that in
terms of nine members of the board who have legislative
responsibility, not executive responsibility, creates some
management problems. So they want to take some time reflecting
on how they do their business, and I will be there giving them
some constructive guide.
Senator Allard. You do have waiting lines, don't you, to
get into those charter schools?
Dr. Janey. It's mixed. Enrollment ranges--with the 17
charter schools the board oversees--it ranges from about 40
students to just over 1,000. And all of the charter schools do
not have waiting lists. We have waiting lists in our public
schools as well.
Senator Allard. Are they all filled up to, then, to
capacity, I would assume?
Dr. Janey. No.
Senator Allard. They're not?
Dr. Janey. No.
Senator Allard. And in what areas do you have the least
enrollment in charter schools?
Dr. Janey. I couldn't tell you offhand, but one of the
board's legitimate interests is to make sure that the charter
schools that they do authorize create some unique kind of
innovative opportunity for learning.
Senator Allard. Well, that's the whole idea.
Dr. Janey. Yes. And some of the applications that have been
advanced have not met that test.
Senator Allard. I see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Yes. Thank you, Senator Allard. I want
to enter two things into the record. One is a series of
anecdotal information and then the charts on children earning
out of the D.C. Scholarship Fund. And, the second one, Dr.
Janey, I was just looking at this table of SAT participation
scores, which I know you are very familiar with. There's two
real striking things about this, to me, anyway. The percentage
of males taking the SAT is below 40 percent, and females just
above 60 percent. That seems quite skewed. Now, maybe that's
not skewed nationwide. I don't know. But that seems to me to
beg, well, what are we doing to try to get more young men to
take the SAT? And then the national average is 200 points above
the District, and I recognize it's an urban district, but that
seems to be like a substantial difference in the national
average and the D.C. average on the SAT scores. And as I met
with you in the office, I told you we've got objective measures
to look at and goals to hit, and these are things we really
have to target in on to get people and attract them back into
the school system in the District, to say that this is a system
that produces a good product, that you can come here and learn
very well. I think it's a numbers issue. I think we've got to
hit these numbers better, and I know you're focused on that,
but we're going to keep pressing what it is that we have to do
to get these numbers better. And I'll enter this in the record
as well.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 2.--SAT I PARTICIPATION FOR 2004-2005 GRADUATING SENIORS BY GENDER, RACIAL, AND ETHNIC GROUPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Test- Percentage of Percent Change
Racial and Ethnic Groups takers Test-takers from Last Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Males........................................................... 591 39.5 -5
Females......................................................... 905 60.5 -2
Asian........................................................... 52 3.5 +13
Black........................................................... 959 64.1 -2
Hispanic........................................................ 99 6.6 +5
White........................................................... 91 6.1 +34
American Indian................................................. 6 .4 -25
Other........................................................... 30 2.0 ..............
No Response..................................................... 259 17.3 -19
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,496 100 -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
most recent sat scores and how those scores compare to the past 5 years
Table 3 below illustrated the verbal, mathematics and combined SAT
results for graduating seniors over the last five school years. Table 4
further disaggregates the data by gender, racial and ethnic groups.
TABLE 3.--SUMMARY OF SAT RESULTS FOR GRADUATING SENIORS FOR 2001-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Scores
School Year -----------------------------------------------
Verbal Mathematics Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2001....................................................... 402 396 798
2001-2002....................................................... 400 396 796
2002-2003....................................................... 404 396 800
2003-2004....................................................... 412 402 814
2004-2005....................................................... 414 404 818
National Average 2004-2005...................................... 505 515 1,020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
washington scholarship fund stories from our families earning out
A pregnant mother, ``Danita,'' is renewing for her daughter and is
over income by only $160. When her baby is born, the increase in
household size will make her eligible again--allowing the daughter to
return to the school she started Kindergarten in through the OSP--but
only after being forced in and out of a new school every year.
A family of four whose father is in U.S. military with an annual
income of $31,000, took an optional $30,000 ``bonus''--an early payment
out of their retirement fund--to tide them over. Now they are over the
income threshold of $40,000 for their family of 4.
Senator Brownback. The vote was called at 11:06--yes?
Senator Landrieu. If I could just add one thing.
Dr. Janey, I'd like to work with you, and I know the
chairman will too, on this governance issue for charter
schools, and also the accountability issue for all of our
schools, because we are accountable whether we have public
charters or traditional charters or even a scholarship voucher
program. There is an accountability that we have to the
students participating and their parents that we're providing a
quality opportunity for them. And the challenge of this is
happening all over the country. All districts are struggling
with this; some are doing a better job than others. But I'd
like to share some of the new models that I've learned about
and work with you, the Mayor, and the City Council as we
develop strong accountability, making sure that whether our
children are in traditional public schools or public charter
schools, they're getting a quality opportunity for a good,
solid education. And I need to work with you on that in the
next few months.
Dr. Janey. I look forward to our continued collaboration on
quality.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Brownback. Sorry the hearing had to be short, but I
do appreciate it. And as all have said, Mayor Williams, we
really do thank you all for your public service; it's been
outstanding.
The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Thursday, June 22, 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
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 39
Statement of................................................. 39
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 35
Prepared Statements of....................................... 2, 36
Buchanan, Avis E., Director, Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia........................................... 18
Prepared Statement of........................................ 19
Cropp, Hon. Linda W., Chair, Council of the District of Columbia. 47
Prepared Statement of........................................ 50
Gandhi, Dr. Natwar, Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia 53
Prepared Statement of........................................ 53
Herring, Hon. Anita Josey, Presiding Judge, Family Court,
District of Columbia........................................... 1
Isaac, Reverend Donald, Executive Director, East of the River
Clergy-Police Community Partnership............................ 28
Prepared Statement of........................................ 31
Janey, Dr. Clifford B., Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools,
District of Columbia........................................... 65
Prepared Statement of........................................ 66
King, Hon. Rufus G., III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia........................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 16
Statement of................................................. 15
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana: Prepared
Statements of.................................................. 2, 37
Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, District of Columbia....................... 28
Prepared Statement of........................................ 29
Sanchez, Joseph, Administrative Officer, District of Columbia
Courts......................................................... 1
Washington, Hon. Eric T., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court
of Appeals, and Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration, District of Columbia........................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Wicks, Anne, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts...... 1
Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia........... 35
Prepared Statement of........................................ 43
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
Page
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Responsible Budget............................................. 43
Budget:
Goals and Fiscal Discipline.................................. 50
Process and Highlights....................................... 50
Capital Spending................................................. 56
Citizen Priorities............................................... 44
Democracy for the Nation's Capital............................... 47
Economic Development............................................. 51
Education........................................................ 50
Fiscal Recovery 1996-2005........................................ 54
Following Through on Landmark Initiatives........................ 43
General Fund Balance Use......................................... 55
Gross Funds Budget............................................... 55
Highlights of Fiscal Year 2007 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year
2007-Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Plan........................... 55
Other Federal Payment Items...................................... 52
Priority Federal Funding for Critical Projects................... 45
Revenue Outlook.................................................. 54
Voting Representation............................................ 52
Courts
Administrative Accomplishments................................... 28
Background....................................................... 20
Capital Budget Request........................................... 16
Complete Budget Request Summary.................................. 13
Critical Fiscal Year 2007 Priority--Infrastructure............... 8
Family Court Implementation...................................... 16
Fiscal Year:
2005 Accomplishments......................................... 20
2007 Request................................................. 20
General Program Accomplishments.................................. 21
Integrated Justice Information System............................ 17
Recent Achievements.............................................. 7
The President's Recommendation................................... 7
Training......................................................... 27
-