[Senate Hearing 105-386] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [DOCID: f:39855.xxx.done] S. Hrg. 105-386 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ======================================================================= HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION on H.R. 2607/S. 1156 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, 1998, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES __________ Council of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Department of Health Department of Human Services Department of Public Works Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Metropolitan Police Department Office of the Mayor __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on AppropriationsAvailable via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39-855 cc WASHINGTON : 1998 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-056300-3 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director James H. English, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on the District of Columbia LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina, Chairman KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio) Professional Staff Mary Beth Nethercutt C O N T E N T S ---------- Thursday, July 10, 1997 Page Office of the Mayor.............................................. 1 Council of the District of Columbia.............................. 17 Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority..... 29 Wednesday, July 16, 1997 Metropolitan Police Department................................... 91 Department of Corrections........................................ 107 Wednesday, July 23, 1997 Department of Human Services..................................... 135 Department of Health............................................. 147 Department of Public Works....................................... 155 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------- THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lauch Faircloth (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Faircloth, Stevens, and Jeffords. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the Mayor STATEMENT OF HON. MARION S. BARRY, JR., MAYOR OPENING STATEMENT OF LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator Faircloth. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The meeting will come to order. I will have a brief opening statement, and then we will go to the witnesses. This is the first of several hearings that will be held by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia to consider the proposed 1998 budget and the long-range financial plans for the District. The committee actually has more than one budget to consider, which is a little unusual. I understand the Control Board and the City Council were not able to reach consensus on the spending plan, and I am sure we will hear more on that this morning. It is important to have a consensus strategy as to where we are going with the city and to balance the budget for the city. I think it would be far better to come together with one budget, but that did not happen. I want to hear from our witnesses this morning on the areas of agreement and disagreement so we can identify the common ground that does exist for putting the District's budget in order. spending for city council and control board budgets The total spending for both the City Council's proposed budget and the Control Board's proposed budget are the same, $5.17 billion, and both budgets are designed to achieve a balance. The areas of disagreement are significant: funding for public safety, corrections, and schools. It is my intention that the subcommittee review both documents before any decision is made. why a control board It is important to remember why we have a Control Board and why the subcommittee is reviewing a budget prepared by the Control Board in the first place. The city of Washington is not delivering its services in a manner that meets the needs of the citizens who live in the Nation's Capital. Two years ago, problems became so severe that on April 17, 1995, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act was signed into law, creating the Financial Control Board. At that time, the city was facing a major financial crisis. A report of the General Accounting Office from June 25, 1995, says the following: the District of Columbia is insolvent. It does not have enough cash to pay its bills. Some contractors have provided services without contracts. programs under court order Many District programs are under court order to address basic fundamental weaknesses, and there is widespread belief that the District has too many employees and does not provide quality service. number of residents leaving city Making the problem worse, over 50,000 residents of the city have left in the 1990's alone. Over the last 20 years, 200,000 residents have left the city. A recent study by Dun & Bradstreet found that more than 1,800 businesses had moved out of the city since 1990, twice as many as had moved in. Certainly the leaving of businesses and people has eroded the tax base. control board established to rescue city In short, the Control Board was established to rescue the city from financial chaos and from a legacy of mismanagement, from the effects of a crime wave that drove citizens away out of fear of personal safety, from crumbling roads, and from school buildings that have been neglected for so long that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to repair them. So as the subcommittee considers the testimony from our witnesses this morning, let us remember what business is before us. We are about the business of rescuing the Nation's Capital. Not only rescuing it, but we are going to turn it into a city we all can be proud of. We simply cannot let the District of Columbia fail, and the first step, in my opinion, is to restore the confidence of the American people and their representatives in Congress in the management of the city. I have spent my life in the private sector, and I have some knowledge of how to run a business. It has been my experience that when a business has been run into the ground, management, whoever did it, must be held accountable. Until this city can demonstrate that it is managed well, that millions of dollars are not being wasted or misused, then no amount of cost- shifting reforms will be enough to solve the problem. management reform None of the plans to rescue the city currently before the Congress provides for management reform. The rescue plan developed by the President would shift a number of functions from the city to the Federal Government, but a management crisis would still remain. I continue to believe that any legislation which attempts to rescue the city must also rescue it from mismanagement. I remain strongly opposed to the inclusion of any District of Columbia rescue plan in the tax reconciliation bill currently being considered by the Congress. I have written to Trent Lott urging him that such a plan not be in the tax bill. president's plan The President's plan would, in my judgment, greatly reduce the congressional oversight of the District of Columbia without providing any solution to the management problems that the city has. A plan which shifts the responsibility for several billion dollars of city services and debts back to the American taxpayers should not be buried in an omnibus tax bill. The Senate deserves an opportunity to debate the plan. Balancing the District budget and restoring long-term financial responsibility to the Nation's Capital will not be easy. After years of mismanagement and neglect, it will take more than 1 year of sound management to restore the city. However, I am committed, and I believe the Congress is committed, to revitalizing the District. We will not abandon the commitment. revitalization of city The Congress is not only committed to the revitalization of the city, there are no other options. It is the Capital of the Nation, and it has to be revitalized, not only for the citizens of the city of Washington, but for the 280 million American citizens that call it the Capital and many of them that visit here. I would like to remind all of our witnesses that their entire statement will be made a part of the record. We ask that you limit your opening statement to 5 minutes. There will be some flexibility in case it gets some longer, but not a lot longer. Without objection, the record will remain open until 5:00 p.m., July 17, for the submission of any additional testimony or responses that anyone might have. I want to welcome all of our people here this morning, our witnesses. First I would like to say that both of the other two members of the subcommittee, Senator Barbara Boxer is, I believe, on the floor at a meeting, and we expect her to join us before the hearing is over. Senator Hutchison from Texas is also on the floor, and we expect her to be joining us. Our three witnesses this morning are the Hon. Mayor Barry, Ms. Cropp, and Dr. Brimmer, chairman of the Control Board. I look forward to hearing the testimony and, as I said at a hearing yesterday, I thank the witnesses for coming. You all did not have as far to come as those did yesterday, but to come and testify before a congressional hearing is not always something we look forward to. It is like jury duty. It is something we need to do to make the Government work, and I will ask Mayor Barry if he would begin his testimony. statement of marion barry Mayor Barry. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Allow me to begin this morning by taking some time to commend you, in that you have demonstrated as chair of the committee, unlike many others, that you have really been a quick study, making every effort to understand the complexities in which the District finds itself today. commendation of chairman Another commendable aspect of your leadership has been your demonstrated appreciation of the democratic process and structure of the Government. Rather than try to micromanage the District government, you have kept your involvement at a macro level, leaving the local elected officials to make local choices for which they will be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that my entire statement be entered into the record. You should have copies of it. I think it is about 35 pages. Senator Faircloth. We do have a copy of it, and it will be entered into the record, the entire statement. Mr. Mayor, we want to keep testimony fairly brief, but feel comfortable to say what you have got on your mind. Mayor Barry. Well, I will try to summarize these 35 pages. It is kind of difficult. I am a southerner, too, so we talk kind of lengthy. no consensus budget As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the executive and the legislative branches of the Government and the Financial Management Assistance Authority did not reach consensus on the District of Columbia's fiscal year 1998 budget and, as you pointed out, you are faced with two budgets, the Mayor-Council budget, and the Authority's budget. There are several reasons for this. I think the overriding reason is the fact that this process, as well-intentioned as it was, designed by Congressman Davis and others, and adopted by the Congress, signed by the President, does not allow for consensus. I submit a budget to the Authority. Even if they agreed with 99 percent of that budget and disagreed with 1 percent, they would have to reject the entire budget, and then it goes the same way, back and forth between the Council and the Authority. design a budget process We believe, and I have talked to Dr. Brimmer and Ms. Cropp, we need to sit down and design a better budget process. This process is designed to create conflict, confusion, and disagreement, as well-intentioned as it was. Second, it is a matter of some priorities that there is a difference. The Council and the Mayor believed very strongly that the Department of Corrections had enough money to operate in 1998 and, therefore, we were not supportive of any major increases in their budget. On the other hand, the Mayor and the Council believe that we ought to have local funding for summer jobs. The Control Board reduced and cut out, eliminated these summer jobs. summer jobs program There are some 13,000 young people who applied this summer. The Federal Government will support about 4,000, our local money about 5,000, giving us 9,000 jobs. We have gone to the private sector and to the Federal agencies to get an additional 3,500 jobs. We differ there. The Board eliminated the Office of Tourism, and Mr. Chairman, you know and I know that tourism is the No. 1 industry in Washington, behind Government. Over 100,000 people are in the tourist business. The Board eliminated some home assistance purchase programs, and you can see that is where the basic difference is. One of philosophy and priorities in those areas. On the other hand, the Board and the Council agreed on a strong public safety budget, and raises for our police officers. There was some slight disagreement about the level. So those differences are there, and I would urge that you adopt the Council and the Mayor's budget as part of where we are going. Mr. Chairman, before I continue, let me go back to something you were speaking of about the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. I was here on the City Council at the beginning of 1993. I was here in the spring and the fall of 1994, when subcommittees in the House and the Senate had repeated hearings with Mayor Kelly, and both the House and the Senate held these hearings on the financial and fiscal conditions of the District government. Each time the hearing was held and Mayor Kelly and her staff came to testify, numbers and explanations changed, and each time the numbers and explanations changed, the frustrations of those on the Hill with oversight responsibility for the District also rose. With the heightened frustration came a real skepticism about the credibility of the leadership and management of the District government. At that time, I was a member of the City Council, and even those of us on the Council did not know what numbers and explanations to believe. deficit of $335 million As it was, in January 1995, when I took office, the financial crisis came to a head. Shortly after assuming the mayorship of the city, we went into the books and discovered a deficit of $335 million left over from the previous administration, the largest deficit in the history of our city, and a potential deficit of another $322 million. The point I am making here is that when we went to the Federal Government to get some assistance, it was obvious that they were not going to give it without some major controls, and thus, the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the Control Board). It had more to do with a deteriorated personnel system, and a broken procurement system that had gotten worse over the last 4 years prior to 1995. This law is unlike any other in the country in the sense that elected officials were not part of the Board, as they were in New York or in Philadelphia. Again, that does not foster a cooperative relationship. We have elected officials left outside of the process, and nonelected officials, as bright and as committed as they are, on the other side. elected officials part of control board If I had my druthers about it, we would redo that law and we would include local elected officials as part of the Control Board. I think that would make for a better model than what we have here, but I want to make it clear that it was the financial crisis created in 1993-94, that brought the Congress to the point that we needed this Financial Control Board. Also, Mr. Chairman--I will not go through all of this, but my administration had a three-prong approach. The first prong was to reduce the cost of government. That happened in New York, happened in Philadelphia. The second was to transfer certain funding responsibilities to the Federal Government, which is what the present plan does, and the third was revenue growth and economic growth. reduction in size of government If you look at the record, what we have been able to do in the last 2 years in terms of reducing the size of government, this government has been reduced in terms of number of people on the payroll and the size of the payroll in less than 2\1/2\ years by 27 percent. We have lost over 7,500 full-time equivalents for a savings of $165 million. Senator Faircloth. Seven thousand, did you say? Mayor Barry. Seven thousand five hundred, for a savings of $165 million. In fact, there was a deficit of $335 million in 1994 under the previous administration, and in 1995, when we started tightening our belt, we only had a deficit of $54 million. As a businessperson, you can see a dramatic turnaround in 1 year from $335 million to $54 million. privatization We have not only reduced the size of government, we have used privatization as a way of further becoming more efficient and further reducing the cost of government. We have outsourced major services provided by hundreds of District personnel. The correctional treatment facility at one of our prison institutions in southeast, 898-bed correctional facility, was privatized, saving the taxpayers of the District almost $2.3 million in operating costs. We also closed one of our nursing homes and placed 256 residents in private home long-term care facilities. We privatized our food services in our correctional facilities. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that this administration, this Mayor, working with the Council, has drastically reduced the size of this government. No other city, or State, or county in America has done this much this quickly. New York took 4 years to do 20 percent of their reduction, and Philadelphia had very few reductions. They just made some arrangement with the unions to cut costs. So we have done a great deal, and if you do not believe we have done that, you ask some of these people whose services have been reduced. We have gotten so stringent, Mr. Chairman, we have gotten to a point where we reduced money from our burial fund for people who are destitute and cannot find anybody to pay for their burial. At one point they would get their major funding from the city, but we have reduced that cost. We have reduced services to some of our severely disadvantaged citizens. The Department of Human Services lost over 2,000 positions. establishment of health department We have also established a Health Department. I am just telling you this so you may begin to see that, contrary to what you may read in the newspapers, the D.C. government has made significant progress in the first leg of reducing the size of government, reducing the cost of government, and getting our management under control. If you look at the financial part of our government, there has been a great deal of progress. We had junk bonds in 1995, in the early part of 1996. We can now go to the bond market and borrow. bond rating Our last borrowing was about $280 million in May. We got a rate that was only about 7 basis points below Fairfax County, which has AAA rating. Again, the point is that Wall Street has regained some confidence in the District government, and it demonstrates that through our borrowing. If you look at service delivery, this afternoon at 1:00 I am having a press conference on revamped motor vehicle services. We provide State services, which are driver's licenses, license plates, et cetera. We have now moved to reform that area. Trash is being picked up much more efficiently. So I take issue with you in terms of the vastness of the mismanagement. Of course, we have problems in terms of management, but when you look at every area of government, you see continued and sustained progress. What happens with people like yourselves, because you have to depend mostly on the newspapers and television for your information about what we are doing, they only point out the negative. They never tell you all the things that are working in a very, very positive way. businesses leaving the city I take issue again in terms of businesses leaving the city. We have had, in the last 2 years, a net increase in businesses in the District of Columbia. There was a hemorrhaging prior to my administration, but I think we had about a net of 75 businesses that are now in the District of Columbia. We have only lost about 25,000--I mean 40,000--jobs in the last 3 years, but 90 percent of those jobs have been in the Federal and District sector. As the Federal Government downsizes and the District government downsizes, you lose jobs. We have had, really, a small net increase in jobs in the private sector. We have slowed down the hemorrhaging of the middle-class in Washington, when you look at the numbers. And so my point here is that the District has made substantial movement in managing our affairs. Our procurement system, which was in total disarray when I came in, in January, and stayed that way for another 12 to 14 months, as we began to fix it, is now beginning to work. We do not have contracts that are expiring. People are getting paid in a timely way. Mrs. Patterson and my administration will be working on a personnel bill in the fall. president's plan What we need, though, is for the President's plan to be approved. We think it is a good first step, in terms of beginning to shift those State functions to the Federal Government. We do not have a State. If I were the mayor of Raleigh or Charlotte, I could go to the State of North Carolina for AFDC, for welfare payments, for food stamps, for Medicaid, for State prisons, for county hospitals. I would not have that responsibility. So we support the President's direction. What we also need is for this committee to assist us in figuring our various models for economic growth. As a business person, you cannot just cut costs and not have any economic growth, as you very well know. So that is the leg of the triangle that we need to push forward. council's budget I guess, in conclusion, we urge you to adopt the Council's budget. I know it puts you in a very difficult position, but that is what leadership is about--making some very difficult choices. We have made some difficult choices here locally. I have had to preside over the worst budget crisis in our history. And I have had to take some unpleasant messages to our constituents. And as you probably know, people not only kill the message, but kill the messenger. And I have taken my share. But that is what leadership is all about--making Washington what we want it to be. If you look outside now, you begin to see a city that is on the grow, on the road to recovery. Our streets are cleaner. Our government is working much more efficiently. Do we have problems? Yes, we do. And we are making the effort to attract leadership. In the next week or so I am going to announce some personnel changes in my administration, where we have attracted, in my view, some of the best and brightest public servants in America to help lead us on this road to recovery. additional police officers on street And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we all want Washington to be a good city. We all want Washington to work well. We all want Washington to be safer than it has been in the past. And since we are talking about safety, our police department has radically changed the way it operates. We now have over 400 additional police officers that went on the streets 3 months ago--on the streets in uniform. The chief has added another 500, starting at the end of this week and the early part of next week, where you are going to see police officers riding bicycles and in cars and walking the beat. And it is paying off, Mr. Chairman. The homicide rate is the lowest it has been in 10 years. I think about 1\1/2\ weeks ago, there were 135 people killed. That is 135 too much for me, but by that same time last year, it was 186, which means over 50-some lives have been saved because of our police department. In the month of March, crime was down by 30 percent in all categories, in robberies and auto thefts, et cetera. prepared statement And so we are working as hard as we can to make our city safer, to make it cleaner, to make our government work more efficiently and effectively. And I think we are on the road to recovery. When you check the facts, you will find we have made substantial progress. And all this talk about mismanagement here or there is just what it is--it is talk. The reality is that we still have problems, but Washington is growing. And so we want to make it not only proud for North Carolinians, but proud for all Americans. Thank you. Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mayor Barry. [Clerk's note: The Mayor's comparative information on the staffing for the District of Columbia is being held in the files of the subcommittee.] [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Marion Barry Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, allow me to begin this morning by taking some time to commend the leadership that you have demonstrated as the chair of this committee. Unlike many before you, you have shown a particularly keen interest in the District of Columbia--and if I may say so, have been a quick-study, making every effort to understand the complexities in which the District finds itself today. Another commendable aspect of your leadership has been your demonstrated appreciation of the democratic process and structure of Governance in America. Rather than to micro manage the District government, you have kept your involvement at a macro level--leaving the locally elected officials to make local choices for which they will be held accountable. In accordance with section 202(c)(6) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995, on June 16, 1997, I submitted to the President of the United States, the District of Columbia's official fiscal year 1998 budget. As you are all aware, the executive and legislative branches of the District of Columbia's government and the financial authority did not reach a consensus on the District of Columbia's fiscal year 1998. Consequently, as permitted by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995, two separate budgets have been submitted. One of these represents the District of Columbia's official budget--for which we are here to support and seek your support today, and the other represents the actions of the financial authority. I must point out at the outset, that the lack of consensus on the District's budget has much to do with the budget development process that is outlined in the Authority Act of 1995. Not only does the process require an inordinate amount of ``to and fro'', but at certain points in the process, the role of the Mayor and later, the Council, is reduced to one of by-standers. This process does not easily lend to consensus building but rather assures confrontation and conflict throughout the process. Whereas I appreciate the intentions of Congressman Davis and others who drafted the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act, this process has come to be particularly frustrating and I believe it is safe to say that all who touch this process are in agreement with this fact. It is thus no wonder that the differences between the District's official budget and that of the authority are really minimal. Allow me to put these differences into perspective: --Government direction and support.--The authority's budget is $1.7 million lower than the District's official budget. --Economic development and regulation.--The authority's budget is $5.3 million lower than the District's official budget. --Public safety and justice.--The authority's budget is $7.4 million more than the District's official budget. --Public education system.--The authority's budget is $5.5 million lower than the District's official budget. --Human support services.--The authority's budget is $2.2 million more than the District's official budget. --Public works.--The authority's budget is $1.2 million more than the District's official budget. --Financing and other.--The authority's budget is $3.6 million more than the District's official budget. The net difference between the District's official budget and that of the authority is $1.978 million! Let me take this opportunity to recommend and invite all the stakeholders of the District to sit down and craft a new process that makes sense--and that does not compromise the intent and the essence of the Authority Act of 1995. Mr. Chairman, we, in the District of Columbia are living in a profoundly skeptical yet exciting time. You may recall how the concern about the District's financial condition began in 1994 under Mayor Kelly. It was becoming increasingly obvious that the Kelly administration had lost complete control of the District's finances. In the spring and summer of fiscal year 1994, both the House and the Senate held numerous hearings on the fiscal condition of the District. Each time a hearing was held and Mayor Kelly came up to testify, numbers and explanations changed--and each time the numbers and explanations changed, the frustrations of those with oversight responsibility for the District on the Hill also rose. With this heightened frustration came a real skepticism about the credibility of the leadership and management of the District government. At that time I was a member of the Council of the District of Columbia, * * * and even those of us on the Council did not know what numbers and explanations to believe. As was inevitable, in January 1995, the fiscal crisis in the District of Columbia came to a head. Shortly after assuming the mayorship of the District, I publicly revealed that there was a deficit from fiscal year 1994 of $322 million. I also made public the fact that it was anticipated that compounding the deficit from fiscal year 1994 of $322 million, if nothing was done immediately, the fiscal year 1995 deficit would be as high as $722 million. As though this were not enough, not only were the District's finances in disarray, our personnel and procurement systems--which are hybrids of the complex Federal systems--had also deteriorated badly. Little or no attention or investment had been made in people nor in systems or technology. These three fundamental systems that serve as the backbone of any government had been so badly neglected that there seemed little hope for recovery. Under my bold leadership, we immediately developed and employed a three pronged recovery strategy. The first step was to immediately reduce the cost and growth of the government. There were tough decisions and harsh measures that had to be taken immediately. Stringent spending controls and management actions to avoid this catastrophe were implemented. We rolled back employees' salaries; conducted large scale reductions-in-force; made it possible for employees to retire earlier by offering voluntary easy and early retirement options. several services were stopped and programs eliminated. I also began putting together a team of professional managers and leaders for the various government agencies--individuals who would facilitate this change while making the government work more effectively and efficiently. As a result, the deficit in fiscal year 1995 was $54 million! This represented the largest turn around of any local government in the same situation, and for the District, this turnaround represented the first time in the history of home rule, that expenditures in one fiscal year were lower than those of the previous fiscal year. Mind you, this was all before the creation of the District of Columbia's Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. After containing the hemorrhaging, my administration embarked on a systematic quest to craft a transformation plan. On February 14, 1996, approximately one year after my return as the chief executive of the District of Columbia, and one year after I exposed the extent of the fiscal crisis that the District was in, I presented a bold new direction for the government of the District of Columbia and the people of the District--``a transformation plan for America's first city.'' At the time of its presentation, there were those who were cynical--said we did not have the will nor the wherewithal to carry it out--said it would never happen, that it was political fluff. But we knew that there was no way but ``up'' from where we were. I am happy to report, one year later, that not only is transformation on track and working, but District citizens are seeing the positive impact of this transformation. Real change, positive outcomes and better services for our citizens. The underlaying basis of this transformation was the implementation of performance-based principles and programs--both in the budget development and execution processes, and in the service delivery systems. My administration, in accordance with the vision that was set- out in the transformation plan, has moved quickly to ensure that we achieve the goals that help us to perform better and rebuild trust and confidence in our government. Allow me to elaborate on some of the initiatives that we have initiated and some that we have completed: --Reduced the size of government.--In the two and a half years of the Barry Administration, we have reduced the government by approximately 7,500 FTE's, for a savings of $165 million, and, we will meet by the end of September 1997, our targeted fiscal year 1997 FTE level of 26,422 by reducing an additional 2,411 FTE's from the District government payroll. A 27 percent reduction in the size of the workforce over a period of two and a half years! --Outsourced city services.--We have outsourced major services previously provided by hundreds of District personnel, including the 898-bed correctional treatment facility, the Educational Academy at Oak Hill, food services for the correctional population and, the police and fire clinic. We have also closed D.C. Village nursing home, having placed 256 residents in privately-owned long-term care facilities. All of this has resulted in more efficient and dependable services while at the same time saving the government tens of millions of dollars. --Established comprehensive health services.--The Barry administration has created a Department of Health to better focus and administer services to our public; reduced Medicaid expenses by $80 million in fiscal years 1996/1997; created the Public Benefit Corporation and transferred public health clinics to the Corporation for more coordinated health service delivery. --Restructured human development initiatives.--My administration has reduced AFDC benefits to more closely reflect our neighboring jurisdictions; we have privatized personal care aids; reduced unemployment benefits and reduced workers' compensation benefits. --Public protection business services.--We are investing more in the community policing model by restructuring police beats to take into account neighborhood boundaries. We are also putting into place community policing teams which have a responsibility for developing linkages between the police teams and the neighborhood they serve. There are more police officers assigned to our neighborhoods now, than in recent history. In addition, both the fire and police departments are increasing their use of technological resources to improve the quality of service to our public. For example, the 800 mhz system will become a reality this fiscal year, advancing communications for both the D.C. Fire department and the Metropolitan Police Department. The Metropolitan Police Department has expanded the use of the WACIIS crime data base in three police districts-- during 1997, it will be expanded city-wide. Additionally, investments have been made into equipment needs and you will soon see newer, cleaner and more reliable apparatus in both the police and fire departments. --Revamped and focused public works services.--We have ensured better trash pick-up and will be conducting more sanitation inspections. We are testing a ward-based sanitation system that focuses accountability while at the same time ensuring more effective services. Ride around the city and you will see that there are several streets that are being resurfaced as we work to revamp our old and worn infrastructure. I am certain that you are aware of how we have also made the environment our priority and have created a better managed independent structure in the water and sewer authority so that we will have cleaner drinking water and more efficient operations. I could go on and on about the phenomenal rate of change and transformation that has occurred in the District government in these last two and a half years. Lest there is a doubt in anyone's mind, the District government is being turned around in an unprecedented manner. We are making adjustments in our workforce and the way in which we provide services in order to ensure true fiscal solvency. Good things are happening in the District government--good things are happening in the Barry administration. We are taking our fiduciary responsibility seriously and are effectively managing change in spite of this dynamic and complex political environment. Two years ago, the District's rating on Wall Street reached ``junk'' status and the U.S. Treasury was the only source available to us to finance our cash needs and other general obligations. Two years later, investor's confidence in the District's recovery and overall transformation has allowed us considerable access to the market. Over the past month, we were able to sell more than $230 million in general obligation bonds at a very competitive interest rate and half of these bonds were insured! Again, many good things are happening in the District of Columbia * * * many good things are happening in the Barry administration. And yes, there is still room for improvement and yes, there is so much further for us to go--but no one dare suggest that tough decisions have not been made. Ask the residents whose last safety net was swiped away with the elimination of the Emergency Assistance Program. Ask the 855 elderly citizens who depended on the Chore Aid Program for their very basic needs. Or the Burial Assistance Program that helped those residents who could not afford to bury their loved ones. Or the residents who depended on the proximity of over a dozen health care clinics that have now been closed. Outpatient programs for substance abuse, and more than 500 personal care aides have all been eliminated over a two-year period. How about the recreational programs that do not only serve as leisure opportunities but actually serve to save the lives of our children? Yes, tough decisions have been made. All this notwithstanding, we understand that there will be more pain. We understand that we have not yet gone the full course in this transformation. The fiscal year 1998 budget furthers our commitment to a restructured government and to a smaller and better trained workforce that has the technological tools to serve our residents and is more customer and business friendly. The second step in our three pronged recovery strategy was to restructure the relationship between the District and Federal governments. The District's financial condition has presented dynamics that had never been encountered before. The Congress of the United States responded by enacting the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act, and creating an implementing authority. The act also created an independent chief financial officer and further empowered the Inspector General. Although there have been some ``growing pains'' associated with our respective roles and responsibilities, I think that it is fair to say that we all share a common commitment and vision of a higher quality of life for the residents, businesses, and visitors of the Nation's Capital. But the District's recovery involves much more than a financial authority with greater oversight responsibility, and a chief financial officer with independent and broad powers. We have demonstrated the will and ability to reduce personnel costs but the cost drivers for the District are mostly those functions that are typically performed by a State and that we inherited from the Federal Government at Home Rule in 1973. These big ticket items include: the court system ($109.4 million); corrections ($244.2 million); Medicaid ($409 million); debt service ($443.6 million); and the pension systems for police, fire fighters, judges, and teachers ($306.6 million). In total, these items amount to $1.513 billion--45.5 percent of the District's official fiscal year 1998 budget. In 1995, I called on the President and Congress of the United States to immediately look at ways to relieve the District of some of these burdens. It was thus very encouraging to see the President's National Capital Revitalization Plan, and more recently, the Norton- Davis Plan. The adoption of either of these plans will go a long way towards addressing the District's long term structural balance and recovery. Finally, the last step in the District's overall recovery strategy is economic growth. Realizing that true economic growth cannot occur in an environment that is still structurally fragile, the District's official fiscal year 1998 budget seeks to lay the foundation for this ultimate goal. The centerpiece of the fiscal year 1998 budget is stabilization. It is grounded in the belief that, after such severe reductions and restructuring in the District government, and the resulting uncertainty that has rippled throughout the community, we must find a way to invest in core services and programs that make a real difference in the quality of life for our residents. The budget emphasizes services that put children first; emphasizes the public's protection; focuses on the city's infrastructure; as well as on a government that seeks to enhance the quality of its smaller workforce--through increased training opportunities and technology to support new and streamlined systems and processes. The fiscal year 1998 budget I have submitted to the President and the Congress of the United States, reflects $3.321 billion in expenditures, and $3.321 billion in projected revenues--a balanced budget a full year earlier than required by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995. This budget was built on two critical assumptions: (1) That the District's fiscal year 1997 budget initiatives will be completed and as a result, will reduce fiscal year 1997 expenditures by $130 million; and, (2) That we will reduce the workforce by 2,411 locally funded FTE's by this September, the savings from which will flow into fiscal year 1998. The reality of these assumptions is simple: the Barry administration has made tough decisions and has been vigilant in accomplishing the budget initiatives we promised for this fiscal year. This vigilance and tough mindedness has paid off, because we are now in a position today to submit a balanced fiscal year 1998 budget. fiscal year 1998 spending priorities Over the past several years, the practice of budget cutting has turned into a trend that has now become a part and parcel of the culture of the budget development process in the District of Columbia. It is my responsibility, as the Mayor to adjust and redirect this trend. To this end, we have agreed on those critical areas of public interest that must be addressed in a sober yet comprehensive and realistic manner. These areas are; public safety, public education, and public works. Focusing on these areas does not mean that we will continue to allocate good resources after bad. In partnership with the Council of the District of Columbia, and the Financial Authority, we are going to foster and require accountability--the allocation of precious scarce resources must produce our collectively desired outcomes. Our commitment is to re-invest in this community from a comprehensive, non- piecemeal fashion to improve the whole community. I remain committed to the development of a healthy and sound law enforcement organization in the District of Columbia. The District's official fiscal year 1998 budget funds 3,800 police officers. I also intend to return between 200-300 officers from sick leave, disability or retirement to increase our crime fighting efforts. This will result in a net increase of officers on the streets. We are going to approach law enforcement not only from an enforcement position, but from a preventive stand point as well. We will seek to tie the efforts of the public safety agencies with those of the human development agencies which include the Department of Employment Services and the Department of Recreation and Parks. Greater investment will be made in preventive activities such as job training, skill development, and various recreational opportunities. It is with great dismay that I report that we have failed to adequately fund the Summer Youth Employment Program. This program has been the source of much contention so allow me to take this opportunity to make some facts known for the record: This program was initiated in 1979 with the primary objective of instilling in our children, an appreciation and value of their abilities and worth. It is a program primarily aimed at disadvantaged youth aged between 14 and 21 years of age. In fiscal year 1996, 11,815 youth went through this program. The age breakout was as follows: Years of age Number 14-15............................................................. 5,471 16-17............................................................. 4,068 18-19............................................................. 1,866 20-21............................................................. 410 57 percent of these youth came from households classified as economically disadvantaged by the U.S. Department of Labor. Further, 114 of these youth were classified as ``head of household''--children with children! The average cost per participant for this six-week program was $610. Wouldn't you agree that $610 per young person is a small investment for our future? Though the authority's budget completely eliminates this program, I will continue to support it because I truly believe that this is not the time to abandon our children--and particularly those in dire circumstances. I believe that this program makes a significant difference in the growth and development of our youth and will continue to support it as long as I remain Mayor. This fiscal year, owing to reductions that were made earlier in the year to address a projected budget gap, the funding for this program was significantly reduced. Consequently, over 1,000 youth are without summer employment this summer. We remain hopeful that the business community will step up to the plate and play a more significant role in these youths lives. I have to caution that for the sake of our children, and our community, we cannot have a repeat of this situation in fiscal year 1998. This program has to be taken seriously. As we continue to reduce the size of our workforce by restructuring actual operations, streamlining systems and processes, and outsourcing services, substantial investment must be made in the smaller workforce that remains. To this end, we have proposed $5 million in the fiscal year 1998 budget for District government employee training and development. This program will include executive leadership training, professional and technical competencies training, a skills development institute, and the implementation of a high involvement workforce system. conclusion In conclusion, we urge the Congress of the United States to support and adopt the official budget of the District of Columbia. This budget reflects the understanding of the locally elected officials of the District's real needs. It reflects the only true appreciation of the needs and concerns of the residents of the District of Columbia--and most importantly, it is a sober allocation of the limited resources that the District has. It is, for all intents and purposes, ``the people's budget.'' It is my understanding that the basis for the difference between the District's official budget and that of the financial authority is the need to fund the pay raise for the police officers and to allocate more funds to the Department of Corrections. The Financial Authority has insisted that an additional $13 million is needed to run the Department of Corrections. Neither myself nor the Council, on the other hand, believe that it should take $257 million to run the department. Significant strides have been made to close various facilities and reduce the operational burden on the department. We will continue to make these strides and as they come to fruition, so will the cost of operating these facilities decrease. As I mentioned earlier, we have successfully privatized a 898-bed correctional treatment facility-- reducing the staffing requirement for the District from 366 FTE's to 5 FTE's! We were able to secure a $52 million up-front payment for the physical facility; reduce annual operating costs by $3.5 million; and as part of the same deal, we were able to get a commitment from the firm that will manage the facility to conduct $3.8 million of capital improvements on the facility. Additionally, we have required that they come into compliance with all court orders within 6 months and achieve accreditation from the American Correctional Association within 2 years. We recently outsourced 900 beds from the medium security facility. We have contracted out food services. In all these instances, we are improving the quality of services, reducing the cost of operations, and facilitating compliance with court orders. These efforts, in combination, will reduce the operating and cost burden on this department. From another perspective, I think several members of the Council, and I believe the committee, would agree with me in expressing concern about the eagerness with which we fund the correctional system at the expense of programs and services that are in many ways ``preventive.'' In order for the authority to fund the Department of Corrections at the level that they feel is adequate, they have made reductions in the areas that will ultimately stunt the District's efforts to gain structural balance and true solvency. Specifically, the authority has made great reductions to economic development programs and initiatives ($6.5 million) that are a down payment for the overall recovery of the District. It makes no sense, in my opinion, to make reductions to neighborhood and commercial lending programs such as the Home Purchase Assistance Program ($1 million)--a program that provides interest-free and low interest loans to qualified District residents to enable them to purchase homes; or the employer-assisted housing program ($390,000)--a program that provides grants and deferred loans to employees of the District government who are first-time home buyers in the District. As a matter of fact, this program provides additional incentives to police officers who purchase homes in the District. The authority's budget even eliminates all funding for the Homestead Housing Preservation Program ($450,000) which takes possession of tax delinquent single and multi-family properties and sells them to credit- worthy District residents. These programs are geared toward real neighborhood and community stabilization and revitalization. These are the programs that turn by-standers into stakeholders. Surely we can all understand this. The authority made the decision to completely eliminate the Summer Youth Employment Program. I have spoken about this program earlier in my testimony but would like to reiterate--this program too, is a down payment for the ultimate recovery of the District. I urge the committee to seriously consider restoring the $2.8 million reduction to this program. Despite our financial difficulties, Washington, D.C. remains one of the Nation's top tourism destinations. We have an Office of Tourism and Promotions whose primary focus is to coordinate the activities of the tourism industry--which incidentally is the largest employer in the District of Columbia after the Federal Government. Funding for the Office of Tourism and Promotions, a mere $509,000, has been virtually eliminated in the authority's budget. This office allows us to maintain whatever competitive edge possible and at very minimum, keeps the government of the District an actor and participant in this important arena. Then the question becomes: ``How do we fund these programs?'' I am not here today to ask for additional funding for these programs. I am simply recommending that these programs and services are funded by reducing the authority's recommended budget for the Department of Corrections and reallocating this $13 million to these specific initiatives. I can guarantee that these economic development initiatives, programs and services will pay off--and we will be able to measure the benefits and we will be able to discuss and report successes. Mr. Chairman, allow me to again thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee and for your continued support of the District of Columbia. I would like to thank you for supporting our request for supplemental funding to repair our schools and to adequately compensate our law enforcement officers. I have been impressed by your quick-study of the District's issues, your willingness to tour the city late at night with the Metropolitan Police Department, and your sensitivity to the decision making processes of the locally elected officials. I personally appreciate the leadership role that you have assumed and the support that you have thus far extended to America's first city. As we continue to work together, I am certain that you too will champion the call that Washington, D.C. is a good city * * * getting better and one that North Carolinians and indeed, all Americans will be proud to call their Nation's Capital. Council of the District of Columbia STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP, ACTING CHAIRPERSON Senator Faircloth. Now we will hear from Ms. Linda Cropp. Ms. Cropp is the acting chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. Ms. Cropp, we welcome your testimony, and thank you for being with us. Ms. Cropp. Thank you so very much. Let me say good morning to you, Senator Faircloth, and to other members of the committee. Senator Faircloth. Ms. Cropp, if you will pull that microphone real close, it will enable us to hear you. Ms. Cropp. Let us hope this will be better. Senator Faircloth. That will be better, but as close to it as you can. Ms. Cropp. OK. I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in support of your approval of the fiscal year 1998 budget for the government of the District of Columbia. I have brought with me copies of the reports generated by the Council and its standing committees for your use and your review of the budget request, and ask that they be made a part of the record. The Council joins you, Senator, in a desire to make Washington, DC, a shining star. We are on the cusp of change for a better District of Columbia, a better city, due to the activities of the past several years. As stated earlier, we have reduced government costs. We, however, do need to have some of the structural flaws of the city taken care of. support of council's budget Under normal circumstances, I would ask that you support the budget with no changes. I realize that your committee is facing an unusual situation this year, because there are two budgets before you--one from the city and one from the Financial Authority. In light of this situation, I would hope that you would support the Council's budget, but I suspect that it will probably be a blend of the two. Please understand that the Council, the Mayor and the Financial Authority, with the assistance of the chief financial officer, embarked on a concerted effort to achieve a consensus budget, and this was the guiding theme of our deliberation since last December. In fact, our first group effort was to address an $85 million shortfall in this current fiscal year's budget, which was accomplished. We addressed the overspending, and controls are now in place to avoid such problems in the future. That was a united effort. Then as we moved to constructing a fiscal year 1998 budget, we agreed to certain consensus guidelines, the first and foremost of which was that the fiscal year 1998 budget request would be a balanced one. Both of the budgets before you meet that goal. This achievement comes 1 year earlier than the congressional mandate. That is no small task, and no other city in such circumstance achieved this task that we have, in balancing our budget 1 year earlier. We also agreed that the budget would not be premised upon additional Federal aid. And both of these budgets accomplish that. The Council and the Authority were particularly successful in working responsibly with one another. The Council attempted to address the Board's concern. And the Board, for its part, basically marked up against the Council's recommended budget levels when it responded to the Council's action. They built their budget based on the budget that the Council had created, with an awful lot of hard work and an awful lot of very painful decisions that were necessary to bring about a balanced budget. On behalf of all parties on this side of the table, I want to emphasize that our preference would have been to present a single consensus budget request to you. But, as it turns out, there are some slight differences. A majority of those dissimilarities are small and technical and can easily be understood. The remaining handful of true policy-based disagreements is relatively small and explainable. My staff and I are available to work with the subcommittee to work out a solution. I am going to go to those areas, but let me once again just suggest that when you look at the total budget, this is a budget that, for the most part, is a consensus budget. The differences are so slight in the overall budget that it does represent a successful conclusion among the three entities that developed this process. difference between council and authority budgets The first difference is with regard to the public schools. The Financial Authority provided an additional $6.5 million in local funds for program enhancement above the Council level. The Council was comfortable with the existing funding level that it provided to the schools within the context of the decisions we had to make in balancing the budget while allocating scarce resources among competing priorities, and considering the fact that the D.C. school system was also reducing its costs, including the closing of several schools. We took that into consideration when the Council enacted its budget mark. difference in economic development With regard to economic development, the Financial Authority reduced economic development from the Council's approved level by $1.7 million. The Board has indicated that the savings could come from reduced administrative overhead. The Council was not convinced that the administrative overhead savings of this magnitude are realistic and feared that programs which encourage home ownership and economic development would be reduced instead. And, in fact, what we are trying to do is to maintain a stable middle-class base with regard to home ownership, because that is always the solid part of any society. We wanted to make sure we did everything that would stabilize our middle-class base in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the Council did not endorse that type of reduction. The home purchase assistance loan, for example, is one which lower middle-class individuals would be able to use to stay in the District when they do not qualify for Federal programs. difference between council and authority in police department Within the police department, which was another area where we had a difference, the Financial Authority reduced the police department from the Council's approved budget by $5 million. The Council believes the funding is needed to fully fund 3,800 sworn police officers. The Council established its budget this year based on priorities. The one thing that was a given throughout the city, no matter what ward of the city you travel, no matter what economic level, no matter what age group, no matter what, public safety was the predominant issue in this city. And while we were going through major changes with the police department, we felt very strongly that having 3,800 police officers was an extreme priority. And that represents the difference between the Council and the Financial Authority. It is only a difference of 100 police officers. We have seen dramatic changes in the past several months with all of us working in partnership to try to improve public safety. Notwithstanding the tragedy that recently occurred, murder was down by 40 percent this year as opposed to the same time last year. And crime is down all over, in all categories. And we hope to keep that up. Because of that, the Council wanted to keep a very high level for the number of police officers that would be out on the street to protect our neighborhoods and to protect our citizens and to protect the visitors who come to this city. difference between council and authority in department of corrections Within the Department of Corrections, the difference is about $10 million lower than the amount that the Financial Authority provided. The Council's budget request for the Department is $3 million more than what was spent in fiscal year 1996. And the Council desires more management efficiencies in this agency. Additionally, within the Department of Corrections, the potential for saving from the outsourcing has not been fully realized. And the Council believes that there is great potential there. With the correctional treatment facility and with other privatization areas within the Department of Corrections, it was felt that there could be savings there when it was coupled with management efficiencies that we would like to see occur in the Department of Corrections. tenant assistance program There is a tenant assistance program that is another area of difference between the Financial Authority and the Council's budget. And it is basically one that the Council agrees with. What the decision of the Financial Authority does is to accelerate the elimination of the program. The Mayor and the Council had already embarked on the path of eliminating this program totally. We had great concerns with the impact on homelessness for this particular program, particularly since there was already a reduction in the homelessness budget. The Council, as I said earlier, had already committed to phase out that program. They are honest areas, Senator, of disagreement. And I ask that you look beyond them, to recognize that, for the most part, the budget before you is a budget that we all agree on. Most importantly, it is a budget balanced without depending upon any additional Federal aid, and it reflects the priorities of the locally elected leadership of public safety, education, public works, and a functional health system. The balanced budget does not raise taxes, and it does not rely on funding gimmicks which balance the books on paper only. Very hard, true decisions were made with regard to this budget. hearing on actual fiscal year 1996 spending This budget request is the result of a detailed review by the Council. The Council's standing committee held three series of hearings. The first was set to review the actual fiscal year 1996 spending because we wanted to see where we were spending in 1996 and how this sets up against what we want to do in the future. The second group of hearings revolved around a set of legislative proposals in support of the budget. These proposals were offered by the chief financial officer and the Mayor. hearing on fiscal year 1998 budget Last, 2 weeks of hearings were held on the fiscal year 1998 proposed budget itself. The Council carefully rewrote the budget. Some areas were increased slightly, to properly fund programs and to avoid the need to rework the budget after the start of the fiscal year. Structural changes were enacted to save money in fiscal year 1998 and all outyears as well. In all, the Council's initial approvement of the budget request made changes of $100.7 million to the proposals sent to us. Subsequently, when the Financial Authority returned the budget to us, an additional $24.8 million in changes were made to directly address the Board's concerns, primarily in the area of public safety and justice. reductions in government direction and support The Council made reductions in the government direction and support appropriations title, the administrative overhead portion of the budget, of $6.7 million. The Council also made strategic decisions to eliminate portions of local funding for job training programs where it was determined that the funds were not being spent effectively. That reduction was $8 million. increases in fiscal year 1998 budget In increases, the Council identified priority areas of public safety, increased funding for the police department by $18 million, the fire department by $3.2 million, and the courts by $2.8 million. For the priority area of the schools, the Council increased that budget by $15.5 million. For public works, the increase was $2.9 million. To allow for various increases and decreases that amounted to the combined changes of $125 million, difficult decisions were required. Fortunately, we were guided by mutual consensus among Council members as to what our priorities were. I ask, therefore, that you respect our hard work as you do what you feel you must do with this budget. I ask that you keep us at the table as you review the options toward that end. budget director available I have directed the Council's budget director to make himself available to work with you, and to coordinate the various Council staff who may be used to help this committee as you move forward with the budget. Testimony on this budget today would not be complete without a discussion of the historic opportunity which is before Congress to address the city's financial crisis in a way that begins to address the fundamental inequities which have long existed in the relationship between the District and the Federal Government. I am going to submit that part of my testimony for the record; I would rather talk to you about that a little bit. management problem The Mayor spoke a while ago about management problems that we have had in the District, and things that we need to face. As I go throughout this city every day, I can probably talk to countless citizens who can tell me their own stories with regard to management problems. But we have made the first Herculean step to address those problems. No. 1, we recognize that there have been management problems. Before you can make any change, you have to understand that there is a need for change, and we have done that. regulatory commission Step by step, we are doing different things in this city to improve the management, so that we can give better service to the citizens who we represent. Whether we are talking about the regulatory commission that is to come in and look at some of the regulations that we have in the city that have been overburdensome to many individuals and businesses, we are making changes there. Whether or not we are talking about the area of procurement, we recognize that there were serious problems there. We are making changes there. training And, in fact, we are even sending our work force through training programs that are greatly needed. This budget reflects dollars that will be utilized to train our work force in the area of needs, so that the management of this city can be much better. Be that as it may, Mr. Faircloth, if we had the best managers in the whole wide world, there would still be some very serious problems with the District of Columbia, because there are some structural flaws. And I have been suggesting that ``The Orphan Capital,'' by Carol O'Claricain, from the Brookings Institute, is a very good document, that really lays out the structural flaws that we have in the District of Columbia. medicaid cost We are the only city in the whole country that pays a $450 million Medicaid cost--the total cost is $900 million--unlike any other city. We are a city that has a population that is older, sicker and poorer. Most other cities in this country are just like that. The big difference is that these other cities have a more affluent suburban area or rural area that can help offset the cost of this sicker, poorer population. Baltimore, for example, the same population--Montgomery County, Howard County, Anne Arundel County, the rest of Baltimore, the rest of Maryland, help pay their Medicaid costs. Quite frankly, Mr. Faircloth, we in the District of Columbia help to pay the Medicaid costs of Baltimore. Because over 50 percent of our work force, people who work for the District of Columbia alone, not the Federal Government, not the private sector, but the District of Columbia, live outside of Washington, DC. The predominant number lives in Maryland. And they pay absolutely no money back to the District. So District taxpayers are paying for Baltimore's Medicaid costs. That is a structural flaw. Mr. Faircloth, if we did not have to pay the $450 million in Medicaid costs that no other city has to pay, we would not have had a serious budget crisis last year--$450 million. Conversely, if you right now had every other city in this country, if they were immediately faced with the responsibility of paying 50 percent of their Medicaid costs, I suspect they would go down the tubes much faster than we in the District of Columbia. unfunded pension liability Likewise, another major flaw, a structural flaw, that must be addressed is the unfunded pension liability. When all of our workers were under the Federal Government, they were under the Federal Government retirement system. As you are aware, when they were switched over to the District of Columbia, the dollars did not come with them. At this point, two or three decades later, they have retired. We pay $281 million into retirement costs. Using Baltimore again--they have a similar work force, but because they did not have this unfunded pension liability, they only pay $60 million into their pension costs. Mr. Faircloth, if we did not have to pay that unfunded pension liability, we would have had 220 million additional dollars in last year's budget. And I suggest that we would not have had the serious, serious financial crisis that we had in the District of Columbia. If any other city had to do the same thing, it would not have survived as we. structural problems The incarceration of felons--the only city who incarcerates felons. Saint Elizabeth's Hospital--no other city runs a State mental health institution. No other city at all. Those are structural problems. And, yes, we have some management flaws, management problems. I am the first to admit that. But I am also saying that I am willing, as well as this Council, to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work necessary, make the tough decisions necessary to correct the management problems that we have. But it must go hand in hand with an approach, and with the help from the Congress of the United States, to help us with the structural flaws that were created not of our volition, but through other, outside areas. And because of that, I would hope that we can also address that. I am happy, again, to be before you to testify on behalf of the Council of the District of Columbia and the citizens of the District of Columbia. You have us on this side of the table, ready to do what is necessary to make this city function so much better, to make this city become a beacon, a shining star in this country that we all know that it can be. We have great strengths here. We are in partnership, trying to move this city forward. We extend our hand to you, asking for you to join us in helping to make the Nation's capital the type of city that we would like for it to be. prepared statement Thank you so very much for giving us this opportunity to come before you. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp Good morning Senator Faircloth and other members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in support of your approval of the fiscal year 1998 Budget for the government of the District of Columbia. I have brought with me copies of the reports generated by the Council and it's Standing Committees for your use in your review of the Budget Request and ask that they be made a part of the record. Under normal circumstances, I would ask that you support the Budget with no changes but I realize that your Committee is facing an unusual situation this year because there are two budgets before you: one from the City; one from the Financial Authority. In light of this situation, I expect that the budget which emerges from the Congress will be a blend of the two. Please understand that the Council, Mayor and Financial Authority, with the assistance of the Chief Financial officer, embarked on a concerted effort to achieve a consensus budget and this was the guiding theme of our deliberations since last December. In fact, our first group effort was to address an $85 million shortfall in the current fiscal year budget which was accomplished last year. We addressed the overspending and controls are now in place to avoid such problems in the future. Then, as we moved to constructing a fiscal year 1998 Budget, we agreed to certain ``consensus guidelines'' the first and foremost of which was that the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request would be a balanced one. Both of the budgets before you meet that goal. This achievement comes a year earlier than the Congressional mandate. We also agreed that the budget would not be premised upon additional federal aid and both of these budgets accomplish that. The Council and the Authority were particularly successful in working responsively to one another. The Council attempted to address Board concerns and the Board, for it's part, basically marked-up against the Council's recommended budget levels when it responded to Council actions. They built their budget on the base we created. On behalf of all the parties on this side of the table, I want to emphasize that our preference would have been to present a single, consensus, budget request to you but as it turns out, there are some differences. A majority of those dissimilarities are small and technical and can be easily understood. The remaining handful of true, policy based, disagreements are relatively small and explainable. I and my staff are available to work with the Subcommittee to work out solutions. Let me quickly recap those areas: 1. Public Schools.--The Financial Authority provided an additional $6.5 million in local funds for program enhancements above the Council's level. The Council was comfortable with the funding level it provided to the schools within the context of the decisions we had to make in balancing the budget while allocating scarce resources among competing priorities. 2. Economic Development.--The Financial Authority reduced Economic Development from the Council approved level by $1.7 million. The Board has indicated that the savings would come from reduced administrative overhead. The Council is not convinced that administrative overhead savings of this magnitude are realistic and fears that programs which encourage home ownership and economic development will be reduced instead. Therefore, the Council did not endorse this reduction. 3. Police Department.--The Financial Authority reduced the Police Department from the Council approved budget by $5 million. The Council believes the funding is needed to fully fund 3,800 sworn police officers. 4. Department of Corrections.--The Council's budget for Corrections is $10 million lower than the amount the Board provided. The Council's budget request for the Department is $3 million more than was spent in fiscal year 1996 and the Council desires more management efficiencies in this agency. Additionally, the potential for savings from outsourcing has not been fully realized such as the already privatized Correctional Treatment Facility and moving felons to private systems. 5. Tenant Assistance Program.--The difference between the Financial Authority and the Council can be explained by the Board's decision, originally proposed by the Mayor, to accelerate the phase-out of this locally funded program which assists tenants in paying their rent. The Council has already committed to the phase-out of the program but did not choose to agree with the acceleration. These are honest areas of disagreement and I ask that you look beyond them to recognize that, for the most part, the budget before you is a budget we all agree on. Most importantly, it is a budget balanced without depending upon any additional federal aid and it reflects the priorities of the locally elected leadership: Public Safety; Education; Public Works; and, a functional Health System. The balanced budget does not raise taxes and does not rely on funding gimmicks which balance the books on paper only. This Budget Request is the result of a detailed review by the Council. The Council Standing Committees held three series of hearings. The first set was held to review actual fiscal year 1996 spending and the status of the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget. The second set of hearings revolved around a set of legislative proposals, in support of the budget, offered by the Chief Financial Officer. Lastly two weeks of hearings were held on the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget proposal itself. The Council carefully rewrote the budget. Some areas were increased slightly to properly fund programs and to avoid the need to rework the budget after the start of the fiscal year. Structural changes were enacted to save money in fiscal year 1998 and in the out years as well. In all, the Council's initial approval of the Budget Request made changes of $100.7 million to the proposal presented to us. Subsequently, when the Financial Authority returned the budget to us, an additional $24.8 million in changes were made to directly address Board concerns primarily in the area of public safety and justice. The Council made reductions in the Government Direction and Support appropriations title, the administrative or overhead portion of the budget, of $6.7 million. The Council also made the strategic decision to eliminate portions of the local funding for job training programs where it was determined that the funds were not being spent effectively. That reduction was $8 million. In the way of increases to the Council identified priority area of public safety the Council increased funding for the Police Department by $18 million, the Fire Department by $3.2 million, and the Courts by $2.8 million. For the priority area of Public Schools, the Council increased the budget by $15.5 million. For Public Works, the increase was $2.9 million. To allow for the various increases and decreases that amounted to the combined changes of $125 million difficult decisions were required. Fortunately, we were guided by the mutual consensus, among Councilmembers, as to what our priorities were. I ask therefore, that you respect our hard work as you do what you feel you must do with this budget. I ask that you keep us at the table as you review options and towards that end, I have directed the Council's Budget Director to make himself available to work with you and to coordinate the various Council staff who may be of use to you. Testimony on this budget request would not be complete without a discussion of the historic opportunity which is before this Congress to address the city's financial crisis in a way that begins to address the fundamental inequities which have long existed in the relationship between the District and Federal governments. I am speaking of the President's proposal that certain state functions, now the responsibility of the District, be assumed by the Federal Government. Please recall that the Budget Request before you does not assume any portion of the President's plan and is, in fact, balanced on the assumption that the $660 million authorized federal payment will be appropriated. If the President's plan, or an alternative, is enacted the Budget Request will have to be refashioned to reflect the changes. I urge you to support the portions of the President's Plan and also the recently subcommittee approved Davis-Norton Plan, which would cause the assumption by the Federal Government of the pension liability, court expenses and correctional costs. Both plans would also increase the federal share of the District's Medicaid costs and I ask your help in securing such aid also. We who represent the residents of the District of Columbia embrace this effort to address the expenditure side of the Districts structural financial problems. We believe that slow but steady progress is being made to increase the accountability of the District government for improved management of our finances, and much work remains to be done in this area. However, we also look forward to the day when the revenue side of the structural problem is addressed, because if we don't find a way to revitalize the local economy and expand our revenue base, the District will never get out from under its ongoing fiscal crisis. For that reason, I must say that any proposed elimination of, or reduction to, the Federal Payment is wrong because the Federal Payment is compensation to the District, both for cost of services rendered by the District to the Federal government, and for revenues foregone due the Federal presence and Congressionally imposed restrictions on our ability to raise revenue. Failure to remedy the revenue side of the equation mandates that the Federal Payment remain intact. As you know, a strong argument can be made that the existing payment is too low. Two studies have concluded that the payment should be approximately $1.2 billion: (1) the Brookings policy brief published in January of this year by Carol O'Claricain, which is entitled ``The Orphaned Capital--Adopting a Revenue Plan for the District of Columbia''; and, (2) the DC Appleseed Center's report dated November 2, 1995, which is entitled ``The Case for a More Fair and Predictable Federal Payment for the District''. I offer these remarks regarding the legislation before the Congress to alter the relationship between our two governments in the context of the fiscal year 1998 Budget Request in the hope and expectation that you will appreciate the difficulty our city faces in balancing this budget without additional Federal assistance. Thank you again for asking me to present the Council's views to you and your Subcommittee. Additional committee questions Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Ms. Cropp, for your testimony. It was well thought out and eloquently done. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Council for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. One of the major areas of difference in the City Council and Control Board budgets is the Department of Corrections. In your testimony you state the Council is reluctant to reward the Department more than a $3 million increase while it remains a poorly managed operation. (a) Please explain what specific changes in management the Department would need to make before the Council would agree to a larger increase for the Department. (b) What does the Council consider a reasonable amount of time to achieve those changes? The Control Board has expressed concern that the Council's budget does not fully fund the medical receiver and contracted prison beds for the Department of Corrections. Please respond fully to the Control Board's concerns on this budget issue. Answer. Concern regarding the adequacy of the funding for the Department of Corrections is understandable. The Council budget level is $3 million greater than was actually spent in fiscal year 1996 but $10 million less than the Authority approved level. Council is expecting greater savings from out-sourcing efforts and management improvements. The Department must begin to immediately address how it will live within the budget established for it while providing the medical receiver adequate funds. The Department's budget will require that structural and operational changes be implemented to achieve savings. Medium and Occoquan 2 facilities must be closed in order to redeploy FTE's so that court ordered correctional officer staffing levels can be met in the short term and privatization of three fourths of the correctional system over the next four years can be achieved. Question. The table provided by the D.C. Office of Budget and Planning shows only a $938,000 difference between the Council and Control Board budgets for the Public Education System. In your statement, you report that the Control Board provides an additional $6.5 million in local funds for program enhancements for the District's public schools. Please explain what the real differences are between the City Council and Control Board with respect to the proposed budgets for the District's public education system. Answer. The difference between the Council approved Public Schools budget and the Authority approved level is explained on page 60 of the Executive Summary of the Budget. The third bullet at the top of that page notes that a difference between the Authority and Council includes an Authority increase of $6.5 million in ``additional support for program enhancements''. The other two items of difference in the list explain Authority net decreases which result in the net difference between the Council and the Authority of less than a million dollars. However, since the two other changes are a result of the shifting of expenditures for equipment from the operating budget to a short-term financing arrangement, they are technical in nature with no programmatic impact. The addition of the $6.5 million, by contrast, is a real programmatic difference. Question. The City Council's proposed budget recommends $4 million in revenue initiatives, while the Control Board recommends $6 million. Why does the City Council support the $4 million budget request rather than the higher $6 million amount? Answer. The Council does not object to the inclusion of the Board recommended increase in revenues of $6 million. In fact, the Council has, at the request of the Chief Financial Officer, taken legislative action in support of one of the items which makes up the $6 million when the Council approved changes to the District's unclaimed property law. At the same time, the Council considers the revenue changes it used to balance the budget to be defensible. The Chief Financial Officer declined to certify the efforts however. Question. The Control Board's proposed budget recommends that the District lease, rather than buy, some of the District's equipment. Does the Council support the Control Board's recommendation to lease some of the District's equipment? Please explain on which categories of equipment the Council agrees and disagrees with the Control Board on equipment leasing. Answer. The Council supports the plan to lease certain equipment items rather than fund them through the operating budget. At the time that the Council last acted on the budget it included, in it's action, the shifting of those applicable equipment lines from operating to capital that were identified, at that point in time, by the Chief Financial Officer. Following Council action the CFO provided additional equipment amounts which might be shifted over-and-above those identified at the time of the Council's action. Logically, the Board included this additional information in their action on the budget. Therefore, to the extent to which the Board's equipment shift is merely an extension of the Council's action, it should not be considered a deviation from the Council budget. Question. The proposed City council budget adds six (6) full-time equivalent positions to the Council's staff. Please provide, by position: (a) The job title; (b) job responsibilities; and (c) salary for each position you are proposing to add to the Council's staff. Answer. The budget gives the impression that the Council is increasing their FTE level when this is not, in fact, the case. The Council absorbed a decrease in their fiscal year 1997 budget through savings not directly associated with an FTE reduction. Those savings carry through into the fiscal year 1998 Budget although, again, there is not an FTE reduction. The approved fiscal year 1998 Budget reflects the FTE level that the Council set for itself. Question. The Control Board has expressed concern with the Council's proposed Six Year Capital Improvement Plan on the basis that the Council's plan does not include vital information, such as a list of space owned and leased by the District. (a) Has the Council prepared a need-based strategic capital plan? If so, please provide the Committee with a copy. (b) Does the Council have a list of space owned and leased by the District? If so, please provide the Committee a copy. The City Council's proposed budget for capital projects is $194 million. The Control Board reports that this amount is $44 million above the projected bond issuance of $150 million for fiscal year 1998. How does the City Council anticipate funding this additional $44 million in capital projects? Answer. The Council approved the Capital Budget proposed by the Mayor and constructed by the Chief Financial Officer with no substantive changes. Frankly, the amount of effort required to review and modify the operating budget consumed the time which the Council would have preferred to apply to examination of the capital budget. Detailed questions regarding the capital budget would be more appropriately posed to the CFO. With regard to a comparison of the capital budget to planned borrowings, it is important to keep in mind that capital budget authority and borrowings can not be directly compared. New authority, more often than not, will be spent over a number of years whereas the borrowing is designed to be spent over a shorter period. A $100 million of new authorizations to be spent over three years would only require $50 million in borrowing in the first year, for example. Question. What is the city Council's position with respect to continued funding of the University of the District of Columbia Law School? Answer. The Council has explicitly provided a budget for the DC School of Law. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority STATEMENT OF ANDREW F. BRIMMER, CHAIRMAN Senator Faircloth. Our final witness this morning is Dr. Andrew Brimmer. Dr. Brimmer is Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, better known as the Control Board. Dr. Brimmer, we welcome you, and I look forward to your testimony. Dr. Brimmer. Thank you very much, Senator, members of the committee. I am delighted to respond to the request to present testimony on the 1998 proposed budget. supplemental appropriation Before I do that, though, Senator Faircloth, I would like to take an opportunity to update the committee on the results of our last business before the committee. You might recall that we did ask the committee to support a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1997. We did so because we stressed that we needed funds to provide urgently for repairs in the public schools so they could open, and we also needed urgently financial support for the public safety crime prevention initiative that had gotten underway. We greatly appreciated the effort that you made. You were successful in getting, not only through your committee but through the Senate, at least $31 million of our $52 million request. We appreciated that. Senator, unfortunately, the matter could not be pursued all the way through, and so we did not get the supplemental. But the needs are still there. I wanted you to get a feeling for the impact of the failure to get that supplemental, so I asked my staff to canvas the situation with respect to the schools, to the police, to the courts, as to the consequences of our failure. public schools supplemental request First, I was told that the $36.8 million we requested for the schools is still needed. It is needed to fund repairs and fire code violations. At the same time, we were told and assured by General Becton that the schools will open in the fall. However, if these schools had additional funds, they would be used mainly to pay for boilers. That is an important matter. He told us that if cold weather comes early in the school year, they may have to close some schools because they will not be able to provide heat. They need money to get those boilers. Now, as of June 26, all but $5.4 million of the $49.7 million the school system has received has been committed. The remainder will be committed very shortly. The schools are still in need, and we will focus on this. I tell you now, Senator, we most likely will have to come back to you for some help. In the area of public safety, we had asked for appropriations under several headings in order to fund the additional costs of the crime prevention initiative. Now, funds to pay for the police department pay raise were achieved. We did obtain those funds, effective July 6. That is the effective day, July 6, rather than the April 1 effective date we had proposed in the supplemental request. funds for police pay raise We were able to find $4.7 million, through reprogramming of funds within the police department, and we were able to get $1 million from the police nonpersonal services budget, and $3.7 million were reprogrammed from the pay-as-you-go capital funds of the fire department. The fire department did not lose any equipment--we found the money in some other way--so they were made whole, but they were able to free up $3.7 million that could be transferred. So we got the 10-percent pay increase. It is much less than the $8.8 million we asked for. We have taken steps--and you will notice--that in the budget for fiscal year 1998, we do include the full cost of the pay raise for next year. Mr. Chairman, we also looked again at the impact of the initiative on the courts. The courts are still in desperate need of additional funds to support crime prevention initiatives. Their workload has increased immensely. The corporation counsel is also in need of the additional funds requested. corrections contracted additional beds Corrections has contracted for 900 additional beds, and space is now available through the end of the fiscal year. But they were able to do that because they are counting on the fact that--they are assuming that the medium-security facility, which was originally scheduled to be closed, will not be closed and they will still have the beds available there. If it is closed, corrections will be sorely pressed for space in which to house the prisoners. Pretrial services still needs funds to support increased overtime from the initiative. One of the most troublesome outcomes for us, Mr. Chairman, is that youth services has already had a 20-percent increase in the number of youths detained. Mr. Chairman, in summary, the crime prevention initiative which all of the parts of the city concerned with this issue supported, the financial burdens resulting from the initiative are substantial and we still need help. So, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to share with the committee where we stand on this, to say to you that we still need help. And I repeat again, these were the results of very careful consideration. And I will say again, we did not come to this lightly. We thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like to put this statement in the record. Senator Faircloth. It is so ordered. It will be done. Dr. Brimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to respond to the committee's request. I will discuss the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget recently submitted to the Congress by the authority. development of fiscal year 1998 budget Now, let me say at the outset that the development of the budget for fiscal year 1998 did involve a great deal of cooperation. I share wholeheartedly with the characterization given by the Mayor and the chair of the Council. It does demonstrate that a more sound and comprehensive budget results from a dialog among principals. The budget process was characterized throughout by mutual cooperation and an open exchange of information and points of view. budget process But I would also like to agree with the Mayor's observation that the process imposed on the city in the law that established the Control Board does create a number of obstacles. We have given some thought to what might be done to reform that process. I mentioned to the Mayor just yesterday that we are thinking about it, and, too, we are looking forward to working to see if we can come up with some recommendations for the Congress to modify that. Now, in the discussion of the 1998 budget, however, after extensive examination, the Authority determined that the Council's final budget must be disapproved under the terms set forth under the statute. Then, having rejected the Council's budget, the Authority, on June 15, submitted its own budget to the Congress, again, as required by the statute. The Authority had determined that its financial plan and budget are in conformance with the act, will promote the financial stability of the District government and will further the interests of the people of the District. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight a few of the differences with the Council's budget. Ms. Cropp has already done so, but I would like to--as I always say and you have heard it and I lived with it--the devil is in the details. I believe we should look briefly at some of the details, because these capture some fundamental differences with respect to priorities. I have a statement which I would ask be included in the record. Senator Faircloth. Your statement will be put into the record, Dr. Brimmer. Dr. Brimmer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Faircloth. And, Dr. Brimmer, if you will, move the microphone more directly in front so we can hear you. Dr. Brimmer. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional table I would like to offer for the record. I will ask my staff if they would share this table with the committee and with the Mayor and Ms. Cropp. What it does is compare the Council's budget and the Authority's budget. It does so in some detail. In other words, it goes behind the excellent summary descriptions of the size of the differences in the chart in front of us. But this provides some detail not only where we had the differences, but it also shows this broad area of agreement which Ms. Cropp described. In almost all of the Authority's decisions, line by line, we accepted the Council's mark. Let me press that. authority's mark compared to council's When you get this table and you look down it, you will note that in the overwhelming number of cases, the Authority's mark is identical to the Council's mark. I want to stress that. We thought it important to do what Ms. Cropp said. We deferred to the preferences and priorities established by the Council. I want to stress that. We did not set out to find great differences and defend them. Quite the reverse. We set out to find areas where we could agree. Only in those areas where we felt strongly that the requirements of the priorities that have been agreed to--again, I want to stress that the priorities Ms. Cropp described-- public safety, education, public works--were all agreed to by all of us back in January. So we set out to make certain that funding was available to support the achievement of those priorities. Another guiding principle we had was that we needed to identify those areas where a program might be desirable, might be one that should be supported if we had the money. But we concluded that in a period of stringency, which we are in, there are some programs that, while desirable, simply could not be afforded--that the public's money, the city's money should not go into those areas. So we decided to cut those or at least to reduce the recommended appropriation from where the Council had it. [The information follows:] PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET--LOCAL FUNDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1998 -------------------------------- Agency name Code Proposed Variance District's DCFRA proposed budget budget ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT: COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA. AB...................... 8,573 8,573 ............ AUDITOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AC...................... 919 919 ............ ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION.... DX...................... 562 562 ............ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR................. AA...................... 1,393 1,393 ............ OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY....... BA...................... 1,512 1,512 ............ INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DISTRICT OF AD...................... 5,731 5,731 ............ COLUMBlA. OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS............ BB...................... 90 90 ............ OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL BP...................... 670 670 ............ RELATIONS. OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR........ AE...................... 3,722 3,722 ............ OFFICE OF PERSONNEL................. BE...................... 8,322 8,197 (125) DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AS...................... 7,814 6,284 (1,530) SERVICES. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT......... HD...................... .............. .............. ............ CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD.............. AF...................... 634 634 ............ OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL AT...................... 4,748 4,748 ............ OFFICER. OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PLANNING....... BC...................... 2,001 2,001 ............ OFFICE OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND BF...................... 10,727 10,727 ............ SYSTEMS. OFFICE OF FINANCE AND TREASURY...... TR...................... 3,914 3,914 ............ OFFICE OF TAX AND REVENUE........... CA...................... 19,459 18,459 (1,000) TAX REVISION COMMISSION............. PM...................... 500 500 ............ BOARD OF ELECTlONS AND ETHICS....... DL...................... 2,947 2,947 ............ OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE.......... CJ...................... 808 808 ............ PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD..... CG...................... 413 413 ............ OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS.......... CH...................... 1,139 1,139 ............ WASHINGTON METRO AREA COUNCIL OF EA...................... 374 374 ............ GOVERNMENTS. GRANTS MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT... BQ...................... .............. .............. ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENT DIRECTION AND SUPPORT.. ........................ 86,971 84,316 (2,655) ======================================================================= ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION: BUSINESS SERVICES AND ECONOMIC EB...................... 28,605 26,886 (1,719) DEVELOPMENT \2\. ASSISTANT CITY ADMIN FOR ECONOMIC ED...................... .............. .............. ............ DEVELOPMENT. OFFICE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL BI...................... .............. .............. ............ INSTITUTIONS \1\. OFFICE OF TOURISM AND PROMOTION..... TK...................... .............. .............. ............ OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.. BD...................... .............. .............. ............ OFFICE OF ZONING.................... BJ...................... 384 384 ............ DEPT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DB...................... .............. .............. ............ DEVELOPMENT. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AND ASSISTED PH...................... 4,650 2,080 (2,570) HOUSING. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES... CF...................... 6,586 6,314 (272) BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW......... DK...................... 153 153 ............ BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY ASSESS AND DA...................... 286 286 ............ APPEALS. DEPT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY CR...................... 4,980 4,274 (706) AFFAIRS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION \1\....... DH...................... .............. .............. ............ PEOPLES' COUNSEL \1\................ DJ...................... .............. .............. ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ........................ 45,644 40,377 (5,267) REGULATION. ======================================================================= BSED CONSOLIDATION...................... EB...................... 28,605 26,886 (1,719) ======================================================================= PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE: METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT...... FA...................... 254,585 249,585 (5,000) FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. FB...................... 101,323 98,197 (3,126) POLICE AND FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT FD...................... 211,000 211,000 ............ SYSTEM. JUDGES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM........... FG...................... 3,100 3,100 ............ D.C. COURT OF APPEALS............... FM...................... 6,000 6,000 ............ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF FC...................... 70,407 73,006 2,599 COLUMBIA. D.C. COURT SYSTEM................... FN...................... 35,152 35,152 ............ OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL... CB...................... 12,478 12,478 ............ PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS ZH...................... 14,800 14,800 ............ PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE............. FE...................... 7,753 7,753 ............ PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY............ FF...................... 4,562 4,562 ............ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS........... FL...................... 244,161 254,167 10,006 BOARD OF PAROLE..................... DD...................... 5,906 5,834 (72) DC NATIONAL GUARD................... FK...................... 858 858 ............ OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.... BN...................... 1,338 1,338 ............ COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES DQ...................... 125 125 ............ AND TENURE. JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION...... DV...................... 78 78 ............ CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD..... FH...................... .............. .............. ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE......... ........................ 973,625 978,033 4,407 ======================================================================= PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM: BOARD OF EDUCATION/PUBLIC SCHOOLS... GA...................... 461,188 461,983 795 PUBLIC SCHOOL REPAIRS............... GK...................... .............. .............. ............ PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.............. GC...................... 1,235 1,235 ............ TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM......... GX...................... 92,500 92,500 ............ UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF GF...................... 37,643 37,791 148 COLUMBlA. LAW SCHOOL OF THE DISTRICT OF LS...................... .............. .............. ............ COLUMBlA. EDUCATION LICENSURE COMMiSSION...... GH...................... .............. .............. ............ PUBLIC LIBRARY...................... CE...................... 20,429 20,424 (5) COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND BX...................... 1,704 1,704 ............ HUMANITIES. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM........... ........................ 614,699 615,637 938 ======================================================================= HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES: DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH AND HUMAN JA...................... 813,080 813,155 75 DEVELOPMENT \3\. DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS.. HA...................... 20,563 20,722 159 OFFICE ON AGING..................... BY...................... 12,289 12,289 ............ D.C. GENERAL HOSPITAL-SUBSIDY/D.C. JC...................... 44,335 44,335 ............ PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP.\3\. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION........... BH...................... 10,678 10,678 ............ EMPLOYEE DISABILITY COMPENSATION.... BG...................... 21,089 21,089 ............ HUMAN RIGHTS AND MINORITY BUSINESS HM...................... 821 821 ............ OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. OFFICE ON LATINO AFFAIRS............ BZ...................... 636 636 ............ D.C. COMMISSION FOR WOMEN........... DP...................... .............. .............. ............ D.C. ENERGY OFFICE.................. JF...................... .............. .............. ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES............ ........................ 923,491 923,725 234 ======================================================================= DEPT HUMAN SERVICES--MEDICAID........... ........................ 409,136 409,000 (136) DEPT HUMAN SERVICES--FOSTER CARE FAMILY ........................ 70,545 70,545 ............ SVCS. DEPT HUMAN SERVICES--PUBLIC HEALTH ........................ 15,000 .............. (15,000) CLINICS. DEPT HUMAN SERVICES-- REMAINING BALANCE. ........................ 318,399 333,610 15,211 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL, DEPT HUMAN SERVICES........ ........................ 813,080 813,155 75 ======================================================================= PUBLIC WORKS: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.......... KA...................... 95,675 96,935 1,260 D.C. TAXI CAB COMMISSION............ TC...................... 277 277 ............ WASHINGTON METRO AREA TRANSIT KC...................... 91 91 ............ COMMISSION. WASH. METRO AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY KE...................... 127,230 127,230 ............ SUBSIDY. SCHOOL TRANSIT SUBSIDlES............ KD...................... 3,450 3,450 ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC WORKS...................... ........................ 226,723 227,983 1,260 ======================================================================= FINANCING AND OTHER USES: WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER PAYMENT ER...................... 5,400 5,400 ............ REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND INTEREST..... DS...................... 365,548 365,196 (352) REPAYMENT OF GENERAL FUND DEFICIT... ZD...................... 39,020 39,020 ............ REPAYMENT OF INTEREST ON SHORT TERM ZA...................... 15,848 18,157 2,309 BORROWING. REPAYMENT OF WATER AND SEWR AUTHRTY ZW...................... .............. .............. ............ RETAINED EARNINGS. CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION........ CP...................... 7,923 7,923 ............ INAUGURAL EXPENSES.................. SB...................... .............. .............. ............ HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT......... HD...................... 4,896 6,000 1,104 COST REDUCTION INITIATIVES.......... ........................ .............. .............. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCE AND OTHER USES............ ........................ 438,635 441,696 3,061 ======================================================================= FINANCIAL AUTHORITY..................... XB...................... 3,220 3,220 ............ ======================================================================= TOTAL, GENERAL FUND--OPERATING ........................ 3,313,009 3,314,987 1,978 EXPENSES. ======================================================================= ENTERPRISE FUNDS: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION \4\....... DH...................... 4,250 4,250 ............ PEOPLES' COUNSEL \4\................ DJ...................... 2,428 2,428 ............ OFFICE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL BI...................... 100 100 ............ INSTITUTIONS \4\. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND SR...................... .............. .............. ............ SECURITIES REGULATION \4\. WATER AND SEWER UTILITY LA...................... .............. .............. ............ ADMINISTRATION. WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT................. LB...................... .............. .............. ............ LOTTERY AND CHARITABLE GAMES CTL DC...................... .............. .............. ............ BOARD. OFFICE OF CABLE TELEVISION.......... CT...................... 2,135 2,135 ............ WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER ES...................... .............. .............. ............ AUTHORITY. D.C. GENERAL HOSPITAL-OPERATING..... JB...................... .............. .............. ............ DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL FP...................... .............. .............. ............ INDUSTRIES. D.C. RETIREMENT BOARD............... DY...................... .............. .............. ............ INDIRECT COST RECOVERY ACCOUNT...... IC...................... .............. .............. ............ D.C. SPORTS COMMISSION--STARPLEX.... SC...................... .............. .............. ............ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL, ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS. ........................ 8,913 8,913 ............ ======================================================================= FTE ATTRITION FACTOR.................... ........................ .............. .............. ............ ======================================================================= TOTAL, D.C. GOVERNMENT ........................ 3,321,922 3,323,900 1,978 EXPENDITURES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ These departments will become self-supporting effective fiscal year 1998. \2\ BSED CONSOLIDATION CONTAINS AMOUNTS FOR (ED), (DK), (BD), (DB). \3\ Based upon a memorandum of understanding signed in November 1996 between Health and Human Development (DHS) and DCGH, the Hospital Subsidy (JC) in fiscal year 1997 was reduced by $15.0 million with a corresponding increase in DHS' budget. The Hospital was also reduced by $5.8 million in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 (with a corresponding increase in DHS) to reflect Medicaid changes in disproportionate share. \4\ These departments will become self-supporting effective fiscal year 1998. department of administrative services Dr. Brimmer. Now, Mr. Chairman, the first one--and I can do this very, very quickly and I will not go through all of them, but the Department of Administrative Services, you will notice on the first page, is one area where we differ with the Council by $1.5 million. We believe greater savings can be found in that area and an effort ought to be made to press to get them. economic development I will next look at the area of economic development, because that was stressed. It is true that economic development was broken down into several areas. The first one is business services and economic development, $1.7 million. Here we believe that greater savings can be achieved, and an effort ought to be made to do so. Department of Public and Assisted Housing, this is an area of principal difference. We provided $2.5 million less than the Council. This is an area where we believe that while it is desirable--promoting middle-class housing is desirable--that in a period of budget stringency, this middle-class benefit should not have the highest priority. In addition, there are Federal funds available to help with some of these areas. We thought, where that was the case, they ought to be relied upon. public safety The next area I really want to stress, Mr. Chairman, is public safety. For us, public safety is not simply police. I want to stress this. Public safety includes police, corrections, fire, and the courts. I want to repeat, for us, public safety includes police, fire, corrections, and the courts. So we looked at the whole panoply of these areas. We concluded the following with respect to each of them: With respect to police, we agree that 3,800 uniformed officers is a good target for the police. We felt, however, that with the flow of personnel in and out of the system, that it will take a year to do that. So we think the target should be 3,800, but we thought, on average, there would need to be funding for 3,700. It is true, that is just 100, but the reasons are important. We did not want to assign scarce dollars--and the difference is $5 million--to assign scarce dollars, which could be better used some other place if the police could not use it in a timely fashion during the year. So that is the only difference. With respect to corrections, we provided $10 million more than the Council. We did so because this is one of the areas where we believe there has been underfunding for years. It has gone on so long that a substantial part of the corrections department's activities is under court supervision. The courts have mandated more funds be spent for corrections officers, for medical service and so on. So we believe that that part of public safety needed to be enhanced and we provided the $10 million. I said earlier that corrections has a heavy burden, and it is growing. The increased police initiative, this drive, which we all supported, to fight crime more vigorously will result in more arrests, more convictions, more incarceration. So corrections needs more money. That is why we did it as you see here. Those are the main items I wanted to stress, Mr. Chairman. There are other items, but they are not as critical as those, and so I will not dwell on them. revenue initiatives One other area where we differed with the Council is with respect to revenue. The Council had proposed revenue initiatives which would have raised about $4 million. The Chief Financial Officer, as required by the statute, reviewed those proposals and stated that he could not--and informed us--he could not certify that amount of revenue. So we did not count those. The Council had wished that we would add those to the revenue side, and thus give more flexibility on the expenditure side. We said we could not. Now, along the way, however, the chief financial officer did review the various sources of revenue, and he was able to certify, later in the process, an additional $6 million net. He identified more potential sources but concluded that the $6 million was the amount he could certify, and that was added to the budget. There was additional revenue added, but it was from sources different from what the Council had mentioned. That is a difference of $2 million. carefully worked budget Mr. Chairman, I will stop at this point. Let me say, in summing up, that this is a carefully worked budget. We spent long hours not only in consultation with the Council and the Mayor, but among ourselves at the Authority. The Board members and the staff put many hours into this. I personally put in a great deal of time on this budget. prepared statement The decisions we all reached were reached carefully after careful consideration. We think it is a prudent budget. You know about my career over the years. You know that I am not known for not being careful. You know that, especially in money matters, where I spent all of my time in my career, I tend to be particularly careful. We have been careful with the city's money and with the appropriations for the city. We urge you to take that into account and to support our budget. Thank you very much. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Andrew F. Brimmer Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Andrew F. Brimmer, and I am Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. On behalf of the Authority, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. Mr. Chairman, as requested by the Subcommittee, I will discuss the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget recently submitted to the Congress by the Authority, and the implications of that budget for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the District Government. introduction Let me start by saying that the development of the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget by the Council of the District of Columbia (``Council''), the Mayor, and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (``Authority'') demonstrates that a more sound and comprehensive budget results from a dialogue among the principals. The budget process was characterized throughout by mutual cooperation and an open exchange of information and points of views. After an extensive examination, the Authority determined that the Council's final budget must be disapproved under the terms set forth in the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (``Act'') (Public Law 104-8). Having rejected the Council's budget, the Authority on June 15, 1997, submitted its own budget to Congress, in accordance with the Act. The Authority has determined that its financial plan and budget is in conformance with the Act, will promote the financial stability of the District government, and will further the interests of the people of the District of Columbia. Although the parties had hoped that a consensus budget could be agreed upon, in the end, enough differences remained among us to preclude the achievement of that goal. The absence of consensus should not, however, lead people to conclude that the entire budget process failed, or that the parties were unable to agree on any priorities. Just the opposite is true--in most areas, the Mayor, the Council, and the Authority substantially agreed on funding priorities for the District government. Moreover, in structuring its own budget, the Authority accepted all but a few of the Council's line item recommendations. budget overview The fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget estimates total revenues and expenditures of $5.17 billion, so a balanced budget is achieved. Projections for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 show increasing deficits--unless structural initiatives and reforms are made in the District's programs and operations. The capital budget for fiscal year 1998 is set at $150 million. I would note further that the local expenditures portion of the budget, at $3.32 billion, is approximately $59 million less than is estimated in fiscal year 1997. In developing the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget, the Authority continued to emphasize the pressing public service needs of the District's citizenry--primarily public safety, public schools, and public works. The Authority also specified reductions in agency budgets that focused on management and other administrative overhead costs, rather than reducing workers who provide critical services. For example, detailees from other agencies were charged against their respective hiring agency's budget. These positions were eliminated in the fiscal year 1998 budget, and the agency budgets were decreased by the amount of the salary and benefits attributed to each detailee. The Act requires that the District develop a financial plan annually that describes how the District will move toward financial stability. The Mayor vetoed the Council's initial budget on May 13, 1997, and the Council overrode the Mayor's veto on May 15, 1997. Subsequently, the Council's initial budget was received by the Authority on May 16, 1997, in accordance with the Act, and was disapproved by the Authority on May 20, 1997. The Council then submitted its revised budget on June 3, 1997. The Authority is required to approve or disapprove the Council's plan within 15 days of receipt. Section 201 of the Act requires that a financial plan and budget for the District include standards intended to promote financial stability. Specifically, the District is mandated to: --make continuous substantial progress toward a balanced budget by fiscal year 1999; --provide for the orderly liquidation of the accumulated deficit; --restore funds borrowed from other accounts; and --assure continuing long-term financial stability, as indicated by several factors, including: access to capital markets, efficient management of the District's workforce, and effective provision of services. Section 202(d) of the Act provides that, if the Authority determines that the Council's plan fails to meet the requirements of the Act, the Authority shall disapprove it, and shall provide the Mayor and the Council with a statement containing the reasons for the disapproval, the amount of any shortfall in the plan, and any recommendations for revisions to the plan the Authority considers appropriate to ensure that a revised financial plan and budget meets the requirements of the Act. In addition, the Act contains specific requirements for the District's budget, including how expenditures are presented, the type of assumptions used, an analysis of cash flow, and information on capital expenditures. The Authority issued ``Fiscal Year 1998 Financial Plan and Budget Guidance'' on January 15, 1997. The Authority, the Mayor, and the Council agreed to more specific guidelines for the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget during a series of meetings in January, 1997, including the following: --the plan should reduce the operating costs of the District; --the plan should not include unallocated amounts for the District to distribute to agencies; --the plan should not include any financial resources to be obtained from debt restructuring; and --the fiscal year 1998 budget will be a balanced budget and will demonstrate that substantial progress has been made in reducing the operating deficit. The revised Council budget showed further progress from the initial Council budget by reconsidering some of the Mayor's budget estimates that were lower than the Council's initial estimates for several agencies, and including a multi-year leasing program for equipment. revenue issues Section 302 of the Act requires the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to prepare and certify annual estimates of all revenues included in the District's general fund. These estimates are then submitted to the Authority for approval at a public hearing. Once approved, they remain binding on the District for purposes of preparing and submitting the applicable financial plan and budget. The CFO presented revenue estimates for the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget to the Authority at a public hearing on January 22, 1997. The CFO estimated fiscal year 1998 general fund revenues to be $3,317.9 million, compared to the fiscal year 1997 revenue forecast of $3,149.6 million, and the fiscal year 1996 actual revenue total of $3,316.1 million. The Authority found the estimate reasonable, given the assumptions and expected economic outlook presented by the CFO, and passed a resolution approving them. After the Authority rejected the Mayor's fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget, the Council submitted to the Authority D.C. Bill 12- 210, ``The Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request Act of 1998'', which included $14.2 million in additional revenue initiatives over the certified revenue base. The Council identified the collection of right- of-way fees from utilities, tipping fees for dumping, additional litter enforcement personnel, transfers from the Lottery and the Starplex reserve fund, and increased collection of out-of-District tuition fees for public school students, as the source of funds for these initiatives. At the Authority's request, the CFO analyzed the Council's revenue initiatives to determine whether they could be certified. The CFO determined that the estimates could not be certified. Subsequently, in light of the severe budgetary constraints facing the District, the CFO reexamined the revenue forecast for fiscal year 1998, and identified $27 million in additional revenues not captured in the original baseline forecast. The CFO identified unclaimed property ($5 million), the disposition of surplus property ($10 million), and improved indirect cost recovery on grants ($12 million), as the source of this revenue. The CFO discounted the estimates, and certified $6 million of the total projections as additional revenue for fiscal year 1998. The Authority then reviewed and approved the $6 million in additional revenues, thereby increasing the projected fiscal year 1998 revenue base to $3,323.9 million. The Authority recognizes that the Council will need to adopt certain legislative provisions related to unclaimed property in order to realize some of the revenue. expenditure decisions As previously mentioned, the Mayor, the Council, and the Authority agreed on almost all of the funding priorities in the budget. Generally, the Authority accepted either the Mayor's or the Council's proposals in formulating the Authority's budget. However, the Authority ultimately rejected the Council's budget because the Authority determined that a few areas that were critical to the District's stability and growth were under-funded. Even in this period of fiscal stringency, the Authority has worked to fund adequately public safety, public education, and public works. One of the most essential services a jurisdiction provides is for the public safety of its residents and visitors. Recognizing that public safety is a prerequisite for a stable, vibrant community, it is one of the Authority's foremost priorities. With the recent focus on reducing crime and the fear of crime in the District, the Metropolitan Police Department (``MPD'') has implemented several policing initiatives, which range from focusing police activity on open-air drug markets to placing more than 400 additional officers on the street. These initiatives, which have resulted in a dramatic increase in arrests and incarcerations, are impacting almost every agency in the criminal justice system, such as the Courts, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Pretrial Services Agency, and the Department of Corrections. In order to sustain the momentum of the new policing initiatives, these agencies must be funded to cover costs associated with the crime reduction initiatives. For instance, the MPD, which usually is the entry point for the criminal justice system, is designing and implementing a new operating model for the department. The model will require a major reorganization of the department, and will result in more officers on the street providing better crime control for District residents. The new operating model provides officers with a 10 percent pay raise which narrows the gap between their salaries and the average salary of officers in the surrounding jurisdictions. The Authority's allocation of $249.6 million in local funds includes funding for a 10 percent pay raise for officers. In addition, this allocation enables the MPD to hire toward its authorized sworn officer level of 3,815, while factoring in the time frame for recruiting, hiring, and training new officers, as well as attrition. The Department of Corrections (``DOC''), which is the final stop in the criminal justice system, historically has been under-funded. The District does not have funding to support fully the operational needs of the DOC. The District is the only city in the nation that operates and funds a prison system. The City's revenue structure is not designed to support a prison system. Typically, cities fund jails, not prisons. The DOC is operating under numerous court orders and consent decrees, which impact virtually every aspect of its operations, as well as a receivership of its medical and mental health services. The DOC has not had a budget that supports full compliance with the court orders and receivership. The DOC's operating budget has been strained further by the new police initiatives, which have resulted in a substantial increase in arrests and subsequent incarcerations. The Authority's allocation of $254.2 million in local funds recognizes the need to provide additional funding for the DOC, but it also takes into account the need for DOC to realize some efficiencies in operations. This allocation includes, but is not limited to, funding for placing as many as 1,700 inmates in contract prison housing, payments to D.C. General Hospital for medical care provided to inmates, and the DOC's costs associated with the MPD's crime reduction initiatives. In another area, the Authority continues to be concerned about the welfare of the District's children. Through the creation of the Emergency Transitional Board of Education Trustees (``Trustees'') in November, 1996, it has been clear that education of the youth of the District is a priority for the Authority. The Authority's concern for public education is reflected in the funding levels for the District government. For fiscal year 1998, the Authority recommends $462 million in local funds, which assumes cost savings from initiatives implemented by the Trustees during fiscal year 1997, and a $12 million pay raise for teachers. Also, the budget provides $8 million in lease purchase authority for additional technology and security equipment. Approximately $21.7 million in cost savings resulted from the Trustees implementing several important initiatives, including: closing 13 public schools for an estimated savings of $6.7 million, and eliminating approximately 370 central administration employees for an estimated savings of $15 million. In addition, the District of Columbia Public Schools (``DCPS'') has revised and eliminated costly contracts due to improved procurement processes. Other savings to the local operating budget were realized by transferring equipment requests for technology and security upgrades to a short-term leasing plan. This short-term leasing plan totals $5.7 million in estimated savings applied to the local budget. The DCPS will also be able to draw on $30 million of funds from market borrowings to finance vital capital expenditures. In fiscal year 1997, the schools had $20 million from market borrowings. When that amount was added to the $472 million of appropriated local funds, the DCPS had $492 million of total funds available in fiscal year 1997. Counting the funds from all available sources, the DCPS fiscal year 1998 budget will total almost $500 million, consisting of $462 million of appropriated local funds, $8 million of equipment from lease financing, and $30 million from capital borrowings. I would also note that the Authority considers public works improvements to be crucial to the quality of life and economic development opportunities in the District. The Authority has supported the restoration and enhancement of basic services such as bulk trash collection, tree trimming, and pothole repairs that are included in the budgets of the Mayor and Council. The Authority also has been supportive of the Department of Public Works' (``DOW'') efforts to become a performance-based organization. The Authority's fiscal year 1998 budget contains $96.9 million in local funding. Additionally, this budget supports the lease purchase of more than $5 million in new vehicles and equipment for the DPW, mainly to augment the trash collection and snow removal fleet. The DPW has been engaged in a number of management initiatives designed to streamline operations and increase revenues. These initiatives include the DPW's effort to develop performance measures, redesign trash collection routes, and conduct a study to develop user fees for the public-rights-of-way. savings initiatives The fiscal year 1997 financial plan and budget included numerous revenue and expenditure initiatives which cut across the full spectrum of government operations and included broad-based structural reforms. Some of these reforms include work force reductions, benefit level reductions in various welfare programs, and agency-specific initiatives, including replacing food stamp distribution with electronic benefit payments. The implementation of these initiatives reduced fiscal year 1997 expenditures and were projected for even greater savings in fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000. In total, it is estimated that the District could save an additional $229.2 million through the successful accomplishment of these planned initiatives in the outlying years. However, estimates for the initiatives included in the fiscal year 1997 budget were discounted down to $141.9 million from the total gross amount. The District determined that the discount was necessary because significant variances were likely to occur in several of the estimates. According to the District, these variances could occur as implementation plans were executed. The District's current forecast shows that $81.4 million (or 57 percent) of the $141.9 million in savings initiatives that were included in the fiscal year 1997 budget will be achieved. This amount includes about $58.6 million from reform and cost-control efforts and $22.8 million from additional revenue. In order to achieve these projected results, the District allocated a total of $47 million to agency budgets. Moreover, in place of the initiatives that failed to materialize, agencies also were required to modify spending plans to include savings alternatives. privatization Mr. Chairman, privatization is an effective approach to reduce costs and to increase the responsiveness of services provided by government. The Authority has proposed, through the current financial plan and budget, various privatization initiatives that should translate into improved service delivery and reduced costs. The Authority continues to believe that privatization efforts-- outsourcing, public-private partnerships, asset sales, and managed competition--are essential ingredients in the District's return to financial solvency and improved service delivery. Given the importance of privatization efforts designed to improve service delivery systems and reduce costs, the Authority will issue a report on the District's privatization efforts that updates the privatization initiatives, examines the impediments to realizing all privatization opportunities, and identifies new opportunities for privatization. During fiscal year 1997, some privatization initiatives have created substantial cost savings and service improvements. A few accomplishments include: the Correctional Treatment Facility, which provides custody and other services to 900 inmates, which was converted to a private operation and received an up-front payment of $52 million. The District also closed the D.C. Village Nursing Home and placed residents in private nursing facilities, which saved $5 million; contracted the education of 200 detained youth at its Oak Hill Facility to an accredited contractor; and contracted the Police and Fire Clinic to a private health care provider. The proposed fiscal year 1998 budget contains several privatization initiatives that are expected to generate estimated savings of more than $150 million. These savings are not included in the fiscal year 1998 budget. The Authority encourages the Mayor and the Council to expedite the adoption and implementation of the identified privatization initiatives. The Authority will provide guidance in the identification and development of privatization initiatives for the District, and we will work with the District to implement these initiatives. Under the Authority's statutory responsibility to review and approve contracts, the Authority will continue to exercise rigorous oversight over the approval of privatization initiatives in order to reach the fiscal year 1998 budget goals. budget out-years The fiscal year 1998 budget represents the first year of a multi- year plan that must, by law, be in balance by fiscal year 1999, according to strict accounting guidelines (commonly known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP). I must note at this time, Mr. Chairman, that a GAAP balance will not be achieved easily. Expected revenues will not meet expected spending in the post-fiscal year 1998 period of the plan, under current Federal law. Over the financial plan period, spending, including debt service, increases about 8.5 percent, while local fund revenues only increase about 4 percent. As a result, by fiscal year 2001, the difference between spending and revenues is projected to be almost $180 million. I would add that this scenario does not even contemplate a general wage increase for government employees. Present law constrains the manner in which the District and the Authority can address the structural imbalance between the growth of revenues and expenditures. All initiatives to close these out-year differences must conform to existing federal law; that is, it cannot be assumed that, over a four-year period, District or Federal statutes will change to contribute to budget balance. As a result, the financial plan that the Authority has approved contains a number of District initiatives to decrease costs. These would make significant and difficult changes in the way the District government does business, affecting management reforms, productivity improvements, cost controls, consolidations of functions, elimination of discretionary services, and privatization of a number of activities. If these cost-saving initiatives are not achieved in a timely manner, or if they fail, there is a strong likelihood that service reductions would result. Thus, the imperative to realize the financial plan and budget savings is urgent. It will require hard work especially on the part of those in management, to set realistic goals and timetables, and monitor results. Given the complex nature of these actions, as well as the planning and lead-time required, the District can not delay in implementing these actions. In addition, meeting the financial plan targets will require improved financial information and budget management. For example, there were $141.9 million of revenue and cost-saving initiatives in fiscal year 1997, which, at this time last year, were expected to produce ongoing savings in the plan's out-years. However, the out-year savings generally have not materialized. To the extent that they have, the savings are incorporated into the fiscal year 1998 budget. This year's inability to deliver ongoing savings must not be repeated. To the extent that it has been the result of a lack of distinction between one-time and ongoing initiatives, this is troubling. To the extent that it has been the result of an inability of the District to document fully its existing baseline costs and programs upon which such initiatives are based, this indicates a fundamental problem in accurate budgeting methods. The Authority recognizes that it has an important role to play in the achievement of the annually balanced budgets included in this financial plan. Through strong oversight and use of a detailed quarterly reporting system, the Authority is ensuring closer adherence to budget targets throughout the fiscal year. Moreover, the Authority, in the future, must incorporate into the District's financial plan a distinction between one-time and ongoing revenues. It may also create a method to link one-time revenues, such as reimbursements, tax audits or asset sales, to one-time spending, including facility repairs or equipment upgrades. In addition, the Authority, the Mayor, and Congress must all facilitate the development of a prudent budget reserve, as utilized in many municipalities throughout the country. Finally, these innovative programs should begin to pay off the District's large accumulated deficit. changes in law In an effort to assess the impact of some recent proposals that may change the District's structural balance, the District's Budget Office has modeled the effect of a number of recent proposals on long-term budget balance. The most prominent of these is the President's Plan, one provision of which proposes to eliminate the present Federal Payment of $660 million. Under the President's Plan, the federal government would assume responsibility for a number of District government services traditionally performed by state governments, such as the courts and prisons, and increase the federal share of Medicaid payments from 50 percent to 70 percent. The President's Plan also proposes that the federal government assume responsibility for the unfunded pension liability for the police, firefighters, teachers, and judges, which was transferred from the federal government to the District at the time of Home Rule. According to the District's analysis, if the President's Plan were to become law, the District would realize net budget benefits ranging from $49 million in fiscal year 1998, to $140 million in fiscal year 2001, thereby reducing the accumulated deficit by almost $377 million by the end of fiscal year 2001. The President's Plan also provides for a borrowing in an amount up to $500 million through the U.S. Treasury to retire the accumulated deficit. water and sewer authority (wasa) The WASA's Board of Directors approved the fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget and submitted it to the Authority as required by Public Law 104-8. The WASA's fiscal year 1998 revenue estimate was $285.9 million. The expenditure estimate was $283.4 million and would have resulted in an excess of revenues over expenses in the amount of $2.5 million. The revenue estimate was $83.8 million above the fiscal year 1997 estimate, principally the result of a 42 percent rate increase that became effective in April, 1997. Public Law 104-8 requires the District's Chief Financial Officer to certify all revenue estimates before inclusion in the final budget document submitted to Congress. During the certification review, staff from the Authority and the Office of the CFO raised several concerns about WASA's revenue model. Subsequent discussions, which included the staff of WASA, the Office of the CFO, and the Authority, resulted in a decision to reduce the WASA estimate as follows: Millions Original Revenue Estimate:.......................................$285.9 Less: Decrease in Retail Charges....................................(10.6) Decrease in Federal Revenue...................................(14.8) Add: Aqueduct Interest Payment..................................... 2.2 Increase in other revenue items............................... 0.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Revised Revenue Estimate....................................263.4 The change in the revenue estimate for retail customers reflects adjustments to the original consumption estimates that were used in WASA's revenue model. Federal agency revenues also were adjusted from the accrual estimate of $33.9 million to a cash estimate of $19.1 million because the District must adhere to Public Law 101-168, which gives the Federal government three years to adjust its budget for changes in rates and usage. At present, WASA does not have sufficient cash reserves to fund additional expenditures while carrying these receivables on their books. Finally, the revenue estimate was increased by $2.2 million to reflect interest payments due from the surrounding jurisdictions for the Washington Aqueduct and to add $700,000 to other revenue items. The WASA Board agreed that the adjustments were necessary and approved the changes. The District's CFO certified the revised revenue estimate, and the Authority approved the revised revenue estimate for inclusion in the District's fiscal year 1998 financial plan and budget. The reallocation of expenses to conform to the revised revenue estimate is the responsibility of WASA's Board of Directors. capital program Mr. Chairman, the fiscal years 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Plan and fiscal year 1998 Capital Budget (``CIP''), submitted by the Council to the Authority on June 3, 1997, contain many areas of significant improvement over previous CIP submissions. The District, as part of the fiscal year 1998 CIP formulation, has successfully identified and listed recommended projects and sub-projects for authorization, and has begun to incorporate some budgetary management and control in the process. The CIP also contains a spending plan and financing schedule that is project based and identifies sources of funding for each project. The Authority, however, remains concerned over several areas of the CIP formulation process, including the failure of the District to incorporate: a needs-based strategic capital plan, with a depreciation and replacement schedule; a District-wide facilities condition assessment; a fixed asset inventory; and a list of owned and leased space. In addition, the Authority has raised several issues with the District concerning the capital budget formulation process. Specifically, the Authority was concerned about the lack of sufficient resources within the Capital Division of the Office of Budget to insure budgetary control over the CIP, the need to improve the monitoring and control over planned spending via the District's Financial Management System, the District's failure to hold agencies accountable for implementing their capital projects in compliance with projected and budgeted spending levels, and the existence of numerous instances where budget authority and financing remain outstanding for projects that are substantially complete. The District's failure to complete this task has resulted in significant amounts of unexpended capital funds, even as the City continues to borrow additional funds for new and existing projects. Another area of concern is that the District's borrowing capacity is severely hampered by resources available in the operating budget to pay debt service, the debt ceiling cap of 14 percent of anticipated revenues, and the District's limited authority to issue alternative types of debt instruments. The Authority has recognized and noted in its Strategic Plan that the District's annual infrastructure financing need, although not quantified as a result of the District's failure to complete a comprehensive facilities assessment, is significantly higher than the most recent projections of average future borrowings of $150 million annually. The list of fiscal year 1998 capital projects submitted by the Council to the Authority for approval totaled $194 million. This list exceeded the budgeted fiscal year 1998 bond authorization level by $44 million. As a result, the Authority requested that the Capital Project Review Team (CPRT) re-prioritize and reformulate the capital project list to reflect the expected fiscal year 1998 capital borrowing plan. The Authority then approved the new CPRT list of capital projects with one adjustment--a $10 million increase in public schools financing. The Authority notes that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the amount of excess capital funds remaining in prior year capital accounts. This uncertainty is due to the failure of the District to complete its project close-out process, which must be done in order to determine the actual balance of additional funds available to be reprogrammed. Under current law, in order to transfer unused and excess capital funds from one agency to another, a reprogramming of capital funds must occur, which requires the approval of the Mayor, the Council, and the Authority. The authorization of any remaining projects will be contingent upon the District completing the close-out process described above, and the successful reprogramming of remaining excess capital funds. Finally, the Authority has encouraged the development of approaches to capital financing that would more closely match the maturity of financings to the expected life of assets. The Budget Office has begun to identify short-lived capital projects included in the fiscal year 1998 CIP which may be eligible for financing on a shorter-term basis than the 30-year authorized term currently used by the District on capital borrowing. The Authority recommends that the District complete this process as soon as possible to receive any further reductions in interest cost savings. budget process changes Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to take note of the budget process required under Public Law 104-8. With all respect to those who drafted the budgetary provisions of the Act, most parties would agree that, despite good intentions, the process by which the District of Columbia government must develop and approve an annual financial plan and budget is cumbersome and time consuming. Moreover, as the result of this year's budget proves, a process that guarantees extensive engagement and collaboration of all parties does not, by itself, ensure consensus. Thus, I have asked the Authority staff to provide the Board with recommendations on streamlining and making more effective the budget process. Once reviewed and approved, I will respectfully submit proposed law changes to the appropriate Congressional Committees for their consideration. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or your colleagues have at this time. BUDGET OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND GROSS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Differences between Proposed Fiscal fiscal year Fiscal fiscal Grants, Gross year 1997 1997 and year 1998 Authority year 1998 intra- fiscal local Council Council's adjustments local District year 1998 funds fiscal year budget funds and other budget 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Council........................................................... 8,656 -83 8,573 ........... 8,573 2 8,575 ANC............................................................... 562 ........... 562 ........... 562 562 Mayor............................................................. 1,425 -33 1,392 ........... 1,392 632 2,024 Executive Secretary............................................... 1,6111 -99 1,512 ........... 1,512 557 2,069 Communications.................................................... 110 -20 90 90 238 328 Intergovernmental Relations....................................... 671 1 670 ........... 670 555 1,225 Inspector General................................................. 7,070 -1,339 5,731 ........... 5,731 .......... 5,731 City Administrator................................................ 3,827 -105 3,722 ........... 3,722 695 4,417 Personnel......................................................... 8,435 -113 8,322 -125 8,197 1,923 10,120 Administrative Services........................................... 8,332 -518 7,814 -1,530 6,284 15,736 22,020 Contract Appeals Board............................................ 550 84 634 ........... 634 .......... 634 ===================================================================================== CFO............................................................... 4,206 761 4,967 ........... 4,967 200 5,167 Budget............................................................ 2,899 -898 2,001 ........... 2,001 16,823 18,824 Financial Ops and Systems......................................... 12,067 -2,040 10,027 ........... 10,027 2,7241 12,751 Finance and Treasury.............................................. 6,414 ........... 6,414 ........... 6,414 2,608 9,022 Tax and Revenue................................................... 20,463 -3,023 17,440 -1,000 16,440 73 16,513 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CFO SUBTOTAL (20-24)........................................ 46,049 -5,200 40,849 -1,000 39,849 22,428 62,277 ===================================================================================== Tax Revision Commission........................................... .......... 500 500 ........... 500 .......... 500 Bd of Elections and Ethics........................................ 2,707 240 2,947 ........... 2,947 .......... 2,947 Campaign Finance.................................................. 785 23 808 ........... 808 .......... 808 Public Employee Rel Board......................................... 315 98 413 ........... 413 .......... 413 Employee Appeals.................................................. 1,087 52 1,139 ........... 1,139 .......... 1,139 Council of Governments............................................ 396 -22 374 ........... 374 .......... 374 Auditor........................................................... 962 -43 919 ........... 919 .......... 919 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOVT DIRECTION AND SUPPORT.................................. 93,550 -6,579 86,971 -2,655 84,316 42,766 127,082 ===================================================================================== Asst City Admin for Econ Dev: Busn Services and Econ Dev.................................... 27,930 675 28,605 -1,719 26,886 31,593 58,479 Zoning........................................................ 605 -221 384 ........... 384 543 927 Dept of Employment Services................................... 14,313 d-7,727 6,586 -272 6,314 51,005 57,319 Consumer and Reg Affairs...................................... 4,509 471 4,980 -706 4,274 10,253 14,527 Public Assisted Housing....................................... 8,163 -3,513 4,650 -2,570 2,080 .......... 2,080 Appeals and Review............................................ 153 ........... 153 ........... 153 .......... 153 Bd Real Prop Appeals/Assess................................... 343 -57 286 ........... 286 .......... 286 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT........................................ 56,016 -10,372 45,644 -5,267 40,377 93,394 133,771 ===================================================================================== Police............................................................ 236,339 18,246 254,585 -5,000 249,585 22,798 272,383 Fire.............................................................. 103,745 -2,422 101,323 -3,126 98,197 654 98,851 Court of Appeals.................................................. 6,023 -23 6,000 ........... 6,000 .......... 6,000 Superior Court.................................................... 72,277 -1,870 70,407 2,599 73,006 3,639 76,645 Court System...................................................... 35,459 -307 35,152 ........... 35,152 .......... 35,152 Settlements and Judgements........................................ 14,800 ........... 14,800 ........... 14,800 .......... 14,800 Pretrial.......................................................... 3,737 825 4,562 ........... 4,562 524 5,086 Corrections....................................................... 260,528 16,367 244,161 10,006 254,167 5,319 259,486 Parole............................................................ 5,960 -54 5,906 -72 5,834 1,711 7,545 Emergency Preparedness............................................ 1,417 -79 1,338 ........... 1,338 1,499 2,837 Police and Fire Retirement........................................ 226,700 -15,700 211,000 ........... 211,000 .......... 211,000 Judges Retirement................................................. 5,500 -2,400 3,100 ........... 3,100 .......... 3,100 Corporation Counsel............................................... 12,363 115 12,478 ........... 12,478 4,940 17,418 Public Defender................................................... 7,797 -44 7,753 ........... 7,753 .......... 7,753 National Guard.................................................... 876 -18 858 ........... 858 .......... 858 Judicial Disabilities............................................. 125 ........... 125 ........... 125 .......... 125 Judicial Nomination............................................... 78 ........... 78 ........... 78 .......... 78 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE................................... 993,724 -20,098 973,626 4,407 978,033 41,084 1,019,117 ===================================================================================== Public Schools.................................................... 472,318 -11,130 461,188 795 461,983 105,116 567,099 9Public Charter Schools........................................... 2,835 -1,600 1,235 ........... 1,235 .......... 1,235 University of D.C................................................. 37,797 -154 37,643 148 37,791 43,496 81,287 Public Library.................................................... 20,867 -438 20,429 -5 20,424 1,612 22,036 Arts and Humanities............................................... 1,724 -20 1,704 ........... 1,704 353 2,057 Teachers Retirement............................................... 88,100 4,400 92,500 ........... 92,500 800 93,300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC EDUCATION............................................ 623,641 -8,942 614,699 938 615,637 151,377 767,014 ===================================================================================== Human Servces-Non-Medicaid........................................ 341,300 -7,765 333,535 75 333,610 9340,171 673,781 Medicaid.......................................................... 401,000 8,000 409,000 ........... 409,000 425,420 834,420 Foster Care....................................................... 70,545 ........... 70,545 ........... 7O,545 18,003 88,548 Public Health Clinics............................................. 14,500 -14 500 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... Total Human Services (78-81)...................................... 827,345 -14,265 813,080 75 813,155 783,594 1,596,749 Dept of Recreation and Parks...................................... 22,095 -1,532 20,563 159 20,722 5,366 26,088 Office on Aging................................................... 13,312 -1,023 12,289 ........... 12,289 6,103 18,392 Public Benfit Corporation......................................... 37,935 6,400 44,335 ........... 44,335 .......... 44,335 Unemploy. Compensation............................................ 10,678 ........... 10,678 ........... 10,678 .......... 10,678 Disability Comp................................................... 24,O89 -3,000 21,089 ........... 21,089 .......... 21,089 Human Rights and Minority Busn.................................... 718 103 821 ........... 821 106 927 Energy Office..................................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 5,000 5,000 Latino Affairs.................................................... 640 -4 636 ........... 636 30 666 Commission on Women............................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 20 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES................................... 936,812 -13,321 923,491 234 923,725 800,219 1,723,944 ===================================================================================== Public Works...................................................... 95,746 -71 95,675 1,260 96,935 52,523 149,458 Taxicab Commisssion............................................... 419 -142 277 ........... 277 571 848 WMATA............................................................. 129,008 -1,778 127,230 ........... 127,230 .......... 127,230 Transit Commission................................................ 96 -5 91 ........... 91 .......... School Transit Subsidy............................................ 3,839 -389 3,450 ........... 3,450 .......... 3,450 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC WORKS................................................ 229,108 -2,385 226,723 1,260 227,983 53,094 281,077 ===================================================================================== Debt Service...................................................... 333,710 70,858 404,568 -352 404,216 .......... 404,216 Short-Term Borrowing.............................................. 34,461 -18,613 15,848 2,309 18,157 .......... 18,157 Convention Center Transfer........................................ 5,400 ........... 5,400 ........... 5,400 .......... 5,400 General Fund Recovery Debt........................................ 38,314 -38,314 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... Human Resource Development........................................ 12,257 -7,361 4,896 1,104 6,000 .......... 6,000 Certificate of Participation...................................... 7,926 -3 7,923 ........... 7,923 .......... 7,923 Inaugural......................................................... 5,702 -5,702 .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCING AND OTHER USES.................................... 437,770 865 438,635 3,061 441,696 .......... 441,696 ===================================================================================== Financial Authority............................................... 3,220 ........... 3,220 ........... 3,220 .......... 3,220 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL GENERAL FUND.......................................... 3,373,841 -60,832 3,313,009 1,978 3,314,987 1,181,934 4,496,921 ===================================================================================== DPW (Utility Administration)...................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 263,425 263,425 Aqueduct.......................................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 33,885 33,885 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE............................ .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 297,310 297,310 ===================================================================================== Public Service Commission......................................... 4,250 ........... 4,250 ........... 4,250 297 4,547 Offce of People's Counsel......................................... 2,428 ........... 2,428 ........... 2,428 .......... 2,428 Dept of Insurance and Sec......................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 5,683 5,683 Banking and Financial Institutions................................ .......... 100 100 ........... 100 500 600 Correctional Industries........................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 9,432 9,432 Cable............................................................. 2,135 ........... 2,135 ........... 2,135 332 2,467 Lottery........................................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 213,500 213,500 Retirement Board.................................................. .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 16,762 16,762 D.C. General...................................................... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 64,099 64,099 Convention Center................................................. .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 46,400 46,400 Sports Commission/Starplex........................................ .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... 5,936 5,936 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS...................................... 8,813 100 8,913 ........... 8,913 660,251 669,164 ===================================================================================== Expenditures Pending Revenues..................................... .......... 10,412 10,412 -10,412 .......... .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS........................................ 3,382,654 -60,732 3,332,334 -8,434 3,323,900 1,842,185 5,166,085 ===================================================================================== Appropriation Title: Government Direction.......................................... 93,550 -6,579 86,971 -2,655 84,316 42,766 127,082 Economic Development.......................................... 56,016 -10,372 45,644 -5,267 40,377 93,394 133,771 Public Safety and Justice..................................... 993,724 -20,098 973,626 4,407 978,033 41,084 1,019,117 Public Education.............................................. 623,641 -8,942 614,699 938 615,637 151,377 767,014 Health and Human Services..................................... 936,812 -13,321 923,491 234 923,725 800,219 1,723,944 Public Works.................................................. 229,108 -2,385 226,723 1,260 227,983 53,094 281,077 Financing and Other Uses...................................... 437,770 865 438,635 3,061 441,696 .......... 441,696 Authority..................................................... 3,220 ........... 3,220 ........... 3,220 .......... 3,220 Enterprise.................................................... 8,813 100 8,913 ........... 8,913 660,251 669,164 Expenditures Pending Revenue.................................. .......... ........... 10,412 -10,412 .......... .......... .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL....................................................... 3,382,654 -60,732 3,332,334 -8,434 3,323,900 1,842,185 5,166,085 ===================================================================================== Revenue Estimates................................................. 3,251,750 66,150 3,317,900 ........... 3,317,900 1,842,185 5,160,085 Revenue Initiatives............................................... 56,938 -52,938 4,000 2,000 6,000 .......... 6,000 Penidng Revenues.................................................. .......... 10,112 10,412 10,412 .......... .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL REVENUE............................................... 3,308,688 13,212 3,332,312 -8,412 3,323,900 1,842,185 5,166,085 ===================================================================================== REVENUE VS. EXPENDITURES.......................................... -73,966 73,944 -22 ........... .......... .......... .......... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Dr. Brimmer. I do want to say that I have been impressed by the detailed accounting that has gone into the budget. I cannot believe that this kind of care has gone into it in years past, or the city would not be in the position it is in today. detailed and exacting budget I want to say to you, Dr. Brimmer, and to you, Ms. Cropp, that it is a very detailed and exacting budget, and the differences will be worked out, but I would like to recognize the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the most powerful man probably in the Senate, and certainly one of the most experienced and knowledgeable. Senator Stevens, we would be delighted to hear anything you have to say. STATEMENT OF TED STEVENS Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for that promotion. I am delighted to come by. I noticed, Mayor Barry, your comment about Senator Faircloth's commitment to this subcommittee, and it is really very true. I do not know if the world knows it, but I told him that with his chore to try and get reelected, this is probably a subcommittee he should pass up. But he decided that he wanted to do it, and he has taken clearly the bit in his teeth. I like what he tried to do in last year's bill. We are going to work with him here now in our process to try and see to it that he works with you and with Dr. Brimmer and see if we cannot find some way to resolve some of these controversies. I share what Senator Faircloth has just stated, that there is no question that we have more detail now on this budget than we have ever had before, and I am hopeful that we can work with you and help resolve some of these problems. transformation plan for public management Mr. Mayor, it is my understanding that you have given the committee a copy of the transformation plan for public management. Could we ask if that plan in legislative language has gone to the City Council so the City Council can consider your plan? Mayor Barry. Senator, we have sent portions of the plan to the City Council. For instance, the procurement function of public management has been enacted into law by the City Council, and we have sent the personnel function--we have not sent the reorganization over to the City Council yet. We have it ready to go, but we are in a dialog with Mrs. Patterson, the chair of the committee, to make sure that there are some areas that she may have concerns about that are addressed. We intend to send that over fairly shortly. Senator Stevens. I have been working with Senator Jeffords on his proposal to help in the financing of particularly the education portion of the District's problems. In your statement that you filed with us, you indicate that you believe that the Control Board under Dr. Brimmer, they are $5.5 million lower than your budget, yet the District of Columbia's Office of Budget and Planning indicates the difference is about $1 million. Is it possible to resolve the conflicts in that budget without our involvement? Mayor Barry. Are you speaking of the public education budget? difference in school's budget Senator Stevens. Yes; the D.C. school budget. Mayor Barry. That number was an earlier number and, looking at Dr. Brimmer's new analysis here, it is closer to about $795,000, that is all. Senator Stevens. Is this something we should become involved with, or are you going to be able to work that number out? Mayor Barry. I think that is small enough to be worked out. Senator Stevens. They tell us we do have a vote on, so let me just wind up my request. For another member, Mr. Mayor, I have been asked to ask that you provide the committee with a list of full-time equivalent positions in the Mayor's office for fiscal year 1998 with a job description and the salary for each position. Could we have that from you? Mayor Barry. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Letter From Marion Barry, Jr. The District of Columbia, Washington, DC, July 17, 1997. The Honorable Lauch Faircloth, United States Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Faircloth: During my testimony at last week's hearing on the fiscal year 1998 Budget for the District of Columbia, I indicated that I would forward some comparative information on the staffing of the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM). While I promised to submit data back to fiscal year 1994, the middle of the Kelly Administration, I thought it might be helpful to present data relevant to my previous term as well. The following chart reflects authorized staffing ceilings for the EOM for the fiscal years 1989 through the present. Fiscal year FTE total 1989.............................................................. 157 1990.............................................................. 98 1991.............................................................. 93 1992.............................................................. 142 1993.............................................................. 128 1994.............................................................. 132 1995.............................................................. 112 1996.............................................................. 86 1997.............................................................. 86 In fiscal year 1989 the maximum authorized staffing level in the EOM was 157 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE's) employees. During the following two years, I reduced the EOM staffing ceiling to 93 FTE's. This action was in direct response to the findings of a commission that I created that was headed by Alice Rivlin. The Rivlin Commission Report, as it has come to be known, was the first critical self- analysis of the District Government. There were specific recommendations made with respect to the structure of the District government, as well as staffing level recommendations. I fully supported the Commission's findings then and now. During the first full year of operations of the Kelly Administration, the authorized FTE level increased from 93 FTE's to 142 FTE's. In fiscal year 1994, the third year of the Kelly Administration, the EOM had 132 authorized FTE's. During the second year of the Kelly Administration, there were 142 authorized FTE's. In comparison, during the second year of the present Barry Administration, there were 86 authorized FTE's or 40 percent less FTE's in the EOM. Both administrations have supplemented these authorized staffing levels with detailed employees. Currently, the EOM has 26 employees detailed to support critical service delivery requirements. At one point, as discussed in my enclosure, the Kelly administration maintained at least 48 employees on detail from other agencies. The referenced reduction in authorized staffing levels has occurred notwithstanding increased demands and requests for information from the Control Board, Congress and the City Council with respect to budget development and increased oversight and transformation initiatives. Any further reductions in the FTE level for the EOM would leave EOM without the capacity to respond to and deliver the services our residents expect and deserve. Thousands of residents depend on the work of the Office of the Ombudsman. This office includes four FTE's and ten persons on detail from other agencies. The City Council Budget, while not reflecting all the priorities of this Administration, at least recognizes the importance and relevance of providing FTE's to provide constituent services through the Office of the Ombudsman. Every reported independent analysis of District Government operations that has been conducted since that time (McKinley Report, Appleseed, Brookings, DCAgenda, etc) has reached the same or similar conclusions set forth in the Rivlin Report. The structure of the District of Columbia government is flawed and unworkable. The City will never be able to generate sufficient resources to pay for the services for its residents and those who visit the Nation's Capital, given the restrictions on its ability to raise revenues, limitations imposed by its charter and structure of government. Accordingly, additional decreases in staff will not necessarily solve the District's operational problems. I encourage you and your staff to review the enclosed documentation in hope that you will gain a better understanding of the following: the structure of the EOM; the decreases in the EOM under the Barry Administrations; the number and role of the detailed employees in the EOM; and the breath of responsibilities and functions that must be staffed to support the Executive Office of this government. I am enclosing the following documents: (1) Executive Office of the Mayor Full-time Equivalent Position Comparison (fiscal year 1989-fiscal year 1997); (2) ``As Is'' Organizational Structure--Executive Office of the Mayor--July 1997; (3) Executive Office of the Mayor Staffing-- fiscal year 1997. I look forward to working with you on these and other issues of concern to the District of Columbia. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Marion Barry, Jr., Mayor. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) POSITION COMPARISON (FISCAL YEAR 1989-FISCAL YEAR 1997) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Kelly Barry administration administration administration Agency ----------------------------------------------------- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the Mayor (AA).................................. 44 27 27 37 32 32 25 29 29 Office of the Secretary (BA).............................. 44 29 28 41 41 50 50 34 34 Office of Communications (BB)............................. 11 9 9 9 9 7 6 6 6 Office of Intergovernmental Relations (BP)................ 58 33 29 55 46 43 31 17 17 ----------------------------------------------------- EOM Totals.......................................... 157 98 93 142 128 132 112 86 86 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``AS IS'' ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR [July 1997] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grade/ Position title step Salary Source of detail ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor's Office: Mayor........................ 00/00 $85,705 ................... General Assistant............ 17/01 87,895 ................... Executive Assistant.......... 13/04 50,888 ................... Logistical Assistant (Detail) 11/01 32,577 (CF) Employment Services. Administrative Assistant 11/09 40,921 (BE) Personnel (Detail). Office. Secretary.................... 09/03 28,750 Secretary (Detail)........... 06/08 24,619 (CF) Employment Services. Secretary (Detail)........... 06/01 20,181 (JA) Human Services. Clerical Assistant (Detail).. 05/06 21,068 (AS) Administrative Services. Clerical Assistant........... 05/01 18,208 ................... Press Secretary's Unit: Press Secretary.............. 16/01 75,599 Staff Assistant.............. 12/05 44,045 ................... Mayor's Scheduling Unit: Employee Dev. Spec. (Detail). 13/03 49,399 (BE) Personnel Office. Scheduling Assistant......... 13/01 46,421 ................... Scheduling Assistant......... 09/03 28,750 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 07/10 28,657 ................... Scheduling Spec.............. 07/03 23,701 ................... Chief of Staff's Office: Chief of Staff............... 17/04 81,885 ................... Deputy Chief of Staff........ 15/07 76,949 ................... Executive Assistant.......... 12/04 42,795 ................... Administrative Aide.......... 11/02 33,620 ................... Office of Diversity and Special Services: Director..................... 15/03 68,665 ................... Executive Assistant.......... 13/01 46,421 ................... Special Assistant............ 12/03 41,545 ................... Special Assistant............ 12/01 39,045 ................... Staff Assistant (Detail)..... 11/03 34,663 (FL) Corrections. Staff Assistant.............. 07/01 22,285 ................... Office of Religious Affairs Special Assistant for 12/01 39,045 ................... Religious Affairs. Staff Assistant.............. 10/04 32,501 ................... Board and Commission's Office: Special Assistant............ 14/04 58,378 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 12/03 41,545 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 11/06 37,792 ................... Staff Assistant (Detail)..... 09/06 31,348 (CF) Employment Services. Staff Assistant (Detail)..... 06/04 22,083 (FL) Corrections. Office of Ombudsman: Director..................... 15/02 66,594 ................... Deputy Ombudsman (Detail).... 13/07 55,355 (JA) Human Services. Community Serv. Rep.......... 09/06 31,348 ................... Comm. Serv. Rep. (Detail).... 09/01 27,018 (JA) Human Services. Business Services (Detail)... 09/01 27,018 (KA) Public Works. Business Services (Detail)... 07/10 28,657 (FA) Police Department. Comm Serv. Rep. (Detail)..... 07/10 28,657 (FA) Police Department. Business Service (Detail).... 07/10 28,657 (FB) Fire Department. Program Assistant (Detail)... 07/01 22,285 (JA) Human Services. Business Services (Detail)... 07/01 22,285 (FA) Police Department. Community Serv. Rep.......... 07/01 22,285 ................... Computer Assistant (Detail).. 05/01 18,208 (FB) Fire Department. Information Recept........... 04/01 16,400 ................... Clerk (Detail)............... 03/01 14,724 (JA) Human Services. Office of Communications: Director..................... 16/01 75,599 ................... Corres. Mgt. Officer......... 13/04 50,888 ................... Public Affairs Spec.......... 11/02 33,620 ................... Writer-Editor................ 09/05 30,482 ................... Public Affairs Spec.......... 09/05 30,482 ................... Staff Assistant (Detail)..... 07/01 22,285 (CF) Employment Services. Clerical Asst................ 05/01 18,208 ................... Office of Intergovernmental Relations: Director..................... 17/01 81,885 ................... Legislative Analyst.......... 12/01 39,045 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 12/07 46,545 ................... Clerical Assistant........... 07/03 23,701 ................... Congressional Affairs: Legislative Analyst.......... 13/05 52,377 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 12/02 40,295 Council Affairs: Legislative Analyst.......... 13/07 53,355 ................... Legislative Analyst.......... 13/10 59,822 ................... Legislative Analyst.......... 12/01 39,045 Regional Affairs: Regional Affairs Specialist.. 14/01 54,858 ................... Staff Assistant (Detail)..... 11/08 39,878 (JA) Human Services. Office of Policy and Evaluation: Director..................... 17/01 81,885 ................... Executive Assistant (Detail). 15/08 79,020 (CF) Employment Services. Edc. Policy Officer.......... 14/06 63,658 ................... Special Assistant (Detail)... 14/02 56,618 (DD) Parole Board. Policy Analyst............... 13/06 53,866 ................... Oper. Research Analyst....... 13/04 50,888 ................... Youth Policy Analyst......... 12/01 39,045 ................... Public Health Advisor 11/05 36,749 (JA) Human (Detail). Services. Policy Analyst............... 09/04 29,616 ................... Staff Assistant (Typing)..... 08/10 31,609 ................... Office of the Secretary: Secretary, D.C............... 15/02 66,594 ................... Project Manager Assistant 13/05 52,377 (SC) Sports (Detail). Commission. Special Assistant............ 13/03 49,399 ................... Visual Info. Spec............ 12/10 50,295 ................... Paralegal Specialist (Detail) 12/04 42,795 (CF) Employment Services. Special Assistant............ 12/01 39,045 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 11/05 36,749 ................... Administrative Assistant..... 09/01 27,018 ................... Clerk........................ 05/05 20,496 ................... Clerk........................ 07/01 22,285 ................... Notary Unit: Notary Auth. Officer......... 14/05 61,898 ................... Notary Auth. Specialist...... 12/04 42,795 ................... Notary Auth. Specialist...... 09/05 30,482 ................... Clerk........................ 05/01 18,208 ................... Ceremonial Services: Special Assistant............ 12/05 44,045 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 11/05 36,749 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 07/10 28,657 ................... Controller's Office: Financial Manager............ 14/04 60,138 ................... Special Assistant............ 14/04 60,138 ................... Financial Mgmt............... 13/04 50,888 ................... Financial Mgmt. Specialist... 12/06 45,295 ................... Human Resource Specialist.... 12/04 42,795 ................... Budget Assistant............. 05/02 18,780 ................... Records Management Unit: Archivist.................... 13/06 53,866 ................... Public Records Administrator. 13/01 46,421 ................... Archivist Tech............... 07/08 27,241 ................... Office of Documents/Admin., Issuance: Administrator................ 15/03 68,665 ................... Legislative and Res. 13/10 59,822 ................... Specialist. Editor....................... 12/06 45,295 ................... Attorney Advisor............. 12/06 45,295 ................... Administrative Ofc........... 12/04 42,795 ................... Admin. Issuance Assistant.... 11/05 36,749 ................... Clerk........................ 04/06 18,945 ................... Correspondence Office: Correspondence Management Ofc 13/04 50,888 ................... Correspondence Mgt. Spec..... 07/02 22,993 ................... Staff Assistant.............. 07/01 22,285 ................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR NINE YEAR FISCAL COMPARISON (FISCAL YEARS 1989-1997) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989 1990 1991 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency PS OTPS total PS OTPS total PS OTPS total PS OTPS total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office of the Mayor (AA)........................ 1,841,000 475,000 2,316,000 1,658,000 475,000 2,133,000 1,240,000 693,000 1,933,000 1,541,000 376,000 1,917,000 Office of the Secretary (BA).................... 1,522,000 927,000 2,449,000 1,526,000 898,000 2,424,000 1,218,000 854,000 2,072,000 1,396,000 693,000 2,089,000 Office of Communications (BB)................... 451,000 207,000 658,000 392,000 141,000 533,000 352,000 110,000 462,000 362,000 64,000 426,000 Office of Intergovernmental Relations (BP)...... 2,409,000 848,000 3,257,000 2,124,000 810,000 2,934,000 1,415,000 770,000 2,185,000 2,255,000 498,000 2,753,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EOM Totals................................ 6,223,000 2,457,000 8,680,000 5,700,000 2,324,000 8,024,000 4,225,000 2,427,000 6,652,000 5,554,000 1,631,000 7,185,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TEN YEAR FISCAL COMPARISON (FISCAL YEARS 1987-1997)--Continued ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency PS OTPS total PS OTPS total PS OTPS total PS OTPS total PS OTPS total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the Mayor (AA)........................................... 1,420,000 267,000 1,687,000 1,623,000 115,000 1,738,000 1,631,000 116,000 1,747,000 1,268,000 280,000 1,548,000 1,507,000 550,200 2,057,200 Office of the Secretary (BA)....................................... 1,888,000 987,000 2,875,000 1,738,000 808,000 2,546,000 1,860,000 476,000 2,336,000 1,887,000 458,000 2,345,000 1,703,000 465,000 2,168,000 Office of Communications (BB)...................................... 350,000 36,000 386,000 267,000 79,000 346,000 273,000 88,000 361,000 210,000 103,000 313,000 238,000 110,000 348,000 Office of Intergovernmental Relations (BP)......................... 1,843,000 2,040,000 3,883,000 1,672,000 103,000 1,775,000 1,789,000 25,000 1,814,000 1,184,000 75,000 1,259,000 1,044,000 182,000 1,226,000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EOM totals................................................... 5,501,000 3,330,000 8,831,000 5,300,000 1,105,000 6,405,000 5,553,000 705,000 6,258,000 4,549,000 916,000 5,465,000 4,492,000 1,307,200 5,799,200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Barry. What I will do, Mr. Chairman, I will go back to 1994, 1995, 1996, so you can see the tremendous reductions that I have made in my office, so you can see the trend. Senator Stevens. I think that would be helpful. Mayor Barry. I will do that. Senator Stevens. That was not my question. We have but 6 minutes left. I think we have to go vote, Mr. Chairman. Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Stevens, and thank you for coming by. We will declare about a 5-minute recess, and we will be back and reconvene in about 5 minutes. [A brief recess was taken.] Senator Faircloth. The hearing will come to order. Mayor Barry, No. 1, I want to mention that Senator Stevens' visit shows the interest that this Congress has in the problems that the District of Columbia has faced, and his appearance demonstrates the total agreement in the Congress that they have got to be addressed and corrected. Now, how it has to be done, that is what we are working on now, but it has got to be done, and will be. performance accountability act Mayor Barry, I have something that has concerned me right much, and that is, in the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994, they put in something called a Performance Accountability Act in which the city would report, I believe it was on March 1 of each year, and this first report was due in 1995. Then there was one due in 1996, and now another one would have been due in 1997. Not one has come forth. In fact, a letter was submitted in February 1995 asking for a deferral until May 17, 1995. Three years have gone by, nothing has come forth, and I would like for you to explain to us why, and what is going on. Mayor Barry. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I really do not know all the rationale for this. I have had to deal with so many of these things. I might have to ask my city administrator where we are with that. I really have not focused on it. Senator Faircloth. Then turn right around and ask him, because this is something that is going to have to be answered. Mayor Barry. Senator, Michael Rogers, my city administrator, just informed me that 1995 and 1996 are ready to be transmitted. Senator Faircloth. That what? Mayor Barry. That 1995 and 1996 are ready to be transmitted to the Congress. We still have some work to do on 1997. Senator Faircloth. Turn around and ask him again, why has it taken 3 years to do it? When this letter came out, you wanted until May 17 to submit it in 1995. What is going on all the 3 years? Mayor Barry. I guess the honest answer, Mr. Chairman---- Senator Faircloth. Well, that is the kind we would like, if it is possible. Mayor Barry. It just has not been done in a timely fashion. We have just dropped the ball on that. Senator Faircloth. Pardon? Mayor Barry. We just dropped the ball on part of it. That is the honest answer. Senator Faircloth. Well, ask him what day I can expect it, what date I can expect it. Mayor Barry. For 1995 and 1996, close of business today. Senator Faircloth. Close of business today? Mayor Barry. Yes. Senator Faircloth. That is the kind of answer I wanted. Thank you, sir. services under court order Mayor, I have been troubled by the extremely large number of city services that are under a court order. Of course, you know and I know that they are out there. Several agencies have failed to comply, to satisfy the court orders to improve the services long enough that they are now running by court- appointed receivers. Public housing and child welfare are being administered by receivers, and just recently a Federal judge announced that a receiver is being appointed to run mental health services. Would you explain to me why we have to run the capital under court order, and now we are running three, and what is being done to correct it, and when it will be corrected? court orders--child welfare area Mayor Barry. Well, Senator, if you look at the child welfare area, these court orders, or these suits are not unusual. They have been filed in cities, counties, and States around the Nation. Senator Faircloth. Excuse me? They are not unusual? Mayor Barry. They are not unusual. That is, the child welfare suits. That is, plaintiffs and their attorneys have filed suits against cities, counties, and States around the Nation, and in terms of our own child welfare system we were not doing the kind of job that the court felt we should be doing. We disagreed with that. We filed opposition to the receiver, but the Federal judge ruled that we were not meeting the demands of the plaintiffs and appointed a receiver. The last receiver resigned, and the court has appointed a new one. We are working with the receiver. We have about 1\1/2\ years, 18 months left in this cycle to get the system to a point where the plaintiffs' attorney and the courts feel that we are doing what is constitutionally mandated. These are constitutionally based lawsuits. The same is true with mental health services. mental health court order This is an area where, quite frankly, we think the Federal Government should have taken over. We inherited a bad system and did not fix it quickly enough. We took over in 1987 from the Federal Government. Senator Faircloth. Took over the---- Mayor Barry. Mental health. This suit had been filed against the District before we took it over. Prior to 1987, the mental health system was managed by the Federal Government, and the Dixon case, which Mrs. Cropp is very familiar with, was filed over 20 years ago, and the order was entered over 20 years ago in terms of the Dixon class of people. In the last 3 or 4 months the plaintiffs' attorney and the plaintiffs felt that we were not moving rapidly enough to implement the decree. Senator Faircloth. What about public housing and child welfare? Mayor Barry. I just talked about public welfare already. My first statement was about the child welfare cases being filed all over. The same is true even with mental health. The State of Texas just finished a court decree that lasted 10 years, but this suit was filed prior to the District taking it over. The plaintiffs' attorneys, we disagree with the attorneys and the plaintiffs that we were not moving rapidly enough. The third one, public housing, again was a matter where the District was not performing at a level that was acceptable to the plaintiffs and their attorneys. We disagree with that, but the court said we were not doing so, and I guess the bottom line is these Federal judges who have made these decisions just did not believe that we were complying with the constitutional mandate. Ms. Cropp. Mr. Faircloth, may I add something to the problem with regard to the receivers, the court receivers? Senator Faircloth. Yes. Ms. Cropp. It is a terrible problem that we are facing right now, and, in fact, if you look at the human services budget, the predominant amount of dollars that are tied up in the human services budget are in budget areas that we cannot touch. We do not have control. Senator Faircloth. Well, who does have control? Ms. Cropp. The courts at this point. The courts, because what is happening now the courts have been mandating over the last several years, when there is this type of receivership, how to spend the money, even to the point of equipment, whether we are talking about typewriters, whether we are talking about clerical positions. So it has been extremely frustrating for the District of Columbia to deal with an effective and efficient budget when we do not have control over such a large segment. Now, you asked how we got there. number of segments under court order Senator Faircloth. Excuse me, let me ask you, so I understand. Now, that is over mental health. How many segments of government are now under court order and are run by a court administrator? Ms. Cropp. There are--I do not know the exact number. Mayor Barry. I think Linda--Linda, there are--we will get it for the record, Senator, but my count now appears to be four. Ray Schansky over the D.C. health system at the District jail, the child welfare, mental health, and public housing. Senator Faircloth. So there are four major segments of Government under court order and court-appointed administrators. court order on population cap at jail Mayor Barry. Now, there are other areas of the Government that are under court order, but they do not have receivers. For instance, we were sued 25 years ago around population caps at our District Jail. Again, these suits, lawyers were filing them all over the country. Senator Faircloth. I understand that. Mayor Barry. And the judge ruled that we had to keep a cap of 1,790 people at our jail because they were overcrowded on our staff ratio, but it's not a receivership. We just have to make sure we comply with those orders. population cap at juvenile detention center There is an order out with our juvenile detentions that says we cannot exceed 188 young people at any one time at our juvenile detention center, but those are the four receivers. Senator Faircloth. All right. Mayor Barry. Again, Senator, I am sure you have seen this before. We just disagree with the courts, but the courts said they do not think we have done all we need to do, and all these cases are on appeal except public housing. Public housing, we worked out a way that once we reach a certain score, which we think will be about another 1\1/2\ years, the receiver leaves and the government takes over that again from the courts. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Brimmer. Dr. Brimmer. Senator, I would like to call to the committee's attention the impact of court orders and consent decrees, since there are about 40 court orders but a large number of consent decrees as well in combination. Senator Faircloth. Forty court orders? impact of court orders on budget Dr. Brimmer. About that number, and they have a major impact on the budget and administration and allocation of resources in this government and, above all, on the management of resources. I agree with you, what this means is that people appointed by courts are having a big impact on the formulation and administration of this city's budget. In combination, 39 of these mandates are about $450 million, and they involve a number---- Senator Faircloth. How much money? Dr. Brimmer. $455 million. Senator Faircloth. Are in the mandates? Dr. Brimmer. Yes, sir; court-ordered mandates. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Brimmer, let me ask you a question. Just to cut right through it, who wrote the budget, the court orders or the Control Board or the City Council? Dr. Brimmer. Well, the Council and the Control Board wrote the budgets, but those are givens. Those are givens. There is no discretion there. You have to include the money. cost of court orders Senator Faircloth. When you start to move around 35 or 40 court orders, they were the big dog at the budget writing. Dr. Brimmer. Yes, sir. Ms. Cropp. Mr. Faircloth, when you look at human services, for example, where people feel there are a lot of dollars in there that the District has discretion over, quite frankly there are very few dollars that the District can determine how they are going to spend in the human service arena. It is a total misnomer that there are dollars out there for the District to spend. That is not the case. These court orders and consent decrees are having a major impact on running this government in an effective and efficient manner. In addition to that, some of these court orders started many, many years ago and, to be candid, they started possibly because of the services that were rendered. At this point, however, it is to the point that sometimes we even question the efficiency of running after it goes into a court order with accountability of funds. Senator Faircloth. What we are going to have to do with the problems we have in the Council, the Control Board, and the Mayor, and everybody else involved, is to get rid of them and get the city back to writing its own budget. Mayor Barry. Senator, we would like to welcome any discussions from your staff and you legally and legislatively on how we can begin to address some of these matters. Not to deprecate these or minimize them, but a number of these court suits have been filed. There has been a pattern that people have filed around the Nation, and maybe we have judges here who seem to be more prone to grant the defendant--I mean, the plaintiffs--their request. Senator Faircloth. Mr. Mayor, that is the weakest reasoning, and I am not saying back to you what we hear in Washington every day. I am sure that Senator Thompson's committee is hearing it upstairs today--well, it is all right for us to do it because other people are doing it. It was wrong to begin with. It is a mess, but do not look at us. You know, they were doing it, too. So if everybody is doing it, it must be all right to do it--when breaking the law wide open. So that to me is not a reason. Because other people have got the problem does not mean that we are supposed to have it. Each tub has to stand on its own bottom. I am delighted to welcome Senator Jeffords. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Stevens stopped by with us a few minutes ago. There is no stronger supporter of the District of Columbia, and especially the school system, than Senator Jeffords. Senator, we would be glad to hear anything you want to say to us. court mandates on opening schools Senator Jeffords. Certainly. It is good to see you, Dr. Brimmer, Mrs. Cropp, and the Mayor. Just following up on the testimony you have just heard, I was with the Board of Trustees on the schools last night, and their whole evening was spent trying to figure out what to do with the court mandates on opening schools in the fall. And there is a possibility of some 30 or 40 schools not opening because the judge is not quite happy with the way things are proceeding. It is a tough one. $2 billion in code violations On the other hand, we know that there is a GSA report that shows that there are about $2 billion in code violation repairs necessary. And as I understand it, you can correct me if I am wrong, Parents United each year just pick out different groups of those violations to bring court suits to then try and get them repaired. So every year we find ourselves in the appropriation process of having to appropriate emergency repairs to open the schools, and then next year you will have another suit brought on another group of schools. Dr. Brimmer, is that the way it has been proceeding? Dr. Brimmer. It is my understanding that that is an accurate description, Senator Jeffords. Senator Jeffords. And with $2 billion to go, that is going to be an annual event. And the only way we can fix that, in my mind, is what I am trying to work on, and that is if we can get a revenue stream to provide the money to fix them before the courts tell you to fix them. Is that basically the better scheme than the way we are doing right now? Dr. Brimmer. I agree. Senator Jeffords. And to do that means we have to develop that stream. And the thought that the Appropriations Committee is going to appropriate $2 billion to fix the D.C. schools, we are all smiling. I mean, that just is not going to happen. resources to fix schools But on the other hand, I would point out there are enough resources in this area to do that. But the problem we have, and I will use the unmentionable word, is that you have got to have the commuter tax. But what I am trying to find out is what we can do to use those resources for the area, not just for the District. And if we were to do that, we would have enough with just a 3-percent commuter tax to provide the resources to fix all the schools here and also to provide resources to Maryland and Virginia to provide the skill training which is necessary. They have got about 50,000 jobs available, as I understand it, in this area that are not being filled now for lack of skills. And so it seems to me that the approach we have to take to get you all out of this mess is to find a way we can fund these things in a way that does not require them to be appropriated emergency-wise, and to be able to do that in a way that benefits the whole area. This Nation needs right now a demonstration of how a labor market area can work together to provide the skills necessary. If we were to do that, to fill those jobs would be another $3.5 billion a year in this area, which would be available for resources. So I, on the one hand, commend you for these hearings to bring these matters out, but you are going to be about as frustrated as the Board of Trustees and everybody else is on every year facing the same problem of the schools being shut down unless you come up with the money to fix them. And we have got to find a better answer than that. Dr. Brimmer, I would like your comments. Dr. Brimmer. Well, I share that wholeheartedly, Senator, and, Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me to go back and report to Senator Jeffords what I reported to the chair earlier. In anticipation of coming here today I went to see what has been the consequence of our failure to get the money in the supplemental request to pay for the school repairs. It was reported to me as of yesterday, the schools still need that $36.8 million, they need it to open, to make the repairs of prior code violations so the schools will open. repair of school boilers General Becton said the schools will open. He has money, and he will do that. But he also said that they need additional funds because they have to repair the boilers. He said that if cold weather comes early in the school year, that may cause school closings. So it is a serious matter in the short run. It is still a major problem, and I mentioned to the chairman these circumstances may, in fact, require us to come back and still ask for some help. Now, on the longer run question, I agree wholeheartedly with your estimate. First, I have no reason to doubt that the accumulated deficiencies will require something like the $2 billion. I have seen that figure in a variety of places. Others have looked at it, and from whatever angle they come, they come to roughly that figure. I could not imagine that the Congress would appropriate that money, so I agree some other scheme needs to be found, some other source needs to be found, and so I was delighted when I heard about the proposal you had made, and I support it wholeheartedly. Senator Jeffords. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I could go on the rest of the day. Any comments? Senator Faircloth. We are honored to have you, and we are delighted. You talk to anybody you want to. commuter tax Senator Jeffords. All right. Thank you. Mayor Barry. Senator Jeffords, let me suggest that you are right, we need to find a revenue stream that is dedicated to this repair problem, because it gets worse every year. And I think your idea of a reciprocal income tax, commuter tax, is something that I would hope that you and Senator Faircloth and others would pursue in the Senate. And you are certainly going to run into major opposition, as you know, in the House because of Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Morella and all the suburbanites who would feel pressured to oppose it because it means revenue out of their State treasury, but it is the right thing to do, in my view. Senator Jeffords. Let me ask you this: I think you have two big barriers right now for people moving back in. One is the income tax structure, which I think--I know I am right, the taxes that the District has to charge to raise it is higher than--substantially higher, as far as individual impact, than either Virginia or Maryland, is that correct? I mean, you are at 9.3, I think the highest is something, 8, but that does not come in until higher levels. So when a person thinks about moving in here with a job, the first thing they have got to think about is how much tax they are going to pay. Is that generally correct? And that is a barrier. Dr. Brimmer? Dr. Brimmer. Senator, undoubtedly tax differentials have a big impact. But some work we did some years ago started when Mayor Barry asked us to look at the impact of taxes and other factors on businesses leaving and coming into the city. One thing we have found with respect to people leaving the city, and we pursued a number of them and asked, is that taxes were not the highest item. quality of services For businesses, the principle item was the quality of the services they were getting. Rents were also high. Some work we have done more recently suggested that people, especially middle class families, who are leaving the cities do not rank taxes very high. The first reason is schools. The second one is crime. That is summed up as value for the money, sort of housing quality versus the prices. Taxes are on the list, but it is further down. Senator Jeffords. Yes, but schools are No. 1. Dr. Brimmer. Schools are No. 1. Senator Faircloth. What was No. 2, Dr. Brimmer? Dr. Brimmer. Crime, and the fear of crime. Senator, that is why we have stressed in all of our work that we have to work on the fundamental causes. Fixing the schools, and ending the crime. That is why we are working on these matters. Senator Jeffords. You have answered my second question. That is the schools. But also, I would like to check some figures with you, because I think it dramatizes the situation that the District finds itself in. I think we have had 200,000 people move out in the last couple of decades, and 50,000, I think, this decade, but most of them still work in the District, or at least we have a huge number of people in the suburbs that work in the District. And it is my understanding that about $20 billion leave out of the city to people living in the suburbs. Is that fairly accurate? Dr. Brimmer. Yes, Senator. This is a question which I---- Senator Faircloth. Excuse me, Dr. Brimmer. $20 billion? Senator Jeffords. Are paid to people. Senator Faircloth. OK, the salaries of people that left the city. Senator Jeffords. That is right. Senator Faircloth. OK, I am sorry. income earned in city Mayor Barry. These that live in the suburbs that work in Washington is about $20 billion of income. Senator Faircloth. That those people that work in Washington and live outside the city. Mayor Barry. It is about 70 percent of all the income. Senator Jeffords. And on the other hand, the amount of money that comes from D.C. residents that work in the suburbs is somewhere around 1 percent of that, or about $200 million, I believe. Dr. Brimmer. Senator, the work I have done, and we have been looking into this at the Control Board, we have looked at the trends from 1985 to 1995. What we did was to look at personal income. That is wages, salaries, and everything else. In 1995, that figure was about $30 billion of income generated in the District. Of that $30 billion, just under $20 billion-- two-thirds--was received by people who work in the District who live outside. Just over $11 billion was received by people who work in the District and live in the District. Roughly, as I said, two-thirds. A decade ago, that division was quite different. At that time, about 55 percent of the personal income earned in the city went to the suburbs, 45 percent stayed in the city. Those ratios have changed drastically. And everything I have seen suggests that the trend is likely to continue. One final thing I would mention, Senator, is that personal income in the District has grown over that period at a rate fairly close to what personal income has grown at in Maryland and Virginia. So the District has not been stagnant in terms of generated income. What has happened is that the substantial share of that growth in income leaves the city. So the city does not have that tax base which would generate revenue for this city. Ms. Cropp. Senator, if I could add to that, the staggering figures that Dr. Brimmer just gave, when you look at the people who work for the D.C. government alone, 50 percent of the people who work for the D.C. government--not the Federal Government, not the private sector--live outside of the District of Columbia. So they are taking actual city dollars, and they are paying for the services in other cities, in other States. If you live in Philadelphia, for example, or work in Philadelphia, you have to pay some type of income to that city. The same with New York. The tragedy of the whole thing is if someone moves out of Philadelphia or they work outside of the city, they are still paying taxes to Pennsylvania. So revenue is still going into Philadelphia through the State. The same with Chicago. Money is still going into that city through the State. But once an individual leaves Washington, DC, we get absolutely no value, as every other city does. They are in the Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of Maryland. We lose totally, whereas in every other instance at least the State helps to put money back into it when people leave the city, and this is a trend that has been going on--leaving cities--since after World War II, you saw that trend occurring. And for all urban cities, we are having that problem. It has been exacerbated over the years as shopping malls have grown up and people who shopped in the center city now shop in the suburbs, so we do not even get the sales taxes. So our revenue is just dropping geometrically. Senator Jeffords. Why do you not tax the commuters? Ms. Cropp. Why do we not tax the commuters? Senator Jeffords. Right. Ms. Cropp. Well, there is an august body---- Mayor Barry. Called the Congress of the United States of America. Ms. Cropp [continuing]. Which is probably the best body in the whole wide world, that would get even better if they would see the inequity in that and they would allow a remedy for Washington, DC, to be able to fairly, at least, get its income--tax its income at its source. Mayor Barry. Senator, a charter establishing our local government, Mayor, City Council, had a provision in it which forbid us from taxing income. Senator Faircloth. Now, who did you say prevented it? I think I know, but tell me again, Mayor. Mayor Barry. In 1973, when the Congress passed legislation giving us an elected City Council, elected Mayor, as opposed to an appointed Commission and an appointed Council, in that legislation there was a provision which forbid the city from taxing income of those who worked here but lived elsewhere. It was a political move. Congressman Broyhill, who represented the Northern Virginia delegation in the House, was one of the key people on the committee. Senator Faircloth. This was a rider to home rule? Mayor Barry. Yes, sir. Senator Jeffords. And when was this? What year? Mayor Barry. 1973. number of cars coming into city Also, Senators, there is another factor. There are 300,000 cars that come into the District of Columbia. And since we cannot tax income of those who earn money here and live someplace else, they are beating up our streets and polluting our air, and we get no taxes from them, either. That compounds our problem. Senator Faircloth. We are well aware of the problem, and Senator Jeffords and I, I think, agree on some of the obvious solutions. I do not know whether he agrees totally. I am not a supporter of the 15-percent income tax. I simply do not think you can sell that to the 50 States and 280 million people, that if you live in Washington you are going to pay 15 percent and if you live in your favorite city, Mr. Mayor, Topeka, KS. [Laughter.] Mayor Barry. Both cities are favorites of mine. Senator Faircloth [continuing.] You are going to pay 33\1/ 3\. So I do not agree with that at all, and am not going to. Senator Jeffords. I am finished. Senator Faircloth. Well, I thank you for coming. Mayor Barry. Mr. Chairman, on that point about the 15 percent, it is our view--I am sure that Ms. Cropp and Dr. Brimmer probably agree--that if we could tax income at its source and get this $750 million in, we could then lower our own State income tax. We could also lower our business tax and other taxes to make us more competitive, and, therefore, the burden on the District residents by lowering the State tax would ease their total taxing burden, and that may be an alternative to the 15 percent. Senator Faircloth. We have got to look at it, but let me go on with a question I have for you, Mr. Mayor. Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. Thank you for coming. procurement system Again, you see a demonstration of the support of this Congress for the city. The problem is that you are going to have to restore confidence in the Congress that the city has got management, and that is the thing we are talking about. I have heard continuously from city employees that it takes months and years to purchase supplies for the city government because the procurement system is in such a fiasco. I note that the Control Board issued a report on the city's broken procurement system. The report found the District is overpaying for services because of too many sole-source and emergency contracts. For example, the report found that in 1995, 59 percent of all contracts entered into by the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Human Services, these two major departments, were awarded without full and open competition. Mayor Barry, why has this management problem been allowed to continue over the years? The purchases are emergency, but this problem is far from an emergency. It has been going on and on and on, and, Dr. Brimmer, I want to ask you the same question. So I will start with Mayor Barry, and then I will bring the same question to you, Dr. Brimmer. procurement process Mayor Barry. Senator, let me say that if you were to do an analysis today of our procurement process and our procurement system, you would find almost a 180-degree turnaround since that January report. We now would maintain and say that 90 percent of all the DHS procurements are being bid competitively; that in the last 2 months we have not had contracts, except one contract, to expire without a contract; that we have a new procurement law now, have a new interim chief procurement officer; we are developing rules and regulations that will make sure that there is a certain timeframe for doing this. To give an example, in the last 1\1/2\ years or so it took 180 days for the Department of Public Works to process a request for bids to the time that you got the award. It is now down to about 80 days. And so we are cutting all of those procedures. There are several reasons, not offering excuses, but explanations. One, our law was very cumbersome, which made it very difficult to purchase things in a very timely way; and second, the biggest one, quite frankly, was that in 1995 and 1996 we lost a lot of brainpower because of this budget crisis. We offered people easy outs and early outs, and so we lost experienced personnel. What are we doing about it? We just did an analysis of every procurement--and we also had a hiring freeze. Senator Faircloth. Let me ask you all a question. If you lost experienced people in 1995 by offering the easy outs, early outs, in fact, if I am picking up, what you are saying is that the good ones left and the bad ones stayed? Mayor Barry. No; what we had happening was that procurement is more than just having a degree and having some ability to count. There is a certain experience factor there. We were left with less experienced people. We also had a hiring freeze, which means we could not replace them. But the good news is that we have just finished--had a consultant to assist us in doing a personnel evaluation, person-by-person, of everyone who touched procurement, doing an analysis of their skills, their level of experience and expertise, and we now know where we have to move to remove people who do not have what we have a need for, and how we can hire people back. But notwithstanding all of that, there has been a 180- degree turnaround in our procurement since January. You will not get those horror stories, you will not get those numbers of 60 and 70 percent sole source. You now will get a situation where, as I said, 90 percent of our procurements are in the competitive area. We also increased the amount of small purchases from $10,000 to $25,000, which means that the people in the agencies can do this very rapidly by getting three quotes. Senator Faircloth. They can buy $25,000 without a competitive bid? Mayor Barry. No, sir; you have to get three bids. Senator Faircloth. What is the limit they can buy without a bid? Mayor Barry. $250. Senator Faircloth. $250. Mayor Barry. Right. Senator Faircloth. That is the limit they can buy? Mayor Barry. That is the limit without a bid. Senator Faircloth. All right. Dr. Brimmer, would you like to address this? Mayor Barry. Also let me say, Mr. Chairman, we have been working very closely with Mrs. Newman on the Authority, along with the Authority staff, and I think they would, if asked, give you an indication that things have vastly improved in the procurement area. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Brimmer? consideration and approval of contracts Dr. Brimmer. Thank you, Senator. First let me say that consideration and approval of contracts takes more of my time at the Control Board than any other single activity. Why is that so? Remember under the statute the Board is charged with reviewing and approving contracts. The way we have arranged our work at the Board, this is done substantially on a delegated authority basis. I have that delegated authority. So as these contracts come to the Board for review and approval, the staff brings them to me. So I am at the tail end of this, and what I have seen describes a situation that is improved to some degree from the profile in that report which you are citing. But not to the extent that may be suggested here. First, we need to look at the character of the emergency contracts coming down the pike. types of emergency contracts Senator Faircloth. You say look at the character? Dr. Brimmer. The character, the types of emergencies. Some of the emergencies which I have seen in the past, in my judgment, were subterfuge. There is a limit. For example, I saw contract after contract for $99,000. So I asked the staff why is that? A random flow of business should not suggest that on any given day I am seeing dozens of $99,000 contracts. Answer: Because that way you escape certain review and approval limits. That is stopping. That has stopped. Senator Faircloth. Well, let me ask you now, that was a question I just asked, and maybe I did not detail my question enough. We just were told that $250 is the limit that can be bought without three bids. Now, you are saying $99,000 can be bought without review or bids, is that right? Dr. Brimmer. Well, I do not know. No; I did not mean without bids. What I am saying is without review. There are certain---- Senator Faircloth. Review by whom? Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that many of those contracts I am saying, and some are bigger than $100,000, but someone is breaking them up into pieces in order to escape the detailed review. That is my conclusion. Senator Faircloth. Well, may I ask you a question? I understand the $250 bid--I mean, without a bid. That is reasonable and as it should be. But where does the--what kicks in at above $100,000 in the reviewing of a contract that say would not affect a $90,000 contract? What is the different review process? contracts above and below $1 million Dr. Brimmer. First, there is a question of contracts of $1 million and over, the procedures are they go through the Council. Senator Faircloth. How about contracts below $1 million? Dr. Brimmer. They do not. The Council does not have to approve those. So if you have a $1 million contract and you break it up into smaller pieces, you avoid one step in the review. It is not simply avoiding that review. It has some serious consequences and implications, and I will come back to that. But there is another element here, Mr. Chairman, the question of bidding versus sole source. bidding versus sole source If it is a true emergency, and the procurement officer or program head can demonstrate that there is an emergency and that a sole source is justified, it can be put forward. I see a number of those where it is a genuine emergency. And that is what I am seeing more frequently. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Brimmer, let me ask you a question. What possibly could you need in Washington, in this area, that there is not but one person, one company supplying sole source? Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, many of the contracts I am seeing are for services--not goods, services. Senator Faircloth. All right, services. There is a sole source. Is not anybody else interested in bidding on, nobody else is interested in providing the service, but one? If it is, I would like to go into that business, because it needs two. Dr. Brimmer. Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, the typical contract in the District is a renewal, not a de novo original contract. rebid of contracts Senator Faircloth. They do not rebid it, in other words, they just renew it? Dr. Brimmer. That is the problem. Senator Faircloth. Why not rebid it? Dr. Brimmer. The requirements are that when these come up, they should rebid it. But if you have slept through the requirement date, and the service is about to be interrupted, then I have only one choice, and frankly, Mr. Chairman, the two or three I have dealt with on an emergency basis most recently were of that character. I ended up writing Mrs. Cropp a letter on this one because of the way it arose. food service contract at D.C. general I will be very specific. A food service contract at D.C. General Hospital was about to be terminated because the vendor had not been paid for months. So the staff brought it to me and said look, this vendor has not been paid. We cannot stand by and allow him to walk out and not have food service. So will you approve this contract on an emergency basis? So we did. Another one, a medical service not being paid. I mention this because what I see here is the inability or failure of the managers of some of these programs to anticipate the need to act on these, and they slip up. That is the management problem. There is nothing technical about this. People, if they were to see it in advance, make the preparation, do the bidding, they could get it done. But they are not doing it in a timely fashion. Senator Faircloth. All right. And in asking the question, I am not in any way--Dr. Brimmer, I want to say I am proud of what you are doing and have total confidence. The line of questioning was not in---- Dr. Brimmer. I understand. Senator Faircloth. But I just sit here and am amazed. How many people work in the administrative services of the city? About how many? number of employees in procurement process Mayor Barry. Senator, before I answer, let me just say that I would like to request several things. I do not see contracts under $1 million myself. They are done administratively. I sign contracts after about six signatures have already been there that I send to the City Council and to the Board. But I would like to suggest that we ought to get from the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority the last 2 months of reports. And I would maintain from where I sit and what I have been told that those efforts to have contracts at $999,000 to get around the $1 million review have not been happening. And also---- Senator Faircloth. Well now, let me ask you a question. Are you saying $999,000. Mayor Barry. Yes; if it is a $1 million contract---- Senator Faircloth. Just under $1 million. I thought you said $99,000. Dr. Brimmer. I did. Senator Faircloth. But we are talking about $999,000, or just under $1 million to slide it through. Mayor Barry. That is the one I am speaking of. Dr. Brimmer. We are speaking about different categories of contracts. I was talking about those that are much more plentiful. Senator Faircloth. Well, let me ask you, without all this, how many people work in administration in the city? Mayor Barry. In terms of the procurement process, the last number I saw of persons under my control was about 135 people. Senator Faircloth. All right. How can 135 people simply not know when a contract is coming up? Who is in charge of figuring it out, and why were they not fired day one, the first time it happened? Mayor Barry. Senator, that sounds very simple. Senator Faircloth. It is what, now? Mayor Barry. It is not as simple as you would make it. Senator Faircloth. It is as simple as that. Mayor Barry. No; it is not, either. Senator Faircloth. When the contract was not renewed, when it did not come up, when nobody paid attention to it, when it went flying by, that should have been an ex-employee that let it go by. Mayor Barry. What happened, Senator--again, I would like to try to focus us on how things are working now. I can talk about the past, but it does not solve the problem. But I maintain that if you look at the number of contracts that have gone over to the authority in the last 2 months, none of which I see except $1 million, that you will not find the same kind of expiration of contracts, sole source kind of contracts. buying from gsa Incidentally, let me just point out the authority counts buying off of the GSA schedule as sole source. To us, that is not sole source. The Federal Government has gone out and gotten a number of contractors that are on the GSA schedule. If we buy off the GSA schedule, the authority counts it as sole source. It is not sole source, in the sense that the Federal Government has already done the quality control, done the price controls, and so we are just buying off that schedule. And second, in the past we have had not enough hands to do this work, and, too, had some people who were not performing. We have fired in DHS four of the top managers over there, and have replaced--well, five, really, with Ms. Morman, who is now---- Senator Faircloth. I am sorry? Mayor Barry. We have fired the top managers at DHS. Senator Faircloth. You fired the top managers? Mayor Barry. That is right. Senator Faircloth. Well, let me ask you a question: Why did it take so long to do it if this thing has been going on like this for that long? Mayor Barry. Well, I guess like anything else, when it comes to your attention and becomes part of the major initiatives you take some action on it. Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman? strategic plan for procurement Mayor Barry. I was appalled at what I found over there. When I started reading some of the reports from the Authority, I am not obligated by responsibility, but I had no idea that things were as bad as they were. But once we started finding out that they were, we took some action. We submitted to the Authority a strategic plan for procurement improvement, and I think the Authority would have to agree that there has been substantial progress, and we are on target with correcting the system and making it work for the citizens as well as making it work for the employees who have to purchase goods and services. Senator Faircloth. I want to ask one question, and we are going to wind this hearing up, because we are not going to solve the problems of the District of Columbia that have accumulated over the last 25 years in one morning, but we are going to make a start. Mayor Barry. Right. staff from agencies working in mayor's office Senator Faircloth. Senator Stevens touched on this, but the Control Board's proposed budget has identified personnel in several agencies who are working in the Mayor's office. How many people have you identified from the Control Board as working in the Mayor's office that were not on his staff? This is a question to you, Dr. Brimmer. How many have you identified, the Control Board, that are on the staff that were not on his staff, what were the salaries of these people, and what agencies were these individuals assigned to, and what were they doing for the Mayor, and have they been terminated from the respective agencies, and why were they assigned to the Mayor's staff? I would like you to give me a complete answer to it. Dr. Brimmer. Senator, we did look into the question of what we call detailees. We do have such a list, except I do not have the salaries attached to it. Senator Faircloth. How many people on the list? Dr. Brimmer. We identified 26 people who were detailed from other agencies to the Mayor's office. There were another 21 persons in the police department, but detailed to the Mayor's office. Senator Faircloth. Detailed as to what? What are they doing? Dr. Brimmer. The information I have is that the security detail for the Mayor is provided by the police. So these are people who are not in the Mayor's own immediate administrative office, but in the Mayor's area. Now, the 26 people came from, and I will not go into detail, the Office of Personnel had one who was an employment specialist, another was an administrative assistant. I'll just run my eyes over the list; there are six or seven who were from Employment Services. They were doing jobs such as logistical assistance, secretary, staff assistant, executive assistant, paralegal assistant, staff assistant, so on. From Human Services I see another six or seven. One was a deputy ombudsman--I am just citing titles--deputy ombudsman, a community service representative, program analyst, a clerk, staff assistant, public health advisor. Corrections had two, both of whom were listed as staff assistants. Police, business service representative, business service representative, fire head, two business service representatives, computer assistant, and so on. We concluded in our budget review that these persons were being paid for by agencies who were not getting the benefit of their service. So we decided that those persons should be sent back to their agencies or not provided for in the budget, and if the agencies wanted to keep providing those services, then we thought the Mayor should pay for it. One of the objectives of our budget review was to assure that these detailees were returned to the agencies who were paying for them, or put in the Mayor's budget and either he would have to pay for them in competition with some other uses of funds. That is what we found out, and that is the policy position we took, Mr. Chairman. Senator Faircloth. Well, gentlemen---- Mayor Barry. Mr. Chairman, may I speak on that issue very briefly? Senator Faircloth. All right. You sure may. Mayor Barry. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I will submit to you a complete analysis and report of all the things that go on in the immediate office of the Mayor and the executive office of the Mayor. When you look at this report, with all of the functions and all of the work which needs to be done which I cannot do personally myself, you would have to conclude that I probably have 50 percent of the staff I need to do the work. Senator Faircloth. You have what? Mayor Barry. I have 50 percent of what we really need to do the work. Second, if you look at the Federal Government--I mean, he is right, if you look at the White House, the Governor's office in North Carolina, you will find that it is a common practice all over State government, local government, Federal Government, for executives to have detailed into their offices people from other agencies. It happens in Maryland, it happens in Virginia. That does not mean it is right to do, it happens. So we were not over here doing something weird. Third, we have agreed to return these people back to their offices and restructure my office. I am going to have to try to figure out a way to do this work with less people. And fourth, there was a philosophical difference. I have an Office of Ombudsman, which is my constituent service office, where all these people were assigned to work in agencies but also work in some other place. There were 10 of those. But they will be sent back. But I wanted to make the point that I will send you a report which shows that these were not frivolous kinds of jobs, these were not make-work kinds of jobs, they were not trying to hide anything. Mayor Kelly did it, I did it, Mayor Washington did it, so it has been a tradition in government to detail people from other places. But I will send you a report on the tremendous amount of work which goes on. Additional committee questions I have three jobs. I act as a Governor, account executive, and Mayor, and I need people to help me do that work. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Control Board for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. The control board recommends less than half of the Council's proposed budget for the Department of Public and Assisted Housing. The Council figure is $4.67 million, and the control board figure is $2.08 million. Please explain why the control board's recommendation is much lower than the Council's? Answer. The Authority accepted the Mayor's allowance for the Department of Public and Assisted Housing. This amount is the minimum funding required to honor outstanding obligations for the Tenant Assistance Program, which is being phased out. The Authority supports the phase out of this program under the current fiscal circumstances facing the District. Question. What are the main differences between the control board and the Council budgets for public safety? Answer. In the Metropolitan Police Department (``MPD''), the Authority and the Council provide for an authorized sworn officer strength of 3,815. The difference of $5 million arises from the Authority's assumption that it will take the MPD longer to achieve that on-board strength than does the Council. The Authority bases its assumption upon the current on-board strength of 3,612, the current attrition rate, the department's capacity to hire and train new officers, and the expected increased screening of recruits, to ensure the highest quality officers for the MPD. Police Chief Larry Soulsby has stated that in order to avoid a repeat of past hiring and training problems, the MPD is doing thorough background investigations on all potential officers. As such the recruiting and background process, according to the Chief, is very lengthy. In the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department the Authority eliminated $60,000 for the two full-time equivalent (``FTE'') positions that were detailed to the Office of the Mayor, and $3.1 million in pay- as-you-go capital. Both reductions reflect city-wide policies. The former reflects elimination of the amounts and FTE's representing detailees, and the later reflects the initiative of the Authority to move pay-as-you-go capital into an intermediate term capital program. During the current fiscal condition the District must seek alternatives to using annual operating funds to acquire assets that have a life beyond the fiscal year. Question. Please provide the Committee with a list of any discretionary programs included in the City Council's proposed budget that the control board believes should be eliminated. The Authority made reductions in local funding for discretionary programs that it believed would be worthy of funding under more favorable fiscal conditions for the District. In the area of Business Services and Economic Development (``BSED'') the Authority supported only mandatory programs, reductions were made in such discretionary programs as International Business and Lending and Development Support Services. In addition to BSED, the Housing Preservation Assistance Program (``HPAP'') was reduced by more than half of the Mayor's request. This program provides financial assistance in the form of interest-free and low interest loans to qualified low and moderate-income residents to enable them to purchase homes. The effect of the reduction is the elimination of 100 moderate-income loans. The Authority also eliminated funding for the Employer-Assisted Housing Program, saving $390,000. This program would have funded 34 loans to eligible D.C. government employees, mostly police officers, who are first-time home buyers in the District. Question. The control board recommends $1.26 million more than the City Council for the Department of Public Works budget. What is the control board proposing to fund in this department that the City Council does not support? Answer. The Authority added $1.3 million for equipment financing, related to leasing of trash collection equipment. In addition, the Authority eliminated $30,000 for a detailee assigned to the Office of the Mayor, for a net increase of $1.26 million above the Council's allowance. Again these actions are consistent with the Authority's city-wide policy in each area. Question. By how many full-time equivalent positions does the control board propose reducing the District's work force? How does this number compare with the City Council's figure on full-time equivalent positions in fiscal year 1998? Answer. The Authority did not include FTE assumptions in its fiscal year 1998 budget. In its May, 1997 report, ``Human Resource Management Reform: A Strategic Approach'', the Authority concluded that the District has not effectively planned or controlled its workforce. The lack of workforce planning has also hampered the budget process. Because there has been limited systematic attempts to assess personnel needs, personnel budgets are based upon the previous year's budgets and include arbitrary personnel levels. These full-time equivalent (FTE) levels frequently drive unsound decisions to privatize or reduce personnel regardless of the cost. The Authority intends to allow District government managers to allocate their total budget resources in the most effective way possible to achieve their goals, and to hold them accountable for achieving those goals within the resources provided. The Authority intends for managers to manage all resources, not just FTE limits. Question. The control board's proposed budget reports that the Budget Office circulated a request to the District's agencies and departments for certain information, such as: (a) A listing of agency programs, ranked by priority, with associated funding and full-time equivalent positions based on the fiscal year 1997 Congressional approved budget; (b) A listing of the agencies program priorities planned for fiscal year 1998; (c) Revisions to agency narratives and descriptions contained in the fiscal year 1997 plan; (d) An organizational chart showing all agency control centers; and (e) Discussion of program changes planned in fiscal year 1998. Please provide a detailed list of which agencies have and have not responded to the Budget Office request and copies of any and all responses received by these agencies to date. Answer. The District of Columbia Office of the Budget has provided this information under separate cover. Question. The control board's proposed budget reports that the control board has identified personnel in several agencies who are actually working for the Mayor's Office. Please provide the following information with respect to these ``detailees:'' (a) How many people did the control board identify as working for the Mayor's Office who are not on the Mayor's staff? (b) What were the salaries of each of these individuals? (c) What agencies were these individuals assigned to? (d) What tasks were they performing for the Mayor? (e) Is the control board recommending that these positions be eliminated from their respective agency's staff? (f) Is the control board recommending that these individuals be reassigned to the Mayor's Office? Answer. The Authority has identified the following 25 detailees from other executive branch agencies assigned to the Office of the Mayor. The fiscal year 1998 budget for the District of Columbia government submitted by the Authority eliminates the funds for the FTE's shown, the amounts in the last column represents only the salary amounts of the individuals, agency budgets were also reduced by the estimated cost of associated benefits. The position title is the title of the individual on the roles of the detailing agency, not a description of their duties in the Office of the Mayor. DETAILEES ELIMINATED FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Authority or Agency Position title Salary Council ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office of Personnel......... Employee Dev $49,399 Authority. Spec. Office of Personnel......... Admin Assistant 40,921 Authority. Employment Services......... Logistical 32,577 Council. Assistant. Employment Services......... Secretary...... 24,619 Authority. Employment Services......... Staff Assistant 31,348 Council. Employment Services......... Executive 79,020 Authority. Assistant. Employment Services......... Paralegal 42,795 Council. Specialist. Employment Services......... Staff Assistant 22,285 Council. Administrative Services..... Clerical 21,068 Authority. Assistant. Human Services.............. Secretary...... 20,181 Council. Human Services.............. Deputy 55,355 Council. Ombudsman. Human Services.............. Community 27,018 Council. Services Rep. Human Services.............. Program 22,285 Council. Assistant. Human Services.............. Clerk.......... 14,724 Council. Human Services.............. Staff Assistant 39,878 Council. Human Services.............. Public Health 36,749 Council. Advisor. Corrections................. Staff Assistant 34,663 Council. Corrections................. Staff Assistant 22,083 Council. Police...................... Business 22,285 Council. Services Rep. Police...................... Business 28,657 Council. Services Rep. Police...................... Community 28,657 Council. Services Rep. Parole...................... Special 56,618 Authority. Assistant. Fire........................ Business 28,657 Authority. Services Rep. Fire........................ Computer 18,208 Authority. Assistant. Public Works................ Business 22,285 Authority. Services Rep. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______ Questions Submitted by Senator Boxer Question. The fiscal year 1997 Disaster Supplemental included $22.3 million in additional funds for emergency capital improvements for the physical plant of the D.C. public school system. More specifically, these funds were to be directed to addressing fire code and safety violations which could prevent the schools from opening in September. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate supported the Subcommittee's recommendations. Unfortunately, during the conference the House conferees were adamant in their opposition to these funds and the monies were not appropriated. What are the adverse consequences of the failure to appropriate these funds? How does the District Government propose to successfully cope with the situation in view of the fiscal constraints? Answer. General Julius Becton, the Chief Executive Officer-- Superintendent of the District of Columbia Pubic Schools (``DCPS''), has informed the Authority that he has reordered the priority repairs to be performed so that roof replacements and other repairs needed to open schools on time will be made. However, DCPS is left with only $49.75 million available, from a projected emergency need of $86.6 million. Work on boilers will be deferred to accomplish as much of the other program as possible. If cold weather should occur early in the school year some schools will be closed due to a lack of heat. Question. The fiscal year 1997 Disaster Supplemental, as passed by the Senate, included $8.8 million in additional funds to provide a 10 percent increase for D.C. police officers to be retroactive to April 1, 1997. The purpose of the pay increase was to bring the salaries of the D.C. police officers closer to the average salary of officers in the surrounding jurisdictions, at a time of a major reorganization of the department which is intended to put more officers on the streets to provide better crime control for District residents and visitors. Again, the House conferees were opposed to these funds and they were deleted. How does the District Government propose to cope with this situation? Can each of you speak to what if any progress has been made in the reorganization of the D.C. Police Department and its impact on crime? Has much improvement been detected in terms of diminished crime against the residents and visitors to the Nation's Capital? Answer. The Council of the District of Columbia has taken action to make the 10 percent pay raise for members of the Metropolitan Police Department (``MPD'') effective July 6, 1997. This action is possible because of the Authority's and Council's approval of a reprogramming request of $3.7 million in operating funds from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and $1 million from the MPD operating budget for non-personal services. Attached is a copy of a letter that the Chairman of the Authority sent to the Acting-Council Chair describing this action. Also, attached is a copy of MPD Chief Larry Soulsby's second Transformation Update which discusses the proposed changes in police operations. Finally, attached are two graphs which compare year-to-date Part I crimes (serious felonies, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.) and homicides between calendar 1996 and 1997. These graphs demonstrate that crime is down in all areas of the city, and in all crime categories, since the inception of the Memorandum of Understanding partners initiative in February, 1997. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T03JY10.000 Question. Mr. Mayor, I understand that the control board, in its action on the budget, added funds to the Department of Corrections and reduced funds for other areas, such as summer jobs for youth and housing assistance programs. Can you tell the Subcommittee about the importance of the city's Youth Summer Jobs Program, and give us a little history and background on this issue? I'd also like to know more about the Housing Assistance Program, which I understand enables poor families to borrow funds in order to become homeowners. Has this program been successful, and what are the objections to its continuation? At the conclusion of your remarks, Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear from the representatives of the control board and the City Council on this matter. Answer. In the Authority's proposed budget the Housing Preservation Assistance Program (``HPAP'') was reduced by more than half of the request. This program provides financial assistance in the form of interest-free and low interest loans to qualified low and moderate- income residents to enable them to purchase homes. The effect of the reduction is the elimination of 100 moderate-income loans. The Authority also eliminated funding for the Employer-Assisted Housing Program, saving $390,000. This program would have funded 34 loans to eligible D.C. government employees, mostly police officers, who are first-time home buyers in the District. The Authority viewed each program in the context of the District's current financial condition. Question. Could you please give your views on the new authorizing legislation which would implement the President's plan for the District of Columbia? Answer. On May 13, 1997 I wrote to The Honorable Franklin D. Raines, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, expressing the views of the Authority upon the President's National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Plan. That correspondence is attached. letter from andrew f. brimmer District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, Washington, DC, July 2, 1997. Hon. Linda W. Cropp, Acting Chair, District of Columbia Council, Washington, DC. Dear Chairperson Cropp: Pursuant to Public Law 104-8, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (``Authority'') has received from the Mayor a request to reprogram $3,656,752 of local funds from the fiscal year 1997 equipment operating budget of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (DCFEMS), to the fiscal year 1997 personal services operating budget of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), dated June 30, 1997. When added to $1,000,000 from the MPD operating budget non personal services, this request will support the 10 percent pay raise for MPD officers agreed to by the Authority, the Mayor, and the Council. The certification letter received by the Authority from the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer dated July 2, 1997 demonstrates that the District included in its most recent fiscal year 1997 bond financing funds totaling $3,968,000 for the DCFEMS's Fire Apparatus replacement project. These funds are sufficient to support DCFEMS's planned capital equipment purchases. DCFEMS's fiscal year 1997 operating budget also included $3,968,000 in pay-as-you-go capital funds for the purchase of the same equipment. As such, the reprogramming of $3,656,752 of operating funds from DCFEMS to the MPD operating budget will have no impact on either DCFEMS's operating budget, or on their ability to proceed with its planned equipment purchases. After reviewing this request, the Authority finds it consistent with our earlier request that the Mayor reprogram funds within the District's budget to pay for the MPD officer's pay raise. The Authority therefore supports this request Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Andrew F. Brimmer, Chairman. ______ letter from andrew brimmer District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, Washington, DC., May 13, 1997. Hon. Franklin Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Raines: I am writing with respect to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Plan, which was announced by President Clinton on January 14, 1997. As you requested, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority) is pleased to submit this assessment of the President's Plan and its impact on the District of Columbia. On March 13, 1997, in testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, the Authority communicated to the Congress its overall support for the Plan. This letter confirms that earlier support for the Plan and, additionally, outlines some recommendations for making even more effective the Plan's impact on the Nation's Capital. For your convenience, this letter is accompanied by several charts and tables which illustrate the specifics of the President's Plan and its potential impact on the District's budget. Briefly, the Authority's views are as follows: The Authority's Strategic Plan, released in December, 1996, concluded that one of the most basic reasons for the District's continued financial problems is the fact that the Nation's Capital is not supported--as is every other city in the United States--by a state. Throughout the country, states relieve some of the burdens on their cities in numerous ways for which the District has no recourse. The Federal Government is logically--and by default--the District's state. The burden and costs that other states bear for their cities need to be borne for the Nation s Capital by the Federal Government. The Authority believes that a more equitable structure to support public services must be developed. Our Strategic Plan highlighted for inclusion in such a structure the areas of prisons, Medicaid, mental health care, roads and bridges maintenance, and several other items. Medicaid.--The first area which remains principally a state function is Medicaid. The Authority, in its Strategic Plan, concluded that Medicaid is treated uniformly throughout the country. To my knowledge, in fact, only the City of New York--out of all cities--pays any significant share of Medicaid costs. All other cities pay either nothing at all, or some small portion. In a report the Authority released in April, ``Toward a More Equitable Structure,'' we concluded that the District of Columbia, as a city, should be treated no differently by the Federal Government than any other city is treated by its respective state. The District currently pays 50 percent of Medicaid expenses. The President's Plan proposes to increase the Federal share of District Medicaid expenses to 70 percent. However, this outcome would allow the Federal Government still to treat the District worse than the way states treat their cities. In fiscal year 1997, total Medicaid expenditures are estimated to be $797 million. Under the current formula, the District is responsible for $395.6 million. Under the President's Plan, the District would still be required to pay $239.1 million. Therefore, we recommend the Federal Government assume responsibility for 100 percent of medicaid costs. Courts and Corrections.--The operations and maintenance of major prison systems, as the Authority has noted in its Strategic Plan and elsewhere, is not the responsibility of cities. Municipalities certainly take care of local city jails, but states almost universally are responsible for large-scale correctional facilities. The District of Columbia currently spends approximately $190 million annually on the Lorton Correctional Facility, where 6,000 inmates reside. The sheer size and complexity of Lorton dictate that this prison is not appropriately the province of the District of Columbia--but of the Federal Government. The District will retain responsibility for the city jail and the Correctional Treatment Facility. In taking over the responsibility for sentenced felons, the Federal Government estimates that it will spend $756 million in the next four years. Additionally, under the plan, the Federal Government expects to allocate $900 million over five years in capital spending on renovation and construction at Lorton. Clearly, the assumption of these responsibilities by the Federal Government, in the context of state functions, would lift considerable budgetary pressure from the District. Similarly, although not directly discussed in our Strategic Plan, the President's Plan would take over the operations of the court system, including the Court of Appeals and the Superior Court. The District currently spends some $120 million annually on judicial functions, and the costs are rising each year. The operations for pre- trial services, probation and parole, and the Corporation Counsel's juvenile and misdemeanor branches are now expected to be transferred to Federal jurisdiction. This is a desirable step. These services are frequently provided by states and counties instead of cities. The cost of those services provided by the District--but for which the Federal Government is the more appropriate party--is estimated at nearly $20 million annually. Pension Liability.--Although the District faces numerous financial challenges, none may be greater than the massive unfunded pension liability that looms over the District. In 1979, the Federal government transferred the pension plans for police officers, firefighters, and teachers (later adding local judges), and a $2 billion unfunded liability to the District. Under current law, in the year 2004, the District will incur the full responsibility and total liabilities for these unfunded pension plans, at a time when the unfunded liability is estimated to expand from the current $4.8 billion to over $6 billion. Additionally, the annual pension costs to the City are projected to rise from about $307 million in fiscal 1997 to roughly $470 million in 2004. A substantial portion of these costs represents excess payments made by the District toward the unfunded liability. In fact, total excess payments made to date approximate $2 billion. As the Authority concluded in its Strategic Plan, without some changes in the law, the impact of the liability on the District's operating budget will be catastrophic. Furthermore, without any change, the pension liability will severely hamper efforts by the District to regain fully financial solvency, as Wall Street remains hesitant of providing favorable lending conditions to the City so long as the unfunded pension liability overhang looms. As the unfunded pension liability has always been the responsibility of the Federal Government, the Authority is pleased that the President's Plan calls for the assumption of a substantial portion of the liability, in exchange for most of the plan's assets (which currently total about $3.6 billion). In addition to taking over the majority of the $4.3 billion of liability, the Federal Government would also assume responsibility for payments to current beneficiaries from the assets remaining in the funds. Transportation and Infrastructure.--The Authority's Strategic Plan envisions the Federal Government assuming state-like functions with regard to transportation. Under such an arrangement, responsibility for the Federal-aid routes, which comprise 40 percent of the District's roadways, would be assumed entirely by the Federal Government. Justification for this new responsibility is based on the fact that, in most states, local transportation needs are financed by motor vehicle fees, fuel taxes, and general fund revenues collected on a state-wide basis and then distributed to local jurisdictions by the state. These revenues are often used by jurisdictions to fund the local matching requirements of Federal grants--as well as the capital, operating, and maintenance costs for transportation infrastructure. The District's only source of funding both the local matching requirements for Federal grants and local roads is its diminishing ``state'' motor fuel and vehicle taxes. In fiscal 1997, the motor vehicle fuel tax for the District will generate $29 million. As estimated in the Authority's Strategic Plan, the costs to the Federal Government of funding and administering the transportation infrastructure needs (including maintenance costs) over four years would be $1.4 billion. The first-year costs are $340 million. These costs include (1) the District's local match; (2) the cost of administration that DPW currently incurs; and (3) annual costs of carrying out the Federal-aid construction program. These costs do not include the costs of snow removal on the Federal-aid routes. In most states, the state pays for snow removal on state roadways. The first- year costs of the President's Plan to assume transportation functions would be $179 million; the four-year cost would be $284 million. Mental Health Services.--One major difference between the President's Plan and the Authority's Strategic Plan is the responsibility for mental health services. Few cities are obligated to carry the costs of all mental health programs for their citizens without the assistance of the state. The District of Columbia currently spends $114 million annually to support mental health facilities, including the costs of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, a facility received in considerable disrepair from the Federal Government. As with so many other health care costs, mental health care is also rising, placing an ever-increasing burden of state functions on the District. Thus, the cost of these programs is expected to approximate $456.5 million in four years. Since a review of other major cities indicates that mental health hospitals, their operations, and funding are exclusively the function of states, the Authority is concerned that the President's Plan makes no provision for the assumption or funding of mental health programs. Therefore, the Authority recommends that the President consider, in the context of the Federal Government assuming state functions, providing support to the District for mental health services. The Authority also recommends that the District and the Federal Government revisit issues associated with the operations and ownership of St. Elizabeth's Hospital. Economic Development.--The President has also announced, as part of his plans for the District, a proposal to create a new Economic Development Corporation, along with various tax incentives and credits, to assist the City in attracting and retaining businesses. The new corporation would be capitalized by the Federal Government with a one- time investment of $50 million. The Plan also would provide for $250 million in tax incentives, $79 million in investment tax credits; $2 million in private activity bonds; job credits worth $133 million available to District businesses that hire low or moderate income residents; and $20 million in additional expense allowances for certain small businesses. The Authority welcomes this plan as a much-needed stimulus to the District's economic development. Without a state to absorb costs and provide various incentives, the District has long been at a disadvantage when it comes to creating a meaningful economic development program. The President's Plan, therefore, is a very good start. I would note, however, that there are many other issues with which the District must contend, such as the obstacles inherent in excessive regulations, that stymie economic growth. I would also note that it will not be sufficient merely to create job growth. Rather, the focus of such growth ought primarily to benefit District's residents and businesses. Accumulated Deficit.--The Authority noted in its Strategic Plan that years of improper financial and budgetary management have left the District with a massive and ever-increasing accumulated deficit. New York, Philadelphia, and other cities with Control Boards quickly determined, and effectively implemented, long-term plans to pay down similar, often larger, deficits. Future financial solvency of the District greatly depends on implementing a long-term financing plan for the District's accumulated deficit. The Authority advocated in its Strategic Plan that the District undertake a long-term borrowing, and we are pleased that the President's Plan also calls for such a borrowing and proposes that the U.S. Treasury provide the financing. The President has indicated that he will propose legislation providing for financing of the District's accumulated deficit, estimated at between $400 and $500 million. While the Authority supports the President's proposal to address the accumulated deficit, it is important to recognize the impact that such a borrowing will have on the District's remaining capacity to fund its multi-year capital program in light of the current debt limitation. The long-term funding of the accumulated deficit will also necessitate relief from the District's current debt cap or require an increase in the District's debt limitation. The Administration has pledged to work with the District Government to accommodate this borrowing, as well as an orderly and sustainable capital improvement plan. Concluding Observations.--Finally, I would mention that, in the context of state functions, there are a number of areas that the President's Plan does not address. Our report, ``Toward More Equitable Structure,'' concludes that counties typically provide at least some level of assistance for services such as Unemployment Compensation, Supplemental Security Income Management, Welfare Management, operating and capital assistance to local school districts, regulatory and inspection functions, as well as certain taxing powers. However, the larger share of costs remains with the state. To the extent that the President's Plan does not include these services, the Authority urges the administration to consider them carefully as part of the state-like functions the Federal Government assumes. One area in which the Authority continues to have concerns is the proposed elimination of the Federal Payment. As we have discussed previously, projections of revenues from District sources--composed mainly of property, sales, and income taxes--show little or no growth through fiscal year 2002. Between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002, in fact, these sources are projected to rise by just 2 percent, unadjusted for inflation. At the same time, however, District expenditures for functions not assumed by the Federal Government under the President's Plan are anticipated to rise by 10 percent over the same period. It is important to note that, of all of the District's current revenue sources, the Federal Payment of $660 million is the second largest. Absent the Federal Payment, our projections show that the District will experience the return of a small deficit situation in the out years, principally due to the structural imbalance exacerbated by the absent Federal Payment. Therefore, we recommend that the Federal Payment be maintained. Furthermore, assuming that the President's Plan is implemented, the District, quite frankly, would not be out of the woods. The reason is that those state programs which the Federal Government is not assuming under the President's Plan--must still be funded. Not only must we address the issue of underfunding in essential programs as they relate to service provision (such as public secondary education), but we must recognize that the demand for some services is growing rapidly. The Authority believes that the District cannot fund these programs at the local level. Current projections indicate that the needed tax revenue will not be available. Without continued structural change, it is unreasonable to assume that the District will be able to avoid a period of sustained deficits in the near future. I would note that one additional element relates to the cash flow deficiencies experienced by the District when funding its operations on a daily basis. Under the current statute, the amount of the District's short-term borrowings is tied to the level of the following fiscal year's Federal Payment. If the Federal Payment is ultimately eliminated through implementation of the Presidents Plan, some other mechanism for supporting borrowing must be devised. I hope that these views have been helpful in clarifying the Authority's position with respect to the President's Plan. Based on our review of the Plan, and our recommendations. the Authority looks forward to the implementation of this important legislation, and to the positive impact that it promises for the Nation's Capital. We look forward to working with you in the coming months to implement an effective plan for restructuring the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, Andrew F. Brimmer, Chairman. TABLE 1A.--IMPACT ON CURRENT FINANCIAL PLAN AND BUDGET ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Savings To District Due To President's Plan: Medicaid \1\.............................. $153.64 $158.24 $168.56 $172.88 $178.81 $183.05 Pension \2\............................... 200.00 196.00 250.00 268.70 290.10 312.20 Prison.................................... 164.05 211.78 188.00 189.16 190.35 188.68 Courts: Court of Appeals.......................... 5.77 6.02 6.02 6.06 6.09 6.09 Superior Court............................ 74.88 72.28 70.21 70.70 71.20 71.08 DC Court System........................... 33.04 35.46 33.45 34.32 35.22 35.22 Pretrial Services............................. 4.23 3.74 3.89 3.90 3.92 3.91 Board of Parole............................... 5.21 5.96 5.72 5.73 5.73 5.69 Public Defender Service....................... 7.70 7.80 7.80 7.99 8.19 8.19 National Highways System...................... 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.51 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-Total Savings....................... 649.81 698.61 735.02 760.86 791.08 815.62 ================================================================= Less: Net Debt Service Cost--Interest Borrowing \3\...................................... ......... ......... (15.34) (15.34) (15.34) (15.34) Federal Payment........................... (660.00) (660.00) (660.00) (660.00) (660.00) (660.00) Loss Interest Earnings-Federal Payment.... (2.30) (2.30) (2.30) (2.30) (2.30) (2.30) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Net Impact On District's Operating Budget................................. (12.49) 36.31 57.38 83.22 113.44 137.98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Assumes adjusted Medicaid estimates provided by the District's Commission on Health Care Finance that were provided to OMB on 2/11/97. The fiscal year 1998-2001 estimated savings using these figures total $703.30 million. \2\ Assumes sufficient amount of Pension Assets is left behind for the District's benefit to offset cost of new Pension program needed to achieve $60 million savings in fiscal year 1998. Milliman and Robertson, Inc. (District's actuary) estimates required assets to be $1.275 billion. \3\ Assumes District borrows $500 million in fiscal year 1998. Borrowing amortized over 15 years, no principal amortization until fiscal year 2004, interest rate of 7.0 percent (see Mayor's Proposed Budget, March 18, 1997). Source: Fiscal year 1998 Financial Plan and Budget w/Modifications to Medicaid and Pension Estimates). REVISED TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 1998 FINANCIAL PLAN AND BUDGET W/MODIFICATIONS TO MEDICAID ESTIMATES [Data Source: Finanlcial Plan and Budget 3/18/97] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Data source -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenue: Non-Tax................................... 178.34 174.74 176.90 178.30 177.90 177.30 ................................ Transfers in (Lottery).................... 75.25 75.80 74.20 74.60 76.00 76.00 ................................ Additional Policies Executed.............. .......... .......... 12.90 13.90 16.20 16.25 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal................................ 2,656.11 2,586.05 2,657.90 2,687.90 2,729.00 2,782.45 ................................ Federal Payment............................... 660.00 665.70 660.00 660.00 660.00 665.90 ................................ Other Revenue................................. 1,036.96 1,144.30 1,146.04 1,122.64 1,112.88 1,096.55 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total revenue........................... 4,353.07 4,396.05 4,463.94 4,470.54 4,501.88 4,544.90 ................................ Asset Sales................................... .......... 24.00 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 ................................ Treasury Borrowings........................... .......... 636.87 317.00 317.00 317.00 317.00 ................................ TRANS......................................... .......... .......... 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total income............................ 4,353.07 5,056.93 5,002.44 5,009.04 5,040.38 5,083.40 ................................ ========================================================================================================= Expenditures: Medicaid--Federal Share................... 409.53 401.40 430.61 441.48 456.40 467.10 CHCF 2/11/97; provided by the OCFO on 4/23/97. Medicaid--District Share.................. 384.09 395.60 430.61 441.48 456.58 467.10 CHCF 2/11/97; provided by the OCFO on 4/23/97. Pension Fund.......................... 336.50 321.1O 307.40 330.80 357.10 384.40 Milliman Robertson, Inc. Prisons............................... 164.05 211.78 188.00 189.16 190.35 188.68 Page J-76. DC Jail and CTF................... 77.00 48.75 52.10 53.55 55.05 56.59 ................................ Courts: Court of Appeals...................... 5.77 6.02 6.02 6.06 6.09 6.09 Page J-36. Superior Court........................ 74.88 72.28 70.21 70.70 71.20 71.08 Page J-43. DC Court System....................... 33.04 35.46 33.45 34.32 35.22 35.22 Page J-50. Pretriai Services......................... 4.23 3.74 3.89 3.90 3.92 3.91 Page J-69. Board of Parole........................... 5.21 5.96 5.72 5.73 5.73 5.69 Page J-82. Public Defender Service................... 7.70 7.80 7.80 7.99 8.19 8.19 Page J-65. Natonal Highway System.................... 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.51 Based on Agency/Controller Data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal................................ 1,503.29 1,511.21 1,537.17 1,586.60 1,647.31 1,695.57 ................................ Other Expenditures............................ 2,933.94 2,961.34 2,921.61 2,954.26 2,958.58 2,982.71 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures...................... 4,437.23 4,472.55 4,458.78 4,540.86 4,605.89 4,678.28 ................................ Less: Other Uses.............................. .......... 658.37 578.28 588.95 599.61 610.26 ................................ (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS (- or +).................... (84.14) (74.00) (34.62) (120.77) (165.11) (205.14) ................................ Fiscal year 1997 Initiatives.................. .......... .......... .......... 53.40 77.27 43.95 ................................ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVISED TABLE 2.--PRESIDENT'S PLAN--WITH FISCAL YEAR 1998 FINANCIAL PLAN AND BUDGET WL MODIFICATIONS RESTATED [Data Source: Financial Plan and Budget 3/18/97] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Data source -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenue: Taxes..................................... $2,402.52 $2,335.51 $2,393.90 $2,421.10 $2,458.90 $2,512.90 Page A-8. Non-Tax................................... 178.34 174.74 176.90 178.30 177.90 177.30 ................................ Transfers in (Lottery).................... 75.25 75.80 74.20 74.60 76.00 76.00 ................................ Additional Policies Executed.............. .......... .......... 12.90 13.90 16.20 16.25 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal................................ 2,656.11 2,586.05 2,657.90 2,687.90 2,729.00 2,782.45 ................................ Federal Payment............................... 660.00 665.70 .......... .......... .......... .......... Assumes no federal payment, fiscal year 1998. Other Revenue................................. 1,036.96 1,144.30 1,314.60 1,295.52 1 ,291.69 1,285.50 ................................ Additional Medicaid Revenue................... .......... .......... 168.56 172.88 178.81 183.05 Federai reimbursement 50 percent to 70 percent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total revenue........................... 4,353.07 4,396.05 3,972.50 3,983.42 4,020.69 4,067.95 ................................ Asset Sales................................... .......... 24.00 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 ................................ Treasury Borrowings........................... .......... 636.87 500.00 .......... .......... .......... Assumes deficit borrowing, fiscal year 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Income............................ 4,353.07 5,056.93 4,494.00 4,004.92 4,042.19 4,089.45 Assumes no short-term borrowings. ========================================================================================================= Expendtures: Medicaid--Federal Share................... 409.53 401.40 599.17 614.36 635.21 650.15 CHCF 2/11/97; provided by the OCFO on 4/23/97. Medicaid--District Share.................. 384.09 395.60 262.04 268.60 277.59 284.05 CHCF 2/11/97; provided by the OCFO on 4/23/97. Pension Fund.......................... 336.50 321.10 57.40 62.10 67.00 72.20 Milliman & Robertson, Inc. Prisons............................... 164.05 211.78 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-76. DC Jail and CTF................... 77.00 48.75 52.10 53.55 55.05 56.59 ................................ Courts: Court of Appeals...................... 5.77 6.02 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-36. Superior Court........................ 74.88 72.28 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-43. DC Court System....................... 33.04 35.46 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-50. Pretrial Services......................... 4.23 3.74 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-69. Board of Parole........................... 5.21 5.96 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-82. Public Defender Service................... 7.70 7.80 .......... .......... .......... .......... Page J-65. National Highway System................... 1.29 1.33 .......... .......... .......... .......... Based on Agency/Controller Data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal................................ 1,503.29 1,511.21 970.71 998.61 1,034.85 1,062.99 ................................ Other Expenditures............................ 2,933.94 2,961.34 2,921.61 2,954.26 2,958.58 2,982.71 ................................ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expendtures....................... 4,437.23 4,472.55 3,892.32 3,952.87 3,993.43 4,045.70 ................................ Less: Other Uses.............................. .......... 658.37 77.09 55.94 55.94 55.94 ................................ (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS (- or +).................... (84.14) (74.00) 524.59 (3.90) (7.18) (12.19) ................................ Fiscal year 1997 Initiatives.................. .......... .......... .......... 53.40 77.27 43.95 ................................ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHART A.--PLANS TO REVITALIZE THE NATION'S CAPITAL \1\ [Federal Government Assumption of State-like Functions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Authority's Strategic Plan President's Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unfunded Pension Liability: Unfunded Pension Liability: Liability $4,800 million Liability: $4,800 million. First-year cost: $307 million First-year cost: $250 million. Four-year cost: $1,380 million. Four-year cost: $1,121 million. Medicaid: Medicaid: Percent of Cost: 100 percent Percent of Cost: 70 percent. First-year cost: $430 million First-year cost: $169 million. Four-year cost: $1,796 million Four-year cost: $703 million. Prisons: Operating Costs: Prisons: Operating Costs: First-year cost: $188 million First-year cost: $188 million. Four-year cost: $756 million Four-year cost: $756 million. Capital Costs: First-year cost: $300 million. Four-year cost: $900 million. District of Columbia Court System: District of Columbia Court System: No specific provision First-year cost: $109 million. Four-year cost: $446 million. Pretrial Services: Pretrial Services: No specific provision First-year cost: $4 million. Four-year cost: $16 million. Parole: Parole: No specific provision First-year cost: $6 million. Four-year cost: $23 million. Public Defender: Public Defender: No specific provision First-year cost: $8 million. Four-year cost: $32 million. Transportation/Infrastructure: General Transportation/Infrastructure: Fund: General Fund: No specific provision. First-year cost: $1 million. Four-year cost: $6 million. Capital: Capital: First-year cost: $340 million First-year cost: $179 (average) million. Four-year cost: $1,360 million Four-year cost: $284 million. Mental Health: Mental Health: First-year cost: $114 million No provision. (average) Four-year cost: $456 million .............................. Economic Development: Economic Development: The Authority will examine the First-year cost: $50 barriers to economic development million. and issue a report by 6/30/97 Four-year cost: $300 million \2\ Financing of Accumulated Deficit: Financing of Accumulated Deficit: Long-term financing of approximately Long-term financing of $400 to $500 million approximately $400 to $500 million. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ (Revised May, 1997) \2\ Includes $250 million in Federal tax incentives and credits. subcommittee recess Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Mayor; thank you, Ms. Cropp; and thank you, Dr. Brimmer. I think the hearing has been beneficial. We will have others. We have probably asked more questions than we have answered, but we will be back. I thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., Thursday, July 10, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lauch Faircloth (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Faircloth. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Metropolitan Police Department STATEMENT OF POLICE CHIEF LARRY SOULSBY OPENING STATEMENT OF LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator Faircloth. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The hearing is called to order. This is the second hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and we are here to consider the District's fiscal year 1998 budget proposals. Today, we will hear testimony on the budget requests for the D.C. Department of Corrections and the Metropolitan Police Department. These funds relate to one of the most glaring problems confronting our Nation's Capital: Public safety. Until residents and visitors alike can walk the streets of the Nation's Capital without fear of assault, no tax breaks or economic development will save the city. Nothing will work until the streets are safe. As long as there are murders like the recent tragedy at the coffee shop, as long as police officers can be gunned down in cold blood, any other type of economic reform is a waste of time. The middle class that can leave the city will continue to move to the Virginia and Maryland suburbs. Other Americans from North Carolina and perhaps Topeka, KS, or wherever, will be afraid to visit. Crime has become a very profitable business in the city, where unemployment as of May was 6.8 percent, a full 2-percent higher than the national average of 4.8 percent. drug use in prison To make matters worse, our corrections facilities have become training grounds for young criminals. Once released, they return to the streets better, tougher criminals than when they went in. The crime does not stop even while the criminals are behind bars. According to a recent report, 9 percent of D.C. Corrections inmates have tested positive for drug use while in prison. court orders I have spoken previously about the problems of mismanagement throughout the city. Between May 1995 and June 1997, four agencies of the D.C. government were placed under receivership. The Department of Correction alone is currently operating under 13 court orders and mandates--13 court orders. We need to find out why. As a consequence, the courts are driving the Department budget because in order to comply with the court orders, agency heads must make mandated changes, and the changes come with a price, always. new powers of police chief Despite these problems, some important progress is occurring. Fighting crime has recently made some progress. In the police department, the police chief was given new powers to clean up the department as part of a memorandum of understanding with the Mayor, Control Board, City Council members, Judge Hamilton and others. The chief was given more authority to hire and fire senior officers, authority which had previously been exercised by the Mayor. The chief placed an additional 400 police officers on the street. The result is that arrests are up and crime is down. The police department is an example of how the city can form a partnership, bring in experts to address a problem, and then begin to solve it. If this approach were taken in every department of the city, we could see some dramatic improvements. Today, we will hear testimony from the director of the Department of Corrections, Margaret Moore, and the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, Larry Soulsby. The committee looks forward to your testimony as we continue to review the budget proposals for your departments. I would like to extend condolences to you, Ms. Moore, on the death of your father. Knowing the personal loss you have recently experienced, I appreciate your being with us this morning. We expect Senator Boxer and Senator Hutchison to join us later on this morning. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison Mr. Chairman, thank you for accepting this statement for the record. As we discuss appropriations for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1998, and particularly appropriations for law enforcement functions, I would like to point out my concern that Congress take decisive action to address the crime problem plaguing our capital city. In addition to considering funding allocations for law enforcement, Congress should be using every means within its constitutional authority to curb crime in the District of Columbia. I have introduced legislation that would subject the murderers of DC police officers to the death penalty. I introduced this legislation after the brutal murder of DC Officer Brian Gibson. Brian Gibson was ambushed as he sat in his patrol car, serving the citizens of DC and this nation. His young wife has been left with the unshakable memory of a senseless murder of her husband; her children have been left without a father. Since Brian Gibson was murdered, two other DC police officers have been mercilessly hunted down and murdered by criminals. I believe that those officers should have the same protection that all other law enforcement officers in the DC metropolitan area have: the murderer faces the possibility of death. When I introduced this legislation, I spoke to Mayor Marion Barry and many other DC officials, to assure them that my sole intention was to extend to DC officers the protection equivalent to that enjoyed by US Capitol Police, federal law enforcement officials, and Virginia and Maryland police. I have been unequivocal in my message: if the District of Columbia would take this step to protect its law enforcement officials, then I would step back and not take any further action. Mayor Barry did indeed sponsor a bill before the DC Council to make the murder of a DC police officer a capital crime. I applaud his leadership on this issue and I was encouraged to see that the Mayor was actively seeking this level of protection for the officers who risk their lives to protect the lives of others. I followed the course of the Mayor's bill and spoke to many other DC officers about this matter. However, I was very disappointed to learn that the Judiciary Committee of the DC Council defeated the bill almost unanimously, and the full DC Council adopted a Sense of the Council Resolution opposing the death penalty for the murder of police officers. With those votes, the DC Council made clear that it had no intention of protecting its officers with the same protections we afford to all other officers in this city. Therefore I am moving forward with my bill. I look forward to passage of this legislation, which will send a strong message to those who terrorize our citizens and visitors in our nation's capital city: if you dare to take the life of a DC police officer, you had better be prepared to give your life in return. Senator Faircloth. Before we begin, let me remind all of our witnesses that your entire statement will be made a part of the record, so we ask that you limit your opening statement to 10 minutes, and we will hear all opening statements followed by questions. Since we only have two witnesses this morning we will not be using the timer, so feel free to say what you have got on your mind. With that, I would like to call on our first witness, Chief Soulsby, for his statement. statement of larry soulsby Mr. Soulsby. Good morning, Senator Faircloth, members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and to discuss our fiscal year 1998 budget. I am going to deviate from my statement and just talk about some points in the statement instead of spending the time reading the statement. Senator Faircloth. Well, since we have only two witnesses we have plenty of time, so say what you have got on your mind. fiscal year 1998 budget for police department Mr. Soulsby. The department's fiscal year 1998 operating budget has been set tentatively at $272,383,000. Senator Faircloth. Chief, if you do not mind, pull the microphone closer to you. Mr. Soulsby. I am a big man with a silent voice. [Laughter.] The department's fiscal year 1998 operating budget has been set at $272,383,000. I believe that the budget set for fiscal year 1998 provides adequate funding for personnel services, but we may encounter unexpected nonpersonnel services, costs that would be associated with the department's reorganization that would reach beyond the limits of this budget. Nonpersonnel services spending set in the fiscal year 1998 budget may not provide for those unanticipated costs that may be associated with the technology needed to carry out the new mandate. As you know, Senator, we are currently going through a total remake of this department. As issues arise, as we try to address the new mandates, we are trying to operate within the budget, and I can assure you that we will do everything we can to operate within that budget. closing of helicopter branch In the past year we have closed the department's helicopter branch for two reasons. No. 1, it was a cost-saving measure, and No. 2, could we really afford to have that kind of operation, considering the other types of services available? We have relied heavily on U.S. Park Police in the last year to respond when a policeman needs the services of the helicopter branch, whether it be to pick up individuals that have been hurt, or whether it be to respond to a burglary scene. The U.S. Park Police has provided that service, but at great expense to them. There is a possibility in the future that I may have to provide additional funding to the U.S. Park Police for them to assist us, but that still is better than having a duplicate unit of the helicopter branch. It is something we need to consider that is not currently budgeted. problems confronting police department In the past, I have spoken candidly about the problems confronting the police department. Over the last decade, the department has been crippled by many things, including lack of funding; there have been many issues. We have had a stagnant organizational culture. We have been operating without accountability in many areas. Senator Faircloth. Without what? Mr. Soulsby. Accountability, personal accountability. Also, members of various ranks have not taken ownership in their job and have not given back everything they could. I am here today to tell you that things have changed, that the Metropolitan Police Department is on the road to recovery and success. We will once again become one of the best departments in the country. We have got a long way to go, but we are making improvements as we go forward. reduction in crime In the first 6 months of 1997, crime has been reduced by 17 percent citywide. When compared to the same period of 1996, each of the seven police districts have achieved decreases in crime. All but one have had double digit decreases in crime. Crimes against persons are down 14 percent for the year. Crimes against property have reduced by 17 percent. As we sit here today, homicides are down 26 percent for the year. There are 48 more people alive this year than there were last year at this time, 48 less people killed this year to date. The homicide total is the lowest number for the first 6 months of any calendar year since 1987. Robbery is down 26 percent. Burglary is down 23 percent. Stolen autos are down 28 percent. There have been many things occurring in the last 6 months, and I will speak to those in 1 minute, not the least of which has been the increased activity of police officers, officers who are now understanding that they have a role to play, and are being held accountable for not doing their role. arrests up for first 6 months The total arrests for the first 6 months of this year are up 44 percent compared to last year. Issues such as writing tickets, moving tickets, parking tickets, and warning tickets are up 98 percent this year compared to last year. The first 6 months we have had 180,961 tickets written in this city, and those play big parts, because many things that officers do are self-motivated issues. They have to address problems, and while we do have too many people killed and robbed in this city, we also have over 100 people killed in auto accidents. So we have to do things like traffic safety to prevent those deaths. If you are dead, I do not care how you died, you are still dead, and so those are also issues police departments have to act on on a daily basis. police performance up significantly Almost every measurable activity with regard to police performance is up significantly this year, while complaints against police officers have not increased. memorandum of understanding In December 1996, the MOU partners memorandum of understanding joined together to assist in a major transformation of the Metropolitan Police Department. The members signing the agreement were the Mayor, the chief of police, City Council, chief judge of the D.C. Superior Court, the corporation counsel, U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. We all came together and said that we have to make public safety a No. 1 priority. We have taken several actions since then to make that occur, not the least of which was the empowerment of the chief of police, which was set in February 1997. The Mayor delegated personnel budget and procurement authority to the chief of police. A new leadership team was immediately appointed and dedicated to the empowerment of the police department as we move forward. I changed the top leadership of the department so that we could focus on the necessary changes for the future. Across the board, the citizenry was not happy with their police department, and were not happy on a day-to-day basis of what was occurring. Public safety was an issue, so we have to make drastic changes if we intend to have different outcomes, and we have moved forward in that area. new mission statement A new mission statement was developed for the Metropolitan Police Department, one focused on reducing crime, preventing crime and fear of crime, dealing with public safety issues, and building a real bridge with the community. Since the release of the baseline report on February 19, 1997, we have started working toward new operational and organizational conditions within the Metropolitan Police Department. To test where we needed to go, in March of this year we went into seven enhanced enforcement areas throughout the city and used tactics used by other major cities such as New York to see if we could have reductions in crime the way they had. To accomplish this, we deployed more than 400 officers into these areas. The result after several months was a reduction in crime by 24 percent in those areas. A lot of tickets were written; various arrests occurred; and all police activities, everything from homicides to you name it in those areas went down drastically by using plans and strategies of other major departments. better services by police department What we have tried to do since then, after studying what occurred there for 4 months, is to take what we have learned and spread that throughout the entire city. Every part of the city has to be policed better and has to have better service from the police department. People have to be able to live without fear of crime on a day-to-day basis. We have to have the same level of high visibility, community interaction and participation so a reduction in crime will become a reality in every neighborhood in the city. implementation of new operating model On July 1 of this year we began the implementation of our new operating model. The plan that we are carrying out is the work of several teams and committees made up of experienced and dedicated sworn members and civilians of the department who have looked at how we can take what we learned and transcend that throughout the entire department. establishment of 83 police service areas A part of that has been our new operating model that calls for us to establish 83 police service areas throughout the city. We have tried to equalize the work load throughout each of these police service areas, and we have tried to equalize the manpower in those areas so we could have adequate manpower to police the city. We had 623 officers who did uniform prevention work in sectors, before this transition. Once it is complete, and it is about 95 percent complete now, we will have 1,344 officers that will be assigned in those areas--a substantial increase in officers out there trying to prevent crime before it occurs, before the pain occurs. What we had become is a department that tried to make apprehensions after the fact, catch the person after the crime occurs. We have to stop the pain up front. It is a major transition for our department. It is a major rethinking. Between approximately one-fourth and one-third of our officers in the last 3 weeks have received new jobs, new duties working on the street, and we have done that through the last several weeks relatively quietly. For the most part the members accept the change and the challenge, and are looking forward to where we are going. We continue on this same path that we have tried to set up. Each police service area is serviced by a team of patrol officers, detectives, and vice investigators. This is a decentralization of personnel and authority away from specialized units to the basic street level police patrol teams. These teams provide 24-hour, 7-day-a-week coverage to the neighborhoods which they serve. decentralizing of authority We are trying to decentralize authority, and many of the decisions that are now made at the highest levels in the police department will be made by the sergeant in charge of those teams that are right there in the community. They are able to meet with the community, assess the problems, make changes in personnel, make changes in scheduling, or make whatever change is necessary to attack the problem as it occurs. As a part of our new operating model strategy, we also are consolidating station operations to eliminate the need to have duplicate services, support services. We have decentralized many of our specialized units and centralized functions to the police service areas. Every district has done away with community service officers. They have done away with specialized units within those districts and assigned those officers to work in the community. Every police officer has to be a community services officer. Every police officer has to be able to talk to and work with the community. We have also consolidated the Narcotics and Special Investigations Division, and the Criminal Investigations Division into one operational unit, and reduced the size of those combined units by about one-fourth, and put those personnel back in the field working in the community. improve management We are all moving forward on several other fronts to improve the management and the operation of the departments. These include the development of an informational technology strategy to integrate all of the department's informational systems such as mobile digital computers, which will be installed very soon in almost all of our front line vehicles, the records management system, and a computer-assisted dispatching system. We are also working on the development of an infrastructure blueprint for the improvement in such areas as fleet management, and there will be a total overhaul of how we handle fleet management. There will be a total overhaul of how we handle property control, of how we handle prisoner transport, of how we handle prisoner housing of the thousands of people that we arrest each year, how we handle support services, material management, and also a change in the way we handle the citizen complaint process to involve the community in that process. In short, everything we do in the police department is being changed. We are going around the country. We are seeing what the best practices are from police departments around the country, as well as what the best business practices are to totally rebuild this department and bring it back to where it was years ago, and move well beyond that, so that we have a police department in the city that is an example, a shining example, throughout the country. improvement in infrastructure Improvements in our infrastructure will also free up additional sworn police officers, reduce cost, and enhance roles for our sworn and civilian members. We expect that there will be a savings as we move through the process, probably in 1 to 2 years down the road. ten percent pay raise Sworn members of the department were granted a 10-percent pay raise recently. As you know, some of the officers had not had a pay raise since 1989, and while the 10-percent pay raise is very helpful, the pay for the members of the department is still behind that of other jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Police Department. And Senator Faircloth, I would like to personally thank you and the members of this subcommittee for supporting our request for the pay raise. It is something that we are making tremendous demands on our officers, and we expect them to become more professional very quickly, but one of the things we needed to address was the pay raise, and I do appreciate your support in that area, sir. training program We are also implementing a training program to ensure that all of our officers and managers have the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities under the new operating models. We will be involved in developing new training over the next year to 2 years, in order to get the officers knowledgeable, up to speed on where we are going and what our basic outline is. To date we have brought in over 1,000 police officers to attend a 1-day orientation session to explain to them their operating model and what their role will be. On August 12 and 13 we will be conducting a 1-day seminar for all of the PSA sergeants and managers that will be working in those areas. The following week, we will begin a 2-day training for all PSA team members. We want to bring them in as teams, all 83 teams individually, and teach them such things as how to involve the community, how to deal with problem solving, how to police in the future. Senator Faircloth. Excuse me, chief, what is PSA? Mr. Soulsby. Police service areas, geographical areas they work in. We tend to use police jargon too much sometimes. random drug testing The department's implementation of a random drug-testing program will begin on May 15, 1997, whereby on a daily basis members are selected at random to undergo drug screening. So far, we have had 245 members tested under that drug-testing program, including all of the senior managers on the police department and myself. Senator Faircloth. How many? Mr. Soulsby. Two hundred and forty-five to date. Senator Faircloth. How many were found positive? Mr. Soulsby. So far, zero, but again, it is done randomly. They have no idea when they are going to be selected. They are notified that morning to come to the clinic that day. suspension of 28-day notice to change schedule We have also suspended the 28-day rule that was under union contract, which we had to give an officer 28-day notice to change their schedule. If we changed their schedule in any way without giving that 28-day notice, we had to pay the officers overtime. We have suspended that 28-day rule, and we are working with the union to reduce or eliminate it in the future. entry level standards reviewed The entry-level standards for the department have been reviewed to ensure that the standards are adequate. To date, the entry-level standards used by the department exceed those required by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement, but we are looking to raise those standards beyond that to require educational requirements in the future. We are looking at the standards we need to have to hire new people. We are also looking at what standards we should have for promotion, educational requirements and those types of things. If we are going to professionalize this department, we have to look at everything we do, and we are doing that. recruiting unit reorganized The department's recruiting unit has been reorganized, and the recruiting process and procedures have been revised to ensure that every single applicant is checked, and checked twice. We do not hire anyone for this police department that should not be on the police department, so we do not make mistakes that have been made in the past. We are reviewing our disciplinary process and we are trying to change that entire process to ensure that timely, meaningful discipline occurs, and that people that should not be on the department, who do things that are egregious, are removed from the department. With respect to department recertification, we have had over 2,800 officers who have been recertified through firearms training in the last 6 months. performance management system The department has reviewed its performance management system for individuals. The system right now meets the minimum professional standards for law enforcement, but we have to do better than that. We are not going to be happy with minimum. The departmentwide performance matrix systems are being developed. The Mayor's office notified us in December that to say we needed to get involved in this, but also starting in December was the MOU partners, where we knew we were going to totally remake the department. It does not make sense to set the matrix systems based on the way we did things in the past. As a part of what we are doing with the consultant as we move through the new operating model, the matrix systems, the performance standard set, will be set on what the new model is, and expect something to occur on that very shortly. performance and accountability Performance and accountability are high on everything we do and will be doing in the future, and we need this system to make sure that that occurs, but the system has to be meaningful, and we are making changes to things that have been this way for 30, 40, 50 years. We are making many changes within the police department. In closing, I would like to say again, the Metropolitan Police Department is on the road to success. We are moving forward in the right direction. We have got a long way to go, but we have the willpower to make the change, we have the commitment from the senior managers to assure that change occurs, and we are willing to accept recommendations and input from anyone, because we, too, have pride in this department. We look forward to having a proud department in the future, and I think the citizens and the country will be proud of this department as we move forward. prepared statement Changes will not occur 4 or 5 years from now. They are changing on a day-to-day basis. As every month passes, you will see improvements. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, sir. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Larry D. Soulsby Good morning Senator Faircloth, members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Metropolitan Police Department. The department's fiscal year 1998 operating budget has been set at $272,383,000. This amount is broken down into two primary categories: $231,182,000 for personal services; and $41,201,000 for non-personal services. The personal services allocation authorizes 3,815 sworn and 722 civilian positions. I believe that the budget set for fiscal year 1998 provides adequate funding for personal services. I am concerned, however, that given our ongoing efforts to improve the operations and organization of the department, we may encounter unexpected non-personal services costs. Costs that would be associated with the department's reorganization that would reach beyond the limits of this budget. The reorganization of the department is focused directly on dramatically increasing the number of officers working on the street in our neighborhoods and the non-personal services spending level set in the fiscal year 1998 budget may not provide for those unanticipated costs that may be associated with the technology needed to carry out this effort. In the past I have spoken candidly about the problems confronting the department, about a department crippled by problems lasting for a decade, a department with a stagnant organizational culture, a department without accountability, and a department with insufficient funding for salaries and resources. Today, I am here to discuss the changes that we have made to our operations and organization, the accomplishments that we have achieved, and the changes that are still to occur. Clearly, we are on the road to success and rightfully regaining our position as one of the best police departments in the country. The Metropolitan Police Department has embarked on a comprehensive transformation of its organization and operations. The outcome of which is the development and implementation of immediate and long-term organizational and strategic changes to meet the goals of eliminating crime and disorder and reducing the fear of crime in the District of Columbia. In March of this year the department initiated an Enhanced Enforcement Effort that targeted specific areas of the city to demonstrate and to reassure citizens that their personal safety and the protection of their property was our foremost objective. Crime in these targeted areas has been reduced by 24 percent over the last four months. What we have now done is to remake the department so that the same level of high visibility, community interaction and participation, dramatic reductions in crime, and the elimination of fear are realities in every neighborhood in the city, not simply in a handful of target areas of the city. On July 1, 1997, we began the implementation process for a New Operating Model for the Metropolitan Police Department. The plan that we are carrying out is the work of several teams and committees made up of experienced and dedicated sworn and civilian department employees. The members surveyed their colleagues in the field for ideas and met and deliberated for weeks to develop the department's New Operating Model. Men and women on the front lines of policing in the District have been able to contribute, in a systematic way, their knowledge, expertise, and common sense to how the department is organized and its resources deployed. The plan transforms police patrol in the District, lays the groundwork for productive and sustained citizen-police cooperation, and establishes accountability to neighborhoods for reducing levels of crime, fear of crime, and disorder. Our New Operating Model divides the city into 83 of what we are calling Police Service Areas (PSA's) that operate within the framework of the department's seven patrol districts. Each PSA is served by a team comprised of patrol officers, detectives, and vice investigators. This is a decentralization of personnel and authority away from specialized units to basic street-level police patrol teams. The team provides 24-hour, seven days-per-week coverage to a geographically manageable, neighborhood-based area. Two essential features of the new model are: (1) officers remain assigned to individual PSA's for at least 12 months so they can better know and serve specific neighborhoods; and (2) team members sign a pledge affirming their commitment to the neighborhood they serve. Both the long-term assignment and the signed pledge are meant to reinforce the team members' sense of ownership and accountability to their PSA and community. Another crucial accountability and management factor is that each team is led by a single PSA sergeant who has overall responsibility for police service within the PSA. The PSA sergeant is required to develop a thorough knowledge of the area, and will soon be equipped with a beeper whose number will be provided to residents and business people in the PSA. Within reason and in non-emergency situations, citizens can beep their PSA sergeant to seek or provide information, volunteer for neighborhood anti-crime projects, or register concerns. The PSA structure is designed to serve several purposes: to establish and maintain a closer alliance with the community to work toward reducing crime and the fear of crime; to provide each neighborhood with a clear channel for input into PSA plans and operations; and to greatly enhance police ability to obtain the community's support, time, and energy in achieving common objectives. Accompanying the reorganization of patrol is the application of a new strategic problem-solving approach to drugs, guns, gangs, and disorder, those factors that lead to cycles of serious crime and disruption in communities. The problem-solving approach is responsible for many of the crime-fighting success stories in other cities that you may have heard about. Problem-solving operates by (1) identifying the underlying cause of a cluster of criminal incidents; (2) determining the best plan to eliminate or neutralize the cause; (3) putting the plan into action; and (4) making certain it is working. It is aimed at the sources of chronic crime and disorder, whether they be homicides, neighborhood drug markets, street corner prostitution, or garbage clogged alleys that suggest no one cares about conditions in a neighborhood. The new approach means that the MPD no longer will spend all its patrol time responding to 911 calls and reacting after the fact to criminal incidents. With the significantly increased number of officers on the streets, the PSA teams will have the time and training to attack neighborhood crime and disorder through planning, analysis, and skillful application of the best police practices developed throughout the nation. Problem-solving encourages officers to use a variety of methods, not just arrests, to solve problems. These methods include using civil laws to control public nuisances, offensive behavior, and conditions contributing to crime; attaching new conditions to parole and probation; issuing citations in lieu of arrests; and tracking repeat offenders. The message here is: not everyone has to be locked-up every time for every offense. For example, civil action permanently closing down a nightclub known for persistent drug trafficking can be more effective than recurring police raids. As a part of our New Operating Model strategy we are also consolidating station operations and decentralizing many of our specialized units and centralized functions to the PSA's in the seven police districts. At the end of the implementation process, approximately 50 percent of all patrol district support staff will have been redeployed to the PSA's. Also, approximately one-fourth of all sworn personnel not currently assigned to the patrol districts will have also been redeployed to the PSA's. This will result in the number of officers assigned to the patrol districts being significantly increased, which, in turn, means greater police presence and more patrol officer time available for preventing crime and disorder. The department's Narcotics and Special Investigations Division and Criminal Investigations Division are being consolidated into one operational unit. This consolidation allows for greater utilization of our investigative personnel and frees both uniformed and undercover detectives for strategic positioning in our new PSA's. At the same time that we are undertaking a comprehensive reorganization of the patrol districts, we are also moving forward on several other fronts to improve the management and operations of the department. These include: Sworn members of the department were granted a 10 percent pay raise effective July 6, 1997. Continued funding for the pay raise is included in the fiscal year 1998 budget being presented to you. I want to thank you, Senator Faircloth, for your support in securing this pay raise for the members of the department. At the same time, I might mention that while the 10 percent pay raise is very helpful, the pay for members of the department is still behind that of other jurisdictions in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Implementation of a training program to ensure that our officers and managers have the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities under the New Operating Model. So far, over 1,000 patrol officers have attended a one-day orientation session concerning the New Operating Model. On August 12 and 13, 1997, we will conduct a one-day training program for all PSA sergeants. The following week we will begin to conduct two-day training sessions for all PSA team members. The specialized training will cover problem solving, communications skills, and other issues relevant to the implementation of our new operating model. This training will be in addition to the other kinds of training that we provide on a routine basis. The department implemented a random drug testing program on May 15, 1997, whereby on a daily basis members are selected at random to undergo drug screening. To date, 245 members have been tested. Suspension of the 28 day rule continues thereby affording us the opportunity to schedule our personnel as needed in a timely manner. Entry level standards for the department have been reviewed to ensure that the standards are adequate. The entry level standards now used by the department exceed those required by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. The department's Recruiting Unit has been reorganized and the recruiting process and procedures revised to ensure that applicants' case files are thoroughly reviewed with more documentation being required from applicants. A new recruiting campaign will begin next week. An extensive review was conducted of the department's disciplinary procedures to ensure that all disciplinary cases are thoroughly investigated and handled in a timely manner. The department's recertification efforts continue. In the past six months, over 2,800 members have been through the firearms recertification process. Starting October 1, 1997, the department's Training Division will begin using a computer assisted learning program as a part of its recertification efforts. The department has reviewed its performance management system for individuals and found that it meets minimum professional standards for law enforcement. The new performance review year begins October 1, 1997. Department-wide performance metrics are being developed to ensure that managers and supervisors are held accountable for the performance of their organizational elements. This important part of the department's management study and transformation will ensure that the New Operating Model is effective in achieving its objectives and that infrastructure changes are implemented as required. When looking at the crime and arrest statistics for the first six months of 1997, you will see that our efforts are having an impact. Crime from January 1 through June 30, 1997, is down 16 percent city- wide compared to the same time period in 1996. Each of the department's seven patrol districts have achieved crime decreases, with six of the seven districts having double-digit reductions. Looking at individual crime categories we find that: --Crimes Against Persons are down 14 percent. --Crimes Against Property have been reduced 16 percent. --Homicide is down 25 percent. The homicide total is the lowest number for the first six months of any calendar year since 1988. --Robbery, a crime contributing to the sense of fear and victimization in the community, is down 25 percent. --Burglary, an invasive crime that makes citizens apprehensive about the safety and security of their homes, is down 22 percent. --Stolen Auto, seen at this point last year as a crime that was totally out of control, is down by 28 percent. The total number of arrests that have been made by the men and women of the department in the first six months of 1997 have increased by 44 percent when compared to the same sixth month period in 1996. In the past six months the arrest trends have changed from decreases to increases and the crime trends from increases to decreases. While these crime reduction achievements and increase in arrests are significant, I believe that we can and must do even better. As I have already stated publicly, I believe that we can achieve even greater decreases in crime. The men and women of the department are working hard to bring about a lasting sense of safety and security to our communities. Our challenge is to continue this progress in the coming months. The transformation of the department will help to fulfill two personal goals that I have set. The first is to provide the dedicated men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department with the opportunity to intensify their professional skills and focus their talents on the essence of policing, which is combating crime and disorder and serving citizens at the neighborhood level. The police officers that I know joined the force to help people and our New Operating Model gives them the opportunity to do so. My second goal is that over the next 12 months, every resident of the District of Columbia will be on a first name basis with at least one member of the department. The police are a part of the community and are empowered by the community, it is not a matter of us versus them. It is a matter of we--citizens and police--working together to prevent crime, eliminate disorder, and improve the quality of life for all who live, work, and visit our Nation's Capital. That is the purpose of the new Metropolitan Police Department. In closing, I again want to say that I believe that the Metropolitan Police Department is on the road to success and that the transformation which is underway will result in a police department in which we all can take great pride. Thank you for affording me this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. I will now be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Additional committee questions Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Chief Soulsby. We certainly have heard of improvements, and look forward to more. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. The Fiscal Year 1997 Disaster Supplemental, as passed by the Senate, included $8.8 million in additional funds to provide a 10 percent increase for D.C. police officers to be retroactive to April 1, 1997. The purpose of the pay increase was to bring the salaries of D.C. police officers closer to the average salary of officers in the surrounding jurisdictions, at a time of a major reorganization of the department which is intended to put more officers on the streets to provide better crime control for District residents and visitors. Again, the House conferees were opposed to these funds and they were deleted. Chief Soulsby, how does the District Government propose to cope with this situation? Can you speak to what if any progress has been made in the reorganization of the DC Police Department and its impact on crime? Has much improvement been detected in terms of diminished crime against the residents and visitors to the Nation's Capital? Answer. The Council of the District of Columbia approved resolutions authorizing a redirection of D.C. monies to provide funding for the pay raise. The redirection was supported by the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (``Control Board''). The salary gap has been reduced to an average of 14 percent below the average of surrounding jurisdictions and will be received by sworn members of the department in pay checks received on Friday, August 1, 1997. The reorganization of the Metropolitan Police Department began with implementation of the departments New Operating Model on July 1, 1997. All seven of the department's patrol districts have converted from the existing scout car beat configuration to the new police service area system. The decentralization of investigative functions began at approximately the same date with 100 criminal investigators reassigned from specialized headquarters units to the patrol districts. The implementation is continuing at this time. It is not possible to draw specific conclusions concerning the New Operating Model's impact on crime based on three weeks experience. However, preliminary crime statistics for the month of July indicate that crime is down 28 percent compared to July 1996; total Part I offenses for the year 1997 to date are down 17 percent compared to the same period in 1996. Question. One of the key recommendations of the recent top-to- bottom review of the District's law enforcement efforts, and one of the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by yourself and other top District officials, was to increase code enforcement and nuisance abatement actions against the more than 1,000 abandoned nuisance properties in the city. These properties are not only eyesores, but they also serve to facilitate drug use and other criminal activity, they drive down property values and discourage home ownership in the District, and they contribute to an atmosphere in the District that discourages hope. Some have advocated in part for a Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit to encourage the improvement of rundown properties in the District and throughout the country. Unfortunately, and despite the MOU, action has been taken against only a fraction of the abandoned properties in the District. Would you please explain why this is the case, and what exactly needs to be done to turn this situation around? Answer. In the year to date through July 15, 1997, 216 nuisance properties identified by the Metropolitan Police Department have been cleaned, repaired or barricaded. These properties are those identified by the department as sites conducive to drug sales and/or use, congregating vagrants, and other criminal and/or order maintenance problems. These properties do not include those classified as nuisance properties for non-law enforcement reasons. The MOU Partners are working to provide more support to the department from other city agencies in order to accelerate the abatement program. Question. Senator Hutchison recently introduced legislation in the Senate that would allow for the imposition of capital punishment for the murder of a D.C. police officer. Would you please explain how you anticipate the allowance of capital punishment for the murder of a D.C. police officer would benefit and protect the District of Columbia, its police officers, and its citizens? Answer. Police officers today face a criminal element that has little, if any, regard for the life or property of anyone but themselves. These criminals will not hesitate to take the life of another individual for the most petty of reasons. We as a civilized society cannot and must not tolerate such violence in our community. Criminals who kill law enforcement officers exercise an absolute disregard for society and the rule of law. Any attack upon a police officer is an attack upon society itself. When criminals know that a police officer can be killed with impunity, how can citizens expect to be safe? The criminal element should know that anyone who kills a law enforcement officer will themselves be subject to the ultimate penalty. The sanction of the death penalty would help to deter the killing of police officers and may act as a deterrent to assaults on officers during the performance of their duties. It would reassure the community that the death penalty will be applied to the most egregious murders, which may in turn deter murders in the city at large. Question. In mid-May the Police Department began to implement performance standards and work rule changes. For example, officers are now subject to random drug testing and background checks. Please give the Committee a progress report on the Department's enforcement of these new performance standards and work rule changes. The District's sworn police officers were recently given a 10 percent pay raise. Is this pay raise tied to an officer meeting the new performance standards? How many police officers are on the force and how many will qualify for this pay raise? Answer. The department implemented a random drug testing program on May 1, 1997, whereby on a daily basis members are selected at random to undergo drug screening. To date, 245 members have been tested, all with negative results. During the past six months, approximately 2,800 members have been through firearms recertification training. Beginning October 1, 1997, a computer-assisted learning system will supplement the department's recertification and in-service training programs Suspension of the 28-day scheduling rule continues in effect affording the department the opportunity to schedule its personnel as needed in a timely manner. Sworn officers shall not be employed by any licensed ABC establishment. Beginning in October 1997, the department's Office of Professional Standards will begin implementation of a five-year background recertification process for all active department employees. A physical fitness and wellness program will be implemented at the Police and Fire Clinic on September 2, 1997. The Recruiting Branch will implement voice stress analyzer testing as part of the pre-employment testing process on or before December 13, 1997. Branch personnel are currently participating in an extensive training program to operate the equipment. The department instituted a Performance Management System for sworn members the ranks of officer, detective, sergeant, and lieutenant at the beginning of fiscal year 1997 on October 1, 1997. This performance evaluation system also includes agents assigned to the Office of Professional Standards. An extension of the system to the ranks of captain through chief of police is under development. The ten percent pay raise is not connected to performance standards. All sworn members will receive the pay raise. Question. In March your department redeployed 400 police officers to patrol units as part of a new crime fighting effort called the Zero Tolerance for Crime Initiative. In April you reported to this Committee that this redeployment increased arrests by 72 percent over March of 1996. Can you tell us what the number of arrests were by month for March, April, May and June 1997? How do these numbers compare with the numbers for March, April, May and June of 1996? Answer. The number of arrests made for March, April, May, and June 1997 increased by 49 percent when compared to 1996. The monthly arrest statistics are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Month --------------- 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March................................................... 5,315 8,597 April................................................... 3,919 6,388 May..................................................... 3,176 5,336 June.................................................... 3,726 3,791 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question. The Mayor is required to send to Congress by March 1 of each year detailed performance accountability plans for each of the city's departments. The Committee recently received some of those plans for 1997, but one for the police department was not included. Have you prepared a plan for fiscal year 1997? If so, has the Mayor's Office been provided a copy? If not, when will you provide a copy to the Mayor's Office? Please provide a copy to the Committee. Answer. The Metropolitan Police Department has not prepared a performance plan for fiscal year 1997. The reasons for this are as follows: --A Mayor's Order initiating the development process was not issued until December 1996. --In January 1997, the Crime Control Partners (MOU Partners) for the District of Columbia were established to support the Control Board's selection of Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive management study of the department --It did not seem logical to develop a performance accountability plan for an agency about to undergo a substantial reorganization; performance metrics for the existing department structure and operations would not be useful to evaluate the performance of a substantially new operating model. --Booz-Allen is developing performance metrics for the department's New Operating Model. The Booz-Allen project team met with the consultant retained by the city to advise on the development of performance accountability plans. The consultant was advised of (1) the comprehensive nature of the Booz-Allen study, (2) plans to develop performance metrics, and (3) the general format used by the consultant would be used, to the extent possible, for the department's accountability plan. --The City Administrator was advised of this decision by letter of the Chief of Police on March 27, 1997. The department has formed a project team to develop a Performance Focused Management System that will be in place for the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 1997. Prototypes will be tested for both monthly and quarterly reports during the final quarter of fiscal year 1997. The committee will be provided with copies of the fiscal year 1998 plan and subsequent management reports. Department of Corrections STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR MARGARET MOORE ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHANIE MITCHELL, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Senator Faircloth. Now, Ms. Moore, we will be delighted to hear your statement. Ms. Moore. Good morning, Senator Faircloth. First, allow me to thank you for your expressions of condolences on the death of my father. Good morning, Senator and members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the District of Columbia. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Department of Corrections. Senator Faircloth, any review of the proposed budget for the Department of Corrections must be done with a clear understanding of the state of the District's prison system. I have provided public testimony on numerous occasions about the life-threatening conditions in the District of Columbia's prison facilities. study by the national institute of corrections In January 1996, the National Institute of Corrections released the results of a congressionally mandated study of the Department of Corrections that was done by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency that confirmed the concerns I have raised since my appointment in 1994 about the District's prison system. Essentially, the study concluded that the system is critically understaffed, dangerously overcrowded, and seriously underfunded. The NCCD study supports my contention that the operational problems of the District's prison system are largely attributable to historic underfunding, understaffing, overcrowding, prison facilities that are antiquated, poorly designed, and inadequate to house our current inmate population. The study concluded that the D.C. Department of Corrections needs to hire an additional 425 correctional officers, build 2,000 new prison beds, and replace approximately 75 percent of the inmate housing at our correctional complex in Lorton, VA. incidences of violence Since 1994, when I was first appointed, I publicly discussed the problems of the system, and since the release of the NCCD report in January 1996, unfortunately there have been no major infusions of resources to improve the system. Indeed, the incidence of violence in our system reached epidemic proportion during calendar year 1996, when there were 286 inmate-on-inmate assaults, serious assaults, 111 inmate-on- staff assaults, and 6 inmate homicides. The atmosphere of violence in the facilities in our system, particularly at Occoquan, where we are forced to house medium and high medium security prisoners in open dormitories, has been the subject of reports from the special officer of the court, the Washington Post articles, as well as the aforementioned congressionally mandated study. Now, it is only as a result, Senator, of the hardworking and dedicated correctional staff that we have that we have managed to avoid a major catastrophic event in our system. The fact that no substantial investment has been made to implement the recommendations of the NCCD report in an effort to cure longstanding conditions that threaten the safety of correctional staff, inmates, and the general public is, in my mind, unconscionable. As always, Senator Faircloth, I am committed to living within the budget allocation for the Department of Corrections. As we have done in the past, we will work within our fiscal year 1998 budget. However, to do so will further result in a reduction of services and previously unbudgeted costs will not be funded at the expense of safety and security and our obligations to comply with court orders. fiscal year 1998 department of corrections budget Senator, it is my understanding that this committee has before it for consideration two fiscal year 1998 budgets for the Department of Corrections, one from the Council of the District of Columbia and another from the Financial Authority. The Council of the District of Columbia has proposed a gross budget of $249,161,000, and 3,141 FTE's, of which $244,161,000 represents local funding. On the other hand, the Financial Authority has proposed a gross budget of $259,286,000 and 3,141 FTE's, of which local funding represents $257,167,000. council's proposed budget The Council's proposed budget is approximately $10 million less in local funding than that of the Financial Authority. Additionally, it is important to note that the Council's proposed budget for the Department of Corrections is $16 million less than the agency's adjusted fiscal year 1997 budget of $260 million. medical services The most significant variance, Senator, between the proposed budgets of the Council and the Financial Authority is in the area of medical services. The Council's proposed budget for medical services is $21 million, compared to $30 million proposed by the Financial Authority. Both of these budget numbers compare to projected expenditures in medical services of $37 million systemwide. medical receiver As I am sure you know, Senator, medical and mental health services at the D.C. jail were placed in receivership in 1995. It is my understanding that the receiver is projecting a budget of $15 million for fiscal year 1998, yet the Council's proposed fiscal year 1998 budget for the medical receiver is $6.5 million. That is $8.5 million less than the receiver's projected expenditures. Underfunding of medical services in general, and the medical receiver in particular, exposes the District to criminal and civil contempt motions, fines, sanctions, and other onerous court orders. The overall executive direction that the fiscal year 1998 budget is intended to support includes the operation of the D.C. jail, five Lorton facilities, and the management of contracts for the correctional treatment facility and halfway houses. Prior to the end of 1997, we plan to close two Department of Corrections-operated halfway houses, and we will privatize the one remaining facility before the end of fiscal year 1998. contract halfway house beds The Council's budget is funded at $3.7 million, which will fund 235 contract halfway house beds at a per diem rate of $43 per day. This is compared with the Financial Authority's budget of $4.7 million, which will fund 300 contract beds. Our current average daily population in our halfway houses is 325, and it is expected that that population will increase in fiscal year 1998 with the implementation of our new objective inmate classification system. Consistent, Senator, with our overall plan to close Lorton in fiscal year 1998, the medium security facility and zone 2 of the Occoquan facility are scheduled for closure. To accomplish this initiative, we will need to outsource approximately 1,900 prison beds. However, the fiscal year 1998 budget provides funding for only 1,725 beds at a per diem rate of $55. Closure of these facilities is critical to our fiscal and operating strategy for fiscal year 1998. Closure of these facilities will also enable us to redeploy approximately 123 correctional officers to address some longstanding staffing deficiencies in our Lorton facilities. A contract for 1,438 prison beds with the possibility of increasing those numbers by 20 percent hopefully will be awarded within the next 90 days. Managing within the fiscal year 1998 budget will be tenuous at best. A lot of hard choices will have to be made. Specifically, as I indicated, there is underfunding in the area of medical services in both the Council and the Financial Authority budgets. There is no funding available to support any population growth that we anticipate is likely to occur as a result of the Metropolitan Police Department's crime interdiction initiative, and I would submit to you, Senator, that any successful crime reduction initiative depends largely on the capacity of the correctional system to contain, to house repeat dangerous and violent offenders for long periods of time. Our capacity to do that is threatened by the lack of secure bed capacity in our system. services rendered by d.c. general hospital Alternative funding sources must be identified for services rendered by D.C. General Hospital for inmate hospital care in the amount of $3.6 million if the Council's budget is adopted and $1.6 million if the Financial Authority's budget is adopted. payment to federal bureau of prisons Additionally, funding for payment to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the housing of 517 of our prisoners at a cost of $13.7 million is not available in either of the budgets, and finally, essential educational and vocational development programs will have to be eliminated in order to avoid unfunded expenditures of nearly $2 million. Senator Faircloth, over the next 5 years the Department of Corrections will undergo major multiple and simultaneous change either as a result of major privatization or as a result of federalization, as proposed in the President's revitalization plan. But as we look to either privatization or federalization, we cannot afford to turn our attention away from our obligation to adequately fund the correctional system to date so that we can continue in our efforts to manage our prisons in a safe, secure, and humane manner. To do so requires resources. Without such financial assistance, we will face greater problems as the department's resources continue to diminish. We will face a diminution of the conditions of confinement and the conditions of employment within the city's prison and jail facilities and, thus, a continued threat to public safety and public health. accomplishments of past 3 years Senator, in spite of the relatively bleak picture that I just painted, I must add for the record that we have made significant progress over the past 3 years in our efforts to improve the conditions in our prison system. I would like to submit for the record a copy of our major accomplishments document that shows the accomplishments of the agency over the past 3 years. It includes the implementation of one of the most comprehensive mandatory drug and alcohol testing programs for correctional systems in the country, the implementation of criminal background checks for all incumbent correctional employees, the implementation of comprehensive preemployment screening for correctional employees, as well as significant advancements in the use of automated technology to increase operational efficiencies throughout our agency. Senator, again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am available to respond to questions as best I can. prepared statement I might mention for the record also that sitting with me is Stephanie Mitchell, the chief financial officer for the Department of Corrections. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Margaret A. Moore Good morning Senator Faircloth and members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the District of Columbia. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget. Senator Faircloth, a review of the proposed budget for the Department of Corrections must be done with a clear understanding of the state of the District's prison system. I have provided public testimony on numerous occasions about the life threatening conditions in the District of Columbia's prison facilities. In January of 1996 the National Institute of Corrections released the results of a congressionally mandated study of the Department by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) that confirmed concerns I have raised since my appointment in 1994. Essentially, the study concludes that the system is critically understaffed, dangerously overcrowded and seriously underfunded. The NCCD study supports my contention that the operational problems of the District's prison system are largely attributable to historic under-funding, under-staffing, overcrowding and prison facilities that are antiquated, poorly designed and inadequate to safely house our current inmate population. The study concluded that the D.C. Department of Corrections needs to hire an additional 425 correctional officers, build 2,000 new prison beds, and replace approximately 70 percent of the inmate housing at Lorton. Since 1994 when I first publicly discussed the problems of the system and since the release of the NCCD report in January of 1996 there has been no major infusion of resources to improve the system. Indeed, the incidence of violence in our system reached epidemic proportions in calendar year 1996 when there were 268 inmate on inmate assaults, 111 inmate on staff assaults and 6 inmate homicides. The atmosphere of violence in many of the facilities in our system, particularly Occoquan where we are forced to house medium and high medium security prisoners in open dormitories has been the subject of reports from the Special Officer of the Court, Washington Post articles, as well as a congressionally commissioned study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). It is only a result of hard working and dedicated correctional staff that we have managed to avoid a major catastrophic event. The fact that no substantial investment has been made to implement the recommendations of the NCCD report in an effort to cure long standing conditions that threaten the safety of correctional staff, inmates and the general public is unconscionable. As always Senator Faircloth, I am committed to living within the budget allocation for the Department of Corrections. As we have in the past we will work within our fiscal year 1998 budget; however, to do so will result in further reduction of services and previously unbudgeted costs will not be funded at the expense of safety, security and our obligations to the courts. It is my understanding that this committee has before it for consideration two fiscal year 1998 budgets for the Department of Corrections--one from the Council of the District of Columbia and another from the Financial Authority. The Council of the District of Columbia has proposed a gross budget of $249,161 million and 3,141 FTE's, of which local funding is $244,161 million and 3,105 FTE's. On the other hand the Financial Authority has proposed a gross budget of $259,286 million and 3,141 FTE's, of which local funding is $257,167 and 3,105 FTE's. The Council's proposed budget is approximately $10 million less in local funding than that of the Financial Authority. Additionally, it's important to note that the Council's proposed budget for the Department of Corrections is $16 million below the agency's adjusted fiscal year 1997 budget of $260 million. The most significant variance between the proposed budgets of the Council and the Financial Authority is in the area of medical services. The Council's proposed budget for medical services is $21 million compared to $30 million proposed by the Financial Authority. Projected expenditures for the medical services system wide for fiscal year 1997 is $37 million. As I'm sure you know Senator Faircloth, medical and mental health services at the D.C. Jail were placed in receivership in 1995. It is my understanding that the Receiver is projecting a budget of $15 million for fiscal year 1998. The Council's proposed fiscal year 1998 budget for the medical receiver is $6.5 million--$8.5 million less than the Receiver's projected expenditures. Underfunding of medical services in general, and the medical receiver in particular exposes the District to criminal and civil contempt motions, fines and further onerous court orders. The overall executive direction that the fiscal year 1998 budget is intended to support includes the operation of the D.C. Jail, five Lorton facilities and management of the contracts for the Correctional Treatment Facility and halfway houses. Prior to the end of fiscal year 1997 we plan to close two DOC operated halfway houses and we will privatize the one remaining facility before the end of fiscal year 1998. The Council's budget is funded at $3.7 million which will fund 235 contract beds at $43.00 per day; this is compared with the Financial Authority budget of $4.7 million which will fund 300 beds. Our current average daily halfway house population is 325 and is expected to increase in fiscal year 1998 with the implementation of our new objective inmate classification system. Consistent with our overall plan to close Lorton, in fiscal year 1998 the Medium Security Facility and zone 2 of the Occoquan Facility are scheduled for closure. To accomplish this initiative we will need to out source approximately 1,900 prison beds. However, the fiscal year 1998 budget provides funding for only 1,725 beds at a per diem rate of $55.00. Closure of these facilities is critical to our fiscal and operating strategy for fiscal year 1998. Closure of these facilities will enable us to re-deploy 123 correctional officers to address critical understaffing at the Lorton facilities. A contract to house 1,438 inmates, with the possibility of a 20 percent increase in beds, should be awarded within the next 90 days. Managing within the fiscal year 1998 budget will be tenuous at best. A lot of hard choices had to be made. Specifically, there is underfunding in the area of medical services in both the Council and the Financial Authority budgets. There is no funding available to support any population growth as a result of the MPD crime interdiction initiative. Alternative funding sources must be identified for services rendered by D.C. General Hospital/Public Benefit Corporation for inmate hospital care in the amount of $3.6 million, if the Council's budget is adopted, and $1.6 million if the Financial Authority's budget is adopted. Additionally, funding for payment to the Federal Bureau of Prison for housing 517 prisoners at a cost of $13.7 million is not available in either the Council or Financial Authority budgets. Finally, essential educational and vocational development programs will be eliminated in order to avoid unfunded expenditures of nearly $2.0 million. Senator Faircloth, over the next five years the Department of Corrections will undergo major, multiple and simultaneous changes, either as a result of privatization or federalization. But, as we turn our attention to the future, we cannot lose sight of our day to day responsibility to manage our prisons in a safe, secure and humane manner; to do so requires resources. Without such assistance, we will face greater problems as the Department's resources are diminished, and the conditions in this city's prisons and the jail will continue to threaten public safety and public health. I am available to respond to any questions you may have at this time. ______ The New Department of Corrections correctional excellence--today's vision, tomorrow's reality privatization initiatives A major concentration in the Department of Corrections' transformation plan centers on privatizing three-quarters of the system, resulting in cost containment and improved correctional services to inmates. In January 1997, transactions were finalized regarding the sale of the District's Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) to a private company. The 898-bed medium security prison was sold to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) for $52 million, representing the most ambitious and progressive transformation initiative to date. --Under the District/CCA agreement, the Department of Corrections will continue to use the prison as a treatment facility for District inmates. --The District will pay CCA an operating fee of $70.40 a day per inmate during the first year and a $2.79 million annual lease fee. --The city will realize a savings of approximately $112 million over the term of the contract. --CCA will invest $3.85 million for capital improvements. --CCA will comply with all applicable court orders within six months and have the facility accredited by the American Correctional Association by March 1999. --CTF will be returned to the District at the end of the contract. Privatization of the Department's food services operations was successfully completed in early fiscal year 1997 with a $13 million contract awarded to ARAMARK Correctional Services. Privatization of food services will generate savings of $2 million annually, increase overall operational efficiency and improve the quality of food services at all the District's correctional facilities. administrative services Transformation efforts by the Department of Corrections have included the implementation and maintenance of state-of-the-art technologies to maximize work performance and productivity. Installation of a powerful state-of-the-art computer network at the Department of Corrections headquarters represents a significant milestone for the agency. --The computer network system includes specialized applications such as automation of administrative processes including procurement, digital images, automated booking at the jail, supply management and skills training for staff in Windows 95 environment/Microsoft software. Installation of a Department-wide automated time and attendance system will enable more accurate accounting of the payroll and will also reduce overtime fraud. --The system maximizes employee accountability, information accuracy and reliability. It also enables correctional timekeepers to be returned to corrections duties thereby saving between $500,000 and $1 million each year in overtime avoidance. --Cost of the automated time and attendance system is $250,000; however, the system will pay for itself within 6 months and support the move to a ``paperless office''. --Installed a high tech telephone system with voice mail, system paging and telephone conferencing capabilities. Created the Offices of the General Counsel and Court Compliance to provide legal counsel and guidance to the Office of the Director; provide litigation support to Corporation Counsel in suits against the Department of Corrections and to develop and implement strategic measures to monitor, modify and vacate existing court orders. Hired a corrections health care coordinator who has the responsibility for the development and implementation of inmate medical policies, procedures and protocol, the development of a consolidated consent order regarding inmate medical and mental health services. Developed ``Statement of Work'' guidelines which will serve to privatize inmate medical and mental health services. Implemented a ``zero tolerance'' campaign against sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual misconduct against inmates. We also had input in the drafting of legislation which makes it a crime, punishable up to 10 years, for correctional employees to have sex with an inmate. The Department's campaign, which included policy development mandating annual training, a ``zero tolerance for sexual harassment'' poster, bumper stickers and other decals, led the District government's efforts to educate the workforce and the community about this violation of the law. --In May 1994, the Department received a grant from the National Institute of Corrections to objectively study the incidence of sexual harassment throughout the agency. --With the assistance of independent consultants, the Department developed and implemented an enhanced sexual harassment prevention policy that clearly defines sexual harassment and retaliation; makes the process for filing complaints easier; delineates the role of employees, managers and supervisors in preventing sexual harassment; mandates annual training for all employees and provides emergency complaint and investigation procedures. Closed a 688 bed medium security prison, enabling the redeployment of approximately 200 employees, thus avoiding correctional officer overtime and increasing institutional efficiency. Hired a financial officer to restore fiscal integrity to the agency's budgeting and expenditure procedures. The agency has not overspent its budget since the appointment of the Director and the new Chief Financial Officer for the Department. Enhanced halfway house policies and reduced the number of violent offender placements within the community. Strengthened population management controls through the Emergency Powers Act (EPA). EPA provides for the release of non-violent offenders up to 90 days prior to their scheduled release date. EPA ensures that the prison population will never rise above the court ordered capacity. The Department of Corrections has not used EPA since September 1996. Enhanced security procedures governing Religious and Volunteer Services. Volunteers are required to submit to criminal background checks and undergo annual training. Individuals with criminal histories may be barred from the correctional facilities depending on the nature of the offense. Approved volunteers are issued photo identification cards with expiration dates. Between 1995 and 1997, more than 100 inmates graduated from the UDC Lorton Prison College Program. Inmates have received associate and bachelor's degrees in the areas of urban studies, business and public management and computer technology. The program offered by the University of the District of Columbia, has been at the prison for 19 years and boasts an under 7 percent recidivism rate among its graduates. Established a Violence Reduction Program to look at ways of reducing violence among inmates in the prison and upon their release to the community. workforce enhancements Developed and implemented a comprehensive employee drug and alcohol testing policy which enables random, reasonable suspicion and post accident/extraordinary occurrence testing for all employee's having direct contact with inmates. This is the most comprehensive program of its kind in the government aimed at creating a drug-free workplace. Developed and implemented a policy to conduct criminal background checks on all incumbent employees. Random checks will be conducted every two years and more frequently for reasonable suspicion. Developed and implemented a comprehensive preemployment screening program which includes psychological evaluation, drug testing, physical fitness, criminal background checks, employment and personal reference checks. Developed and implemented a standardized written examination for all correctional officer recruit applicants. Enhanced employee training. Correctional officer recruits must successfully complete a six-week intensive training program that includes weapons qualifications, sexual harassment awareness and prevention, stress management and other specialized training. The 40- hour In-Service Training Program was reestablished to include basic correctional safety and security measures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), sexual harassment awareness and prevention and substance abuse awareness and prevention. Established an Employee Assistance Program. The program assists employees and their families with counseling measures during crises situations that occur at home and on the job. Ten (10) employees completed the seven-week Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification training held at Howard University. community outreach The Director served as the 1996 D.C. One Fund Chairperson. Corrections employees contributed over $70 thousand of the total $731,304 government-wide contribution toward the District's only official charitable fundraiser. The Director served as the keynote speaker at numerous public events, including but not limited to the Annual Conference of the Correctional Peace Officer Foundation, Inc., Coalition of Prison Ministries, District of Columbia School-Age Care Conference-Alliance and Office of Early Childhood Development, Management Development for Women and Minorities, Department of Recreation and Parks Youth Summit, Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church Women's Day Program and University of the District of Columbia Senior Night. Enhanced Department of Corrections Prison Tours Program to provide greater public awareness about prison operations and programs. Expanded the Maximum Security ``Take It From Me'' youth awareness and crime prevention program which has received national recognition. The program is designed to educate the public about prison life and steer youth from delinquency while motivating them towards a law- abiding lifestyle. Fourteen inmates and community corrections staff from Center # 1 assisted in the successful search and rescue efforts of an 11-year old Southeast, Washington youth who was reported missing for 48 hours. Corporal Don L. Wiseman assigned to the Medium Security Facility was cited for his heroic life saving deeds that included CPR performed on an inmate and saving the life of a Baltimore Gas and Electric Company employee being attacked by stray dogs. Ten (10) corrections employees have received the Mayor's meritorious medal of valor for demonstrating acts of heroism on the job or in the community. Minimum Security inmates were honored for restoring blighted properties on Hanover Place, NW, a community once considered among the city's most dangerous and plagued with drug trafficking and drive-by shootings. Hope Village halfway house inmates assisted community leaders and volunteers to clean up an illegal dump site at Savannah Terrace, SE, a Ward 8 community. D.C. Corrections provides numerous gifts for low income families to enjoy special occasion activities. The Department's outreach efforts are not restricted to a specific community or need, however, most charitable expressions have been extended to the children living at the Spring Road Family Shelter managed by the Coalition for the Homeless and adopted by the Department of Corrections. Senator Faircloth. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Moore, and Ms. Mitchell, thank you for coming. mayor's security detail I have some questions, and Chief Soulsby, I will start with you. We are very much aware of the improvements you have made in the police department, and we are glad to hear you have been able to make some headway, Ms. Moore, under the conditions you are working under. Chief Soulsby, you reduced the Mayor's security detail from 31 to 20, I believe. That is correct, is it not? Mr. Soulsby. Correct. Senator Faircloth. Twenty would still seem extremely high to me compared to any other Mayor, comparable around the country. Can I just ask you, do you know of any Mayor around the country that has 20? Mr. Soulsby. No, sir; I am not aware of any Mayor that has a complement that heavy. We have reviewed, and that was the first step in making that cut, that we have 18 officers and two supervisors involved. That includes coverage of his house at all times. It is really two components. One is the uniformed component, and one is the component of people that travel with him on his daily functions. There are two different sites in regard to his security. We have a person who was shot while he was a city councilman, an individual who is known, actually, nationwide, worldwide, who does receive mail and phone threats that we do look at and investigate. Both he and even more than he, his family, constantly voice concern over his safety. I have had numerous discussions with him in regards to where we need to go, and additional cuts we may need to make while trying to accomplish both things, but that is something we are still looking at. We are also looking at how we may privatize some aspects of this, and what other changes could occur. Senator Faircloth. That was my next question. Would it not be better to completely privatize the security force of the Mayor, completely move it from the police department. This would remove any possibility of the Mayor or any of his staff becoming involved in criminal investigations--totally sever the relationship. Would that not be a better way to go at it? Mr. Soulsby. That is certainly something we are looking at, and we are also dealing with it to see what cost figures would be to do that, but it is certainly something we are reviewing. georgetown coffee shop murders Senator Faircloth. I am not asking you for anything that would damage your investigation, but certainly the killing of the people at the coffee shop has aroused a lot of attention around the country and in the Congress. Can you tell us what steps we are taking to improve security in the Georgetown area, because this goes to two very practical things, and you can address them. tourism Washington survives pretty much on tourism. It is the greatest source of income here, and Georgetown is a major area of it. You well know, with the rapid spread of news today, that if there were an incident involving harm to tourists, the impact on the city could be pretty dramatic, so tell us what we are doing to make sure that does not happen. Mr. Soulsby. Well, first of all I would say that we are concerned about those killings, as we are killings all over the city. It is something we have to deal with. It is an unfortunate type of situation. We are spending a lot of resources investigating it, and I feel that we will have a positive outcome in that investigation. We will close those cases. We have made several changes because we not only had that murder, but a few days later we had a robbery, a very similar robbery occurred. Later on today sometime we will release a composite of one of the individuals that we are looking for in that robbery to get the media and public help, to help identify the people. We have taken several steps, and I certainly would love to share them with you, but I do not know that I should share in a public forum exactly what we are doing to address that, to try to preclude another one from occurring. We are doing several operational things differently along Wisconsin Avenue and along a couple of other roads right there to address that issue. We feel that there are certain investigative things we can do in both of those cases that will eventually solve those cases, and we feel very good about it, but it is something we have to work our way through. Unfortunately, when these occur it does receive--did receive--national spotlight, and no one is more interested in trying to resolve it than I am, but we have to go through investigative techniques. One thing that always concerns you is when they report instances like this, that the media is so hungry to report things that they reported things that we were doing that we were not even doing, and there was a national alert to that. When we had the Atlanta bombing, they went out and named a suspect that turned out was not even a suspect. With respect to the national and media response to the triple homicide, they were so interested in being the first to put something new out there that they were, I think, talking to elevator operators and anyone else, asking, ``What are the police doing?'' So we are reading and hearing on the news media on a moment-to-moment basis things that were occurring in the case, and oftentimes they were not occurring. But we are moving forward, and I think we will solve those cases. We are very concerned with that case and other homicides. But as even the residents of Georgetown and the businesspeople in Georgetown will tell you, they have seen a tremendous improvement and increase in manpower prior to that, as a part of our new operating model and our redeployment of several hundreds of officers to the street. They will also tell you that we have had tremendous reductions in robbery in the Georgetown area as well as throughout the city. Prior to the triple homicide and that robbery, there had only been two business robberies in Georgetown since February 1. So the media will have you believe sometimes that it is crime-ridden, and, in fact, it is not. So we are really moving forward in a lot of areas there, but the actual fact of what is going on in the city is not being portrayed across the country. Senator Faircloth. Thank you, chief. We are going to take just a brief 2- or 3-minute recess. I need to make a call--just a brief recess. [A brief recess was taken.] Senator Faircloth. The meeting will reconvene. utilization of park police Chief Soulsby, I had a question. You mentioned the utilization of Park Police, and better, closer cooperation with Park Police. I do not know whether you mentioned Capitol Police or not, but do you see a possibility there? Is there something that we need to do, that the Congress needs to be doing to encourage or make this work better to facilitate it? Could there be more efficient use of the three policing systems of the District of Columbia? Tell me what you think. twenty-three different police agencies Mr. Soulsby. Well, first of all there are actually more than three. There are actually 23 different police agencies in the city, everything from the FBI to the zoo police to you name it. But the major, uniformed service that we use is the U.S. Park Police, and the relationship actually could not be better with the U.S. Park Police. They patrol not only the park areas but they respond and assist our officers on a day-to-day basis on just about everything. We have a tremendous working relationship. Senator Faircloth. Are these all tied by the same communications system? communication system Mr. Soulsby. No; they are not. They have a different communication system. For instance, in the Capitol Police officers assigned to the First District, our police cars also have a Capitol Police radio zone, so we can communicate, but it is a different zone on our radio. For instance, my radio will not talk to the Capitol Police. We have to go through communications to do that. The Capitol Police officers in their vehicles have got the 1-D, which is the area that surrounds the building. Their zone is in the Capitol Police, and so the local police officer, the beat officer, cannot communicate off the radios that are in the cars because they are different systems. Again, with the Capitol Police we have good communications, but their boundaries are real restricted. They have done some community policing, as they have been expanded by Congress a couple of years ago to an area surrounding the building where they do some work in the community. Could there be more work that they could do in that area? I think there is a potential there. park police provides help But the point I was making with the Park Police is they do a lot for us. Since we shut down our helicopter branch, they are literally responding to hundreds of calls with their helicopter now, providing assistance to us, and it has taken them from their primary mission. I think either the U.S. Park Police are going to have to receive some additional funding from Congress to support those missions or I am going to have to do some sort of memorandum of understanding with the Park Police to provide them moneys to do that. It went from their trying to assist us to such a major event that it is costing them operational funds. As far as day-to-day operations, the U.S. Park Police could not be better. report ``a crisis in management'' Senator Faircloth. Chief, I do not want to belabor this point, but the Control Board issued a report in March called ``A Crisis in Management,'' and they focused on many mismanagement problems. I just thought that we had attempted to isolate the police department and the Control Board, from interference by the Mayor. The Control Board said that the Mayor had attempted to use the police department for an emergency purchase order of five four-wheel drive vehicles for himself, the city administrator, his security detail, and each cost $3,000 more than the market price. I know you would probably prefer not, but what went on there, do you know? Mr. Soulsby. They had requested four vehicles to be used by the security detail to be able to move the Mayor and any executive staff around during snowstorms. The fifth vehicle came into play when the city administrator said, if you purchase a fifth one I will transfer funds from his accounts to the police department to pay for the fifth vehicle. We had certain purchase authority that the city administrator did not have. He said if you are going to buy four I will transfer funds to the department to pay for the fifth vehicle. But the four vehicles were going to be paid for out of the police department's funds that came to the police department. They wanted those vehicles to be able to move the Mayor and the executive staff around in snowstorms. Senator Faircloth. But the taxpayers were paying for it? Mr. Soulsby. Absolutely. additional $15 million Senator Faircloth. The memorandum of understanding gave you authority to bypass the normal procurement process governing other city departments. I understand, for example, that after Congress gave $15 million to buy new police cars much of the money was not spent. Fifteen million dollars will buy a lot of police cars. What was wrong with the city's procurement system that you needed permission to bypass it, and has your procurement authority improved your ability to purchase? Tell us what is going on. Mr. Soulsby. The $15 million was to purchase many things, from technology to you name it. I think about $1 million of it was for cars. For the record I will give you a complete listing of how every single bit of that money was to be spent-- everything from AFIS, which is $1.2 million for a computerized fingerprinting system update to automate different reports; OASIS, which is our criminal intelligence computer; to just purchasing additional computers; to purchasing mobile digital computers for cars. It is a whole list of things. Senator Faircloth. It was not just cars? Mr. Soulsby. Oh, no; that is just one little aspect of it. There was about $1 million, I think, something like that for cars. That was only one part of the $15 million, but it was all used for equipment. Now, in 1994 the police department had $30 million that they spent on goods and services in 1995. Because of the budget crisis the police department was reduced, and we only had $16 million to spend on goods and services. It was cut one-half. That was when we first came to Congress and asked for money. That is where the $15 million came up to try to make up for some of those differences, because of the tremendous cuts. procurement system process The D.C. procurement system is a very lengthy, archaic process, a very difficult process to get things through the system. Coupled on top of that is, we had employees within the police department---- Senator Faircloth. Why is that? Mr. Soulsby. I am not an expert on it, but it requires numerous reviews by numerous people in various agencies to spend any moneys. It is a very lengthy process, which is currently going through total reengineering in and of itself. Senator Faircloth. Chief, we sat here last week and Chairman Brimmer said that it was--he was almost telling us the exact opposite on the purchasing in the city, that up to $1 million could be purchased without approval of any major agency head. I do not remember the exact words he said, but he said that he had seen many, many purchase orders come through at $999,000, just below $1 million. Mr. Soulsby. I think we are talking about two things, what he has done now versus what used to be. I think this may be the difference. You asked what occurred, why did we need this transition. The old way was very archaic, and what they did was, two things: they allowed us to bypass a lot of the review process through other agencies and we are able to go now right to the Control Board and the CFO. gsa doing purchasing request On top of that, I have contracted with GSA to do a lot of my purchasing requests now. In addition to that, they will be training a new procurement staff for the police department, so that we have people who are well trained in that area, so that we do not have this problem. It is absolutely absurd to have money to spend--with the $15 million, we worked with Congress, and they had a detailed plan of exactly where every penny was going, and everybody knew up front. That plan I submitted had to go through four committees of the hill as well as the Council, and the Mayor, before it was decided I could spend the money. Everyone knew exactly what we were going to spend it for, but then it had to go back through this archaic system before we could spend it after Congress had already approved the line item spending. Senator Faircloth. The problem was not with the Congress? Mr. Soulsby. It was the procurement system itself, as well as the quality of people working the system. Senator Faircloth. Have you ever gotten it spent? Mr. Soulsby. Yes; right now, 67 percent of it has been laid out. By the end of the year, all of it will be put in line to be spent. The one problem we are running into involves about $2.3 million, I think it is, to rework the cell blocks within the police districts. We have to work with GSA to get people to contract. Only certain types of people will come in and rebuild cell blocks, so we are trying to work that contract out. That is really the only sticky area we are having right now, but I will give you a plan in a few minutes that will show you exactly where we are, what has been spent, and what has been laid out. overtime pay in department of corrections Senator Faircloth. Ms. Moore, I heard your statement clearly, and I am troubled by the mismanagement throughout the Department of Corrections and the problems you are having. I understand that a number of employees have been improperly receiving thousands of dollars of overtime pay. Would you respond to that? Has there been a lot of misuse of overtime pay? Ms. Moore. Senator, you are referring to a recent incident involving employees in our inmate work program. This matter had been brought to our attention. I referred the matter to the inspector general for investigation. The allegation was that a number of employees---- Senator Faircloth. This is the inspector general for the city of Washington? Ms. Moore. Yes, sir; the allegation was that these employees had claimed thousands of dollars in overtime for which they were not entitled. The inspector general's investigation was completed. We have looked at the report. We are still looking at the report, but it would appear that there certainly were some improprieties, that there was clearly some management lapse in terms of our supervising or monitoring that program, and we will be taking appropriate action to deal with those employees on that particular issue. drug testing program Senator Faircloth. I note you said you had a drug testing program for inmates. Did I understand that? Ms. Moore. I testified, sir, we had implemented a comprehensive mandatory drug and alcohol testing program for employees. Senator Faircloth. For the employees only? Ms. Moore. We also test and have had in place for some time drug-testing for inmates as well. number testing positive for drugs Senator Faircloth. I notice that some report came to us that you found 72 that tested positive for drugs at the Lorton Youth Center and many more in the D.C. facilities. Is 72 a correct figure for the Lorton Youth Center that tested positive for drugs? Ms. Moore. I cannot testify to the accuracy of the numbers that were reported in the Washington Post, but I think it is important that we all understand that first of all there is no such thing as a drug-free prison or jail. Despite the best efforts of correctional professionals, inmates, staff, visitors, anyone coming in contact with the prison will find a way, if they are intent on doing so, to introduce contraband into these facilities. Our objective is to minimize it. Senator Faircloth. Are visitors not checked when they come in? Ms. Moore. Absolutely. Visitors are subject to pat searches, and we do that, but neither visitors nor staff nor other people having business in prison facilities are subject to intrusive body cavity searches, which is one of the means by which many of the drugs and other contraband enter our system. number of inmates testing positive for drugs Getting back to the Washington Post report, while it is certainly true that a number of prisoners in our system tested positive for drug use, the numbers that were reported in the Post story were somewhat skewed in that they tend to compare the D.C. correctional system, which includes the jail and halfway houses as well as the Lorton facilities, with State systems in Maryland that do not include the jail and halfway houses. Individuals who are arrested by the Metropolitan Police, who come into our jails, more often than not are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, so you are going to have a high incidence of positives for those individuals in jails. Likewise, those individuals who are in our halfway houses are in and out of those facilities daily for the purpose of working, attending some sort of program, so their access to drugs in the community obviously is going to result in a higher incidence of positives than elsewhere in the system. So if you isolate out the D.C. jail, the halfway houses, and compare the sentenced felon in the D.C. correctional system, I think you will find that we track closely to other State systems in terms of drug use in prison. Any incidence of drug use in a prison is too high, but I believe that it is important that everyone understand that there is no such thing as a drug-free jail or prison, and anyone who tells you otherwise is misrepresenting the facts and is misleading you, Senator. escapes at lorton Senator Faircloth. Ms. Moore, Lorton has become, I would use the word notorious for the number of inmates who have escaped, jumping over the fences--this is what we hear-- terrorizing the neighborhood. It has been called a factory for criminals. Now, none of us are unaware of the problems of Lorton and the facility, but why is security such a problem at Lorton? security at lorton Ms. Moore. Security is a problem at Lorton for a number of reasons. First, as I indicated in my testimony, and as I have indicated in public testimony on any number of occasions, there are more than 200 correctional officer vacancies in the D.C. correctional system. When you have that number of vacancies in any prison system you are going to have diminished security, a breakdown of security. Additionally---- Senator Faircloth. A question, if I may interrupt, these are vacancies because you do not have the money to hire them? Is that the reason, or is it because you just cannot hire people who want the job? Ms. Moore. It is a combination of both, sir. We do not have the FTE authority to add 200-plus additional correctional officers to our complement, nor has there been funding in the personnel services budget to hire 200 additional officers. In addition to that, attracting people to come to work for the D.C. Department of Corrections, because we do not earn or make competitive salaries, in fact, we are the lowest paid in the region. correctional employees in need of pay raise I would submit to you that correctional employees are in much need of a pay raise as well, if we are to be competitive over the coming years in recruiting quality people to work in our system, and also because of the uncertainty because of the future of the agency. Uncertainty about whether we are going to be privatized or federalized, is resulting in fewer and fewer people applying for work with the D.C. Department of Corrections, so it is a combination of those three factors. But in terms of security, correctional officer vacancies, as I have indicated, and an inadequate physical plant are key factors. Approximately 67 percent of the housing in our entire correctional complex at Lorton is open dormitories. Eighty- seven percent of the inmate population is classified medium and maximum security. They need to be locked up in secure prison cells, long-term prison cells. They are here because we do not have secure prison cells available. These repeat, dangerous, violence-prone prisoners are living in open dormitories, approximately 100 to 150, supervised by no more than two correctional officers. That is unconscionable, and under those types of conditions security is difficult at best. Senator Faircloth. Did I understand you to say that two people are guarding, if that is the word, 150 prisoners? Ms. Moore. In many instances, sir, that is absolutely correct. Not only are there two unarmed correctional officers-- -- Senator Faircloth. To supervise 150 medium to maximum security prisoners? Ms. Moore. Medium to high-medium security prisoners in many instances, that is correct. Senator Faircloth. Two, unarmed? Ms. Moore. That is correct. number of repeat offenders Senator Faircloth. I would think that is a prescription for disaster. How many of Lorton's current inmates are repeat offenders, and, if you know, repeat from one, two, three, four, five times? Ms. Moore. I do not know how many of them have reentered the system three, four, or five times as you ask. Senator Faircloth. How many just one time, and then I was asking more than one. Ms. Moore. Sure. Based upon the data I have available to me right now, it appears that about 11 percent of the sentenced felons in our system are repeat offenders. If you look at the total population where a significant number of them are sentenced misdemeanants, that number increases. The overall recidivism rate is well over 50 percent. Senator Faircloth. Well over 50 percent of the prisoners at Lorton have been there before? Ms. Moore. Yes, sir. privatization or federalization of correctional system Senator Faircloth. As you have mentioned, there is much discussion of what to do with the prison system of Washington, of the District. We have heard from a lot of people that were not connected with the system. I would very frankly like to hear your thoughts on privatizing the system, or changing to a Federal system. Should it be removed, would it be better to move it a considerable distance from the District of Columbia, and I am just picking western Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, southern Virginia, northern North Carolina, if it is federalized as a separate entity from the normal Federal prison system? I am thinking that most of the prisoners that you have here are being sentenced for a different reason than most Federal prisoners, so would it need to be a totally separate type, or separate facility? Give me your thoughts. You have been looking at it for 3 or 4 years out, but tell me. Ms. Moore. Well, let me respond to what I heard as a number of questions that you have raised. First of all, very candidly I do not believe that there is anything magical about privatization or federalization. The problems that have plagued the D.C. correctional system for many, many years are attributable to the inadequacy of our resources more so than any other single factor. The inadequacy of the physical plant, the inadequacy of the staffing, the inadequacy of the classification system, are all factors that drive the current state of corrections in the District of Columbia. inadequacies of facilities Senator Faircloth. These are inadequacies of facilities? Ms. Moore. Facilities and resources, yes, sir. I would submit to you that if we had the capital dollars necessary to renovate, to retrofit, and to build prison facilities at the existing Lorton complex, if we had operating dollars necessary to fill all staffing vacancies and to equip our staff and our facilities in a way that is consistent with national standards, in a way that is consistent with the recommendations contained in the report that was done by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, that we would see in relatively short order significant improvement--significant improvement in the operation of that complex. Those resources have not been available. Senator Faircloth. Let me ask you a question. Of course, you know there is enormous opposition to rebuilding Lorton where it is. I have not been to Lorton, so I do not know, but from what I have heard you would almost have to strip it to the ground and start again. Is that a fair analysis of it? How much is there that you can salvage into a new, modern prison system? There is very little there to salvage, is that right? Ms. Moore. Approximately 70 percent of the housing at Lorton has no long-term viability and needs to be replaced, so yes, a significant portion of the complex would need to be rebuilt, and I understand that there is very strong opposition to rebuilding at Lorton. I am simply trying to point out that, given the availability of capital dollars and adequate operating dollars, that we could fix the system. There is simply nothing magical about federalization. There is nothing magical about privatization. What the private sector brings to the table that we do not have right now are resources. They have the dollars to invest in capital improvement. They have the dollars to invest in staffing. Senator Faircloth. Who is they? private sector/management flexibility Ms. Moore. They, meaning the private sector, sir, and they also have management flexibility to do things that we simply cannot do, and to do them quickly--building facilities, hiring staff, renovating facilities, equipping staff. They have management flexibility. Likewise, the Federal Government, if it were to take over the system, it would have to make the same kinds of investment that I have argued for the past 3 years--additional capital dollars to rebuild the facilities either at the existing Lorton complex or somewhere else in the country, and additional operating dollars to absorb 7,000-plus additional felons into their system. So it all boils down to resources. number of felons in system Senator Faircloth. How many additional? Ms. Moore. Approximately 7,000 felons, sir. Senator Faircloth. Is that what you have at Lorton? Ms. Moore. We have approximately 7,000 sentenced felons systemwide, both in Lorton and currently housed in our contract facility in Ohio. Senator Faircloth. Has that tended to increase over the years? Is it increasing, and at what rate? Ms. Moore. The population has actually stabilized over the past 5 years. We saw a tremendous population surge in 1989 with the introduction of crack cocaine into the community, and an aggressive policing effort. We have since seen a significant reduction in our inmate population. Since 1993, I believe, we have seen a leveling off of that population. employees detailed to mayor's office Senator Faircloth. Talking about money, and we always get back to the mismanagement, but I notice that two employees have been identified as detailed to the Mayor's office at a cost of over $56,000 a year. Why were the positions detailed to the Mayor's office, and what two positions were detailed? Ms. Moore. The positions were detailed, sir, at the request of the executive. Senator Faircloth. The executive meaning the Mayor? Ms. Moore. That is correct, sir, to provide specific support services to the Mayor's office. Senator Faircloth. What were the specific support services? What does that mean? Ms. Moore. Sir, I would have to get back to you on that, to let you know exactly what these employees are doing. Senator Faircloth. But you pay them and they go to the Mayor's office every day to supposedly work? Ms. Moore. That is correct. Senator Faircloth. But you do not have any idea what they do? Ms. Moore. I do not specifically know what they do. I will find out and get back to you, sir. [The information follows:] department of corrections employees detailed to the office of the mayor Jeannette Wood--Assistant Training Administrator DS-301-13/5 (Protected Class Employee). Presently detailed to the Mayor's Office of Policy to facilitate and train staff on the Mayor's Transformation Plan. James Tufa--Staff Assistant DS-301-11. Serves as a staff assistant in the Mayor's Office of Diversity and Special Services performing the following duties: Establishes and maintains controls on incoming correspondence, responds to visitors and callers making contact with the office, ensuring appropriate responses are provided. Assists the supervisor in getting and assimilating data for special projects, budget submissions. Schedules conferences and meetings for the supervisor. Prepares personnel actions, maintains control log and filing system for personnel documents, budget and records all relevant information. Phyllis Jackson--Management Assistant/typing DS-344-06/4. Serves as a Staff Assistant in the Mayor's Office of Boards and Commissions performing the following duties: Makes arrangements for the members of Boards and Commissions. Makes arrangements for a photographer, prepares certificates, letters, oaths, affidavits, and Mayor's Orders. Makes telephone contacts with City Council members, private citizens, community and professional groups in order to invite their participation at ceremonies. Arranges and attends meetings, plans and coordinates projects for the Special Assistant to the mayor; has telephone and personal contacts with the members of the Boards and Commissions, private citizens, City Council and representatives of various District and Federal offices as required. Serves as a liaison between the Office of Boards and Commissions and the Mayor's Press Secretary and the Office of Communications. Composes and edits public information materials. Georgia M. Green--Paralegal Specialist DS-950-12/7 (Protected Class Employee). Currently detailed to the Mayor's Office of Policy to review and provide technical assistance on a critical project in the criminal justice component of the District's public safety policy i.e., Task Force on the Parole Board's Transformation. Senator Faircloth. But it has nothing to do with the prisons? Ms. Moore. No, sir. recommendation on fiscal year 1998 budget Senator Faircloth. The Control Board has recommended $10 million more than the City Council. The Council says that it is reluctant to award the department more than a $3 million increase while it remains a poorly managed operation. In other words, they are saying that--this is the City Council's approach--that it is poorly managed, so consequently they are not going to put any more money into it. Would you respond to that, and give me the rationale? mismanagement in department of corrections Ms. Moore. Well, I will respond to it, sir, and I will be very candid with you. I believe that the argument that the Department of Corrections is mismanaged is not an accurate argument. The problems that we face in our agency are attributable more to the inadequacy of our resources than any other single factor. Senator Faircloth. They say because you have a management problem they are not going to give you the money--that they do not want to, rather. Is the management problem because of a lack of money? Ms. Moore. Sir, I would submit to you that in any organization the size of the D.C. Department of Corrections, where you have more than 3,500 employees, approximately 10,000 prisoners, there is certainly an opportunity for increased management efficiencies, improvement in management. But the fact of the matter is that the problems that we face in our agency, and that we have faced for a sustained period of time, are more attributable to the inadequacy of the resources than to any other single factor. medical services Senator Faircloth. Now, if I heard you correctly earlier, you were saying that the difference is roughly $10 million between the Control Board and the D.C. Council. I did want you to elaborate on it. Did I understand medical, or medical services? That would sound like an enormous amount of money for medical services. Could you explain what medical services are, and where the money is going? Ms. Moore. The $10 million variance between the Council and the financial authority budget is a difference in the total budget. It is not just the budget in medical services. Well, actually, it is about $10 million in medical services. I am sorry. The authority's budget for medical services is $30 million, the Council's budget is $21 million overall. We are responsible for providing for the care and treatment of nearly 10,000 prisoners. We have a very, very sick inmate population. Senator Faircloth. What was that? sick inmate population Ms. Moore. For the care and treatment of nearly 10,000 prisoners. We have a very, very sick inmate population. The disease incidence in our prison system mirrors the disease incidence in the wider community of Washington, DC. There is a high incidence of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other communicable diseases. Prisoners are staying in our system for longer periods of time. They are aging, and so all of the maladies associated with a sick and aging prison population we are responsible for attending to. We are projecting overall that medical services for the entire system will cost $37 million in this fiscal year. Now, I would submit to you that those costs are driven in part by court orders and consent decrees. Any time the courts are involved in prison operations, the cost of those operations, regardless of whether it is in medical services or security, are going to be higher. receiver at d.c. jail We have a receiver at the D.C. jail that has been in place since 1995. The receiver spends a large portion of the budget. For fiscal year 1998 he has budgeted $15 million for medical and mental health services at the jail alone. Senator Faircloth. How much? d.c. jail population Ms. Moore. Fifteen million dollars for the jail population alone, which averages 1,600 inmates a day, recognizing that that is a transient population. It is a throughput population on the average. Anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 prisoners come into the jail on an annual basis, but the receiver's budget is what is driving the cost of health care systemwide. And again, I might add that if in 1994, when the courts ordered that we implement a remedial plan---- number of court orders Senator Faircloth. Excuse me. How many court orders is the prison system under? Ms. Moore. Seventeen court orders and consent decrees. Senator Faircloth. You are operating the prison system under 17 separate court orders? Ms. Moore. Yes, sir. Senator Faircloth. And it is a court order at the jail to supervise the medical treatment of prisoners coming and going? Ms. Moore. Yes; but let me finish stating, sir, that in 1994 the courts ordered that the District implement a remedial plan to cure longstanding problems in the area of medical and mental health services at the D.C. jail. An investment of a little under $1 million to hire and train staff, to equip staff, and to do some physical plant renovations would have avoided the system being placed in receivership. In spite of numerous appeals we did not get the resources necessary to implement the remedial plan to cure those problems, and consequently we are in receivership. That is an example of what some might call mismanagement. I call it a lack of commitment to appropriate adequate resources to run a very troubled prison system. number of guards to inmates Senator Faircloth. Well, one thing, a question on certainly an impressive problem, as you said. Two employees, two guards supervising 150 inmates. Now, that would to me be a formula for disaster, but by the same token you say you have 3,500 employees in the system, and 10,000 inmates. Where are the other roughly 3,000 employees, if you are down to two employees for 150 inmates? Arithmetic gives you about 3,000 doing something else. Ms. Moore. I am not sure that I understand how you arrive at that calculation, sir. We have any number of housing posts throughout the complex. Senator Faircloth. Well, I arrived at it by 150--two employees for 150. You do the arithmetic. But you have got a lot. Tell me what the others are doing. Ms. Moore. Sure. You have officers who are doing--officers are responsible for not only supervising inmates in the dormitories, in the living areas. They are also responsible for supervising movement throughout the prison, supervising other operational areas, such as the dining hall, the infirmary unit, the rec area, the transportation of prisoners. The towers are staffed 24 hours a day. There are any number of posts, and when you add up all of the posts and the required coverage for those posts either 5 days a week, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, it factors out to more than 3,500 officers needed. Senator Faircloth. Well, I am not confused that you have many, many other duties, and you are talking about two at the time, and you are there for a shift, and you have got three shifts and 7 days a week, and that would consume the people pretty quickly. should system be privatized A quick question. Would you say that the prison system should be privatized? If you had the authority, if you were the dictator to make the decision, would you say to privatize the system? I think we all agree it has got to be gotten out from under the District of Columbia. Would you say to privatize it, or would you say that the Federal Government should take it over and make it a part of the Federal prison system? Ms. Moore. Let me answer your question this way. If I had the authority, if I had the resources necessary, I would prefer quite candidly that we continue to operate the system, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to you, Senator Faircloth, and to others, that we have the capacity to do it. I am just as capable, and the staff of the D.C. Department of Corrections are just as capable of running a stellar prison system as anybody else in the country, but we need resources to do it. If we do not have a commitment to fund the D.C. Department of Corrections in such a way that the prison system can be run in a safe, secure, and humane way, I would suggest that privatization may well be a better option. Why? Because based on the information available to me the private sector can do it just as well, but in a less costly manner than the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Senator Faircloth. I thank you, Ms. Moore. I am not unaware of the problems you face trying to keep that together. number of sworn police officers Chief Soulsby, I had one last question, if I may, for you. One of the differences between the City Council budget and the Control Board budget is the timeframe for hiring additional police officers. The Control Board supports the hiring of up to 3,800 sworn officers but allows time for the recruiting and hiring and training. As of today, how many sworn police officers do you have, and how long will it take to recruit and train the additional officers to bring it up to the 3,800? recruiting process Mr. Soulsby. We have 3,612 people on board right now. The recruiting process, the background check, and especially since we are trying to ensure that we only hire the best, is a very lengthy process. If I could, I am going to have Assistant Chief Proctor, who is in charge of my recruiting and human resources, come and talk about that for just a second, if that is OK. Ms. Proctor. Good morning, Senator. Currently we are at 3,612 officers. By the beginning of the new fiscal year, October 1, we can reach 3,800 qualified. Senator Faircloth. By October 1? Ms. Proctor. Yes, sir; we have done many things to change the recruiting process. We are spending much more time on background so that the individuals that we invest this time in will remain with us and will be qualified to continue their career with the Metropolitan Police Department. pool of applicants Senator Faircloth. One last question. Do you have a pretty good pool of applicants that are qualified? Ms. Proctor. Sir, we have a very large pool. Senator Faircloth. I mean, that potentially can be qualified and trained. Ms. Proctor. We are hiring at this point approximately 1 out of every 15 people that respond to take the written exam, so that gives you an idea of the numbers that we have to process through the system. We have in the last 60 days initiated a number of procedures that will allow us to broaden the pool. We are reaching outside of the area. We are tapping into the military outprocessing centers and into the local colleges, universities, and higher learning centers. We are making greater reaches into the community, into all parts of our community to broaden the pool. Senator Faircloth. I thank you. I thank you, Ms. Moore, and I thank you, Chief Soulsby. Ms. Moore. Senator, I would like to just make one final comment for the record. You have indicated that the council has expressed an unwillingness to add additional funding to the Department of Corrections because of mismanagement. comprehensive study of department of corrections I want to point to the fact that in January 1996 a very comprehensive study of the D.C. Department of Corrections was done at the request or the mandate of Congress by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Hundreds of recommendations were contained in that report, many of them addressing management issues in the Department of Corrections. I would submit to you that if the same commitment, or the same level of commitment to correct longstanding problems, management or otherwise, in the D.C. Department of Corrections had been invested toward implementing the recommendations of that study, that we would be well on the way to dealing with systems problems throughout our agency. That investment was not made, unlike the investment that was made following the release of the Booz-Allen report on the Metropolitan Police Department. It does little good for us to study problems of systems if those studies do nothing more than sit on a shelf, take up space, and collect dust. Senator Faircloth. I could not agree with you more. We have probably done more studies and had more motion than we have had action. Additional committee questions I thank you both for coming. One quick thing. Without objection, I will keep the record open, and it will remain open until 5 p.m., Thursday, July 24, for anyone that would like to submit any additional testimony. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. According to information from the Bureau of Prisons, nearly \3/4\ of incarcerated D.C. felons are classified as medium--or high-security prisoners, and private corrections entities have not established a track record in operating the types of facilities that are appropriate for confining offenders who need this level of security. The private sector's primary experience lies in managing minimum security inmates and pretrial offenders, and the escape rate for privately-run low-security institutions is more than 25 times the escape rate for similar inmates housed in Bureau of Prisons facilities. The Bureau of Prisons has raised concerns that private sector management of the D.C. felon populations will give rise to serious public safety issues. Could you please comment on this, and describe what potential problems, if any that you foresee if medium- and high-security prisoners from the D.C. systems are moved to privately-run facilities. Answer. I am unaware of the data source which establishes that the escape rate in privately run minimum security facilities is more than 25 times the rate of escape for similarly classified prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prison facilities. Between 1992 and 1994 more than 300 of the District's medium security prisoners were housed in a Corrections Corporation of America managed facility in Mason, Tennessee without significant incident. Additionally, CCA has housed more than 800 D.C. prisoners at their recently acquired Correctional Treatment Facility in Washington, D.C. and 900 at their Northeast Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio for the last 120 days. Medium and high security prisoners are housed at these facilities. There have been no escapes from CTF or the Northeast Correctional Center. I anticipate that CCA's management of D.C.'s medium and high security prisoners at these facilities will improve as their staff gains more experience and training. Question. Earlier this year the President outlined a reform plan related to the District of Columbia, including reforms of the Department of Corrections. Under this plan, from 8 to 10 thousand prisoners now in the District's system would be moved into the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Other proposals would move large numbers of D.C. prisoners into privately run facilities. Could you please give us an update on the status of the authorizing legislation as it pertains to the Department of Corrections, and in doing so, please highlight the most significant differences between the priorities of the Department of Corrections and[ the legislation as it currently stands. Answer. The President's plan and the enabling legislation will result in the Federal Bureau of Prisons assuming financial and custodial control over the D.C.'s sentenced felon population. The District agrees in principle with the proposal to federalize the system; however, there is objection to the abolition of parole and the imposition of federal sentencing guidelines on D.C. offenders. There is ongoing discussion of these issues between the Mayor and Congresswoman Norton and other key congressional leaders in an effort to reach a compromise. Question. Currently a Medical Receiver has been set up in your department to run the mental health services at the D.C. Jail. The fiscal year 1997 court-ordered budget for the receivership was $16.2 million, and the fiscal year 1998 proposed budget is $16 million. Do you see any signs that conditions are improving under this receivership so that the Department may one day be out from under the court's control of this program? Answer. The delivery of medical and mental health services have improved at the D.C. Jail. In addition to the fact that the Receiver is an experienced correctional health care professional, he has resources and the management flexibility necessary to fix the system. He has the ability to procure goods and services without having to rely on the District's cumbersome procurement system. Additionally, he can recruit and hire well qualified personnel by offering salaries that far exceed the District's wage scales. Conversely, he can terminate employees who fail to perform without having to go through the District's protracted personnel system for adverse and corrective action. It is anticipated that the receivership will be in place for at least another three years. It is also anticipated that the receiver's spending will begin to decrease as he brings the jail's health care delivery system into compliance with the court's order. Had the Department of Corrections had the resources and management flexibility to implement the court's remedial plan for medical and mental health services at the jail the receivership would not have been ordered. Question. Within the Corrections facilities under your control, do you know how corrections employees are related to the inmates they oversee? Answer. We do not keep this data. However, in a city the size of the District of Columbia and with a work force that has been hired predominately from this city we can only surmise that a significant number of employees are related biologically or socially to inmates in our system. Employees and applicants are required to disclose if they have relatives incarcerated in the system. The Department does have in place mechanisms which make it mandatory for all staff to report to the Warden of their working institutions if they have a relative in this system. We also ask all inmates about employees relationships during the intake interview when they enter the D.C. Jail and the Lorton facilities. Management of the D.C. correctional system is complicated by the fact that we operate within such a small geographical area. It is difficult to effectively separate staff from inmates and inmates from other inmates for security reasons within such a small prison complex. Question. Can you describe the status of the REP that you have contracted to build a new corrections facility in the District of Columbia, particularly in light of your stated desire to see corrections facilities and their attendant jobs located in or near DC? Answer. Prison construction is a tremendous economic development opportunity. A 1,000 cell medium security facility results in approximately 500 temporary jobs during the construction phase and 300 to 400 permanent jobs after the facility is fully activated. Given the District's current financial state, the District of Columbia should be the preferred site for any new prison construction. The Department is in the process of developing a RFP to finance, design, site, build, and operate up to three 1,000 beds correctional facilities within the District of Columbia. One of the facilities would be a multi-custody level women's prison and the other(s) would house medium custody male offenders. It is the intention of the Department of Corrections to transmit this document to the Office of Contract Procurement by August 1, 1997. Question. In the court case of Neal v. Moore, a class of plaintiffs sued the Department for sexual harassment. As a result, in 1996 the Department was forced to spend over $800,000 to set up and staff a sexual harassment investigatory unit. An additional million are anticipated each year because of this law suit. This is millions of dollars that could be used to improve prison conditions. What is the status of Neal v. Moore, and when do you expect this case to be closed? Answer. Neal v. Director, D.C. Department of Corrections is a class action lawsuit that was filed prior to my becoming Director of this agency in 1994. Since assuming this position, I have enforced a ``zero tolerance'' policy against sexual harassment. Annual training is provided to all staff and violators of the policy are disciplined and/ or fired based on the gravity of the offense. I cannot discuss details, but I am happy to report that the District of Columbia and plaintiffs counsel has reached a settlement of this case which is expected to be approved by the U.S. District Court within the next three to six weeks. Question. The Metropolitan Police Department entered into its Memorandum of Understanding with the Mayor, Police Chief, City Council Chair and others to carry out badly needed reforms. The results were immediate--crime has dropped 20 percent in recent months. Do you think putting in place a model like the Police Department's MOU would benefit your Department? Answer. A partnership and memorandum of understanding was entered into with the Metropolitan Police Department and the Mayor, D.C. City Council, Financial Authority, U.S. Attorney, Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior Court, Corporation Council and the Department of Corrections to operationalize the recommendations made by the Booz-Allen consultants to reform the management of the police department. The M.O.U partnership has been effective because it brings key decision makers to the table to discuss and resolve issues and it has empowered the Chief of Police to procure goods and services and to hire and fire personnel without going through the District's procurement and personnel systems. The MOU model would be extremely beneficial to the Department of Corrections. Question. In May, the Control Board announced that it had awarded a contract for the transfer of 900 medium and high security inmates from the Lorton facility to Youngstown, Ohio. What is the status of this contract? How many inmates have been moved out of Lorton to Youngstown? The contract amount was not to exceed $6,831,000. If it cost $6.8 million to transfer 900 inmates, will the contract result in a savings to your Department? Answer. Between May 13, 1997 and June 1, 1997 we moved 900 prisoners to Youngstown, Ohio without incident. It's estimated that the cost associated with the transfer of these 900 inmates will be approximately $6.4 million based on a per diem rate of $55--$400,000 less than the amount budgeted. Question. The large number of court orders and consent decrees contribute to the District's high fixed expenses. The Department of Corrections currently has 13 mandates, and the Control Board estimates that these mandates cost the City $108.5 million. These court mandates represent 2 crises facing the District: one is the financial burden they impose; the second is the management problem that underlines these court orders. In your opinion, what changes in the management of your Department and the District's government are needed to get out from under these burdensome and expensive court orders? Answer. The court orders and consent decrees the department is currently under are largely attributable to inadequate resources. As confirmed by a congressionally mandated study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency the department is overcrowded, under staffed and under funded. The study confirms that the Department needs to hire at least 200 additional correctional officers, build 2,000 new prison beds and replace more than 70 percent of the current inmate housing in the system. Most of the court orders impose staffing levels for correctional officers and medical personnel. They also impose population caps at four of the seven facilities in the system. Therefore, in order for the District to comply with court orders and eventually vacate them resources must be invested to address staffing deficiencies and overcrowding. Our current strategy for addressing these long standing problems is to out source prison beds, close facilities and re-deploy existing staff to fill critical vacancies at facilities with court ordered staffing levels. The Department needs to be able to procure goods and services expeditiously. We need to be able pay correctional workers at rate comparable to the surrounding jurisdictions in order to attract and retain qualified employees (It should be noted that D.C. Department of Corrections correctional officers are the lowest paid in the region). Additionally, we need to be able to expeditiously terminate incompetent employees and replace them with highly qualified and motivated workers. In essence, to get out from under costly court orders the Department needs and investment of resources to address long standing staffing and physical plant deficiencies, and it needs management flexibility in the areas of procurement and personnel. subcommittee recess Senator Faircloth. Thank you. [Whereupon at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lauch Faircloth (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Faircloth. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Human Services STATEMENT OF WAYNE D. CASEY, INTERIM DIRECTOR OPENING STATEMENT OF LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator Faircloth. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The hearing has come to order. This is the third hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and we are to consider the District's fiscal year 1998 budget requests. This morning we are going to hear testimony on the budget requests for the Departments of Human Services, Health, and Public Works. In last year's budget, these three departments alone accounted for almost $2 billion out of the $5 billion District of Columbia budget. These three departments provide essential public services: health care for the sick and disabled, clean water and sanitation services, road maintenance and repair, among others. road maintenance We can start with the latter. The road maintenance in the city is a dismal disgrace to the Capital of the United States. There are roads within minutes actually going by the Capitol that are in scandalous condition. A recent survey confirms that a majority of District residents believe that the quality of public services is either poor or very poor. That is no way to run the Capital of the United States. Because of the poor management at the top level of local government, the overall quality of life in the Capital of this Nation is inferior to other major cities that operate on leaner budgets and fewer employees. state functions I am in no way persuaded by the argument that the District of Columbia is burdened with State functions that other cities are not responsible for. Factoring in a level playing field, the District of Columbia spends $8,286 per person to run its government. That is more spending per capita than New York at $7,673; San Francisco, $5,982; Boston, $5,455; Philadelphia, $4,804; Baltimore--Baltimore, next door--$4,649; and Indianapolis, $4,086. mismanagement Clearly the problem is not the amount of money the District has to spend. The problem is that the District mismanages--and it has for years and years mismanaged--the money. Today the Mayor is in Africa. I think he should be focusing on the problems of Washington and not Africa. The residents continue to drive down streets with potholes in them of unbelievable depth and size. Until recently, 15 percent of the fire department's ladder trucks were broken, wouldn't work. It takes one person to collect time cards for every eight employees. This is according to the Washington Post. The Mayor's office employs--we know this--twice as many people as New York and four times as many as Boston. Twice as many, and we really do not know how many he has because they come in from so many different ways. This morning we will hear from three department heads. One has been an acting head for 1 week. The other two have been interim directors for 1 year or less. I understand that because all three of you are temporary department heads, you are accompanied by others who may be able to help you. Our witnesses represent over 7,700 full-time employees and budget requests totaling $2 billion, and many question whether the services being provided match the dollars being spent. performance-based organization Mr. Bernardino, I have read your statement and am impressed with your department's efforts to become a performance-based organization. I want to encourage you to continue to shift the focus toward setting goals and measuring your success in reaching the goals. Mr. Casey, you point out in your opening statement that your department is responsible for implementing the welfare reform legislation passed by Congress last year. While certainly I support and the committee supports your efforts, I hope we can be assured that the welfare-to-work requirements will involve real jobs and not just more government handouts for make-believe jobs. Senator Boxer and Senator Hutchison have not joined us, and we hope they will before we conclude the hearing. But before we begin, let me remind all of the witnesses that your entire statement will be made part of the record, so we ask that you limit your opening statement to 10 minutes, and we will hear opening statements followed by questions from the witnesses. Now, without objection, the record will remain open until 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 31, 1997, for anyone that wishes to submit any additional testimony or to respond to questions members have of the witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. Wayne Casey, Interim Director for the Department of Human Services. The committee looks forward to your testimony, Mr. Casey, as we review the budget proposals for your department. You may proceed. statement of wayne casey Mr. Casey. Good morning, Chairperson Faircloth and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Senator Faircloth. Mr. Casey, if you will move that microphone real close. It's difficult to hear. Mr. Casey. I thought I had a booming voice, but I guess that's not the case. Let me begin again. Senator Faircloth. Well, let it boom. [Laughter.] Mr. Casey. Good morning, Chairperson Faircloth and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Wayne Casey, Interim Director of the Department of Human Services. I will present a brief statement of the department's budget reduction initiatives and the status of welfare reform implementation. A more comprehensive statement regarding the status of welfare and the status of active class action lawsuits are submitted for the record. department of human services budget The Department of Human Services' budget includes the Commission on Social Services, the Commission on Mental Health Services, and the LaShawn Child Welfare Receivership. The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the department is $637 million and 4,891 FTE's. Three hundred and fifty-seven million dollars is locally appropriated funding supported by 2,953 FTE's, and $279 million is Federal nonappropriated funding supporting 1,938 FTE's. The fiscal year 1998 budget has 264 FTE's less than fiscal year 1997. The department has instituted numerous spending reductions, revenue enhancement initiatives, and staff reductions to address the fiscal crisis. homemaker services To better utilize limited resources, the Commission on Social Services delegated responsibilities for the homemakers services program to the Office of Aging Services. This office traditionally operated a homemaker services program. Thus, the administrative expenses were reduced without compromising the quality of services, resulting in an effective and efficient use of funds. The Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities Administration, better known as MRDDA, has moved to stabilize the payment system and reduce costs by: one, finalizing rules to ensure that clients and their families who have the resources are charged for the cost of care; and two, developing a uniform rate structure for the different levels of service provided to clients. welfare reform program The Department of Human Services is the lead agency responsible for implementing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly referred to as welfare reform. The department, in conjunction with the Financial Authority, has retained consultants to assist in preparing the District's Comprehensive Welfare Reform Program and implementing required changes in the administration and management of social welfare programs currently managed by the District. mental health services Virtually all of the services provided by the Commission on Mental Health Services are mandated by the Federal or District statute or are provided under the auspices of the Dixon v. Barry court order. The fiscal year 1998 budget request of $98.9 million reflects an increase of $2.3 million over the 1997 budget. In keeping with the court mandate, the commission will close 70 beds at St. Elizabeths Hospital and consolidate outpatient therapeutic and outreach programs for child and youth services. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1998 budget. I am available for any questions. Let me just add for the record that I am pleased to say that I have been for the last 18 months the interim director of the Department of Human Services. I have led the department through its most difficult time. We have lost almost 4,000 employees over the last 3 years, budget reductions over $221 million over the last 3 years, and we are stable and we are doing fine. prepared statement Welfare reform is in good hands. As we talk with other States around the country, in our region, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we feel confident that we are in good shape at this point. We meet weekly with those States and share observations and comments about the oncoming impact of law changes on a daily basis. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Wayne D. Casey Good morning Chairperson Faircloth and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Wayne Casey, Interim Director of the Department of Human Services (DHS). I am joined by Deloras Shepherd, Chief Financial Officer of Human Development and Comprehensive Health; A. Sue Brown, Acting Deputy Director; Eileen Elias, Acting Commissioner of Mental Health Services; and Annie Goodson, Acting Commissioner of Social Services. I will present a brief statement of the department's budget reduction initiatives and the status of welfare reform implementation. A more comprehensive statement regarding the status of welfare and the status of active class action lawsuits are submitted for the record. The Department of Human Services budget includes: the commission on social services, the commission on mental health services, and the Lashawn child welfare receivership. The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the department is $637 million and 4,891 FTE's. $357 million is local/appropriated funding supporting 2,953 FTE's and $279 million is Federal/non-appropriated funding supporting 1,938 FTE's. The fiscal year 1998 budget has 264 FTE's less than fiscal year 1997. The department has instituted numerous spending reductions, revenue enhancement initiatives and staff reductions to address the fiscal crisis. To better utilize limited resources the Commission on Social Services delegated responsibilities for the Homemakers Services Program to the Office on Aging Services. This office traditionally operated a Homemaker Services Program thus the administrative expenses were reduced without compromising the quality of services resulting in an effective and efficient use of funds. The Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities Administration (MRDDA) has moved to stabilize the payment system and reduce costs by (1) finalizing rules to ensure that clients and their families who have the resources are charged for the cost of care, and (2) developing a uniform rate structure for the different levels of service provided to clients. The Department of Human Services is the lead agency responsible for implementing the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996'', commonly referred to as ``welfare reform''. The department, in conjunction with the financial authority, has retained consultants to assist in preparing the District's Comprehensive Welfare Reform Program and implementing required changes in the administration and management of social welfare programs currently managed by the District. Virtually all of the services provided by the Commission on Mental Health Services are mandated by Federal or District statute, or are provided under the auspices of the Dixon v. Barry court order. The fiscal year 1998 budget request of $98.9 million reflects an increase of $2.3 million over fiscal year 1997. In keeping with the court mandate the commission will close 70 beds at St. Elizabeths Hospital and consolidate outpatient therapeutic and outreach programs for child and youth services. We thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1998 budget plan for the District of Columbia Department of Human Services. status of active class action lawsuits 1. Lashawn v. District of Columbia (Child Welfare System) 1989--Case filed in federal court. 1995--The court names Jerome Miller as General Receiver. 1997--The Department of Health and Human Services informed Dr. Miller that federal funding is threatened. 1997--The Court-approved Monitor reported that on virtually every measure, the District was more successful at compliance in 1995 than the Receivership is 1997. 1997--Jerome Miller is replaced by Acting Receiver, pending recruitment of a final replacement. 2. Dixon v. District of Columbia (Mental Health Services) 1974--Case filed against the United States government. Interim--extensive deinstitutionalization occurs and service delivery privatized. 1997--After a variety of compliance-related problems, Court orders commission into receivership. The receiver has not yet been identified. 3. Evans v. District of Columbia (Mental Retardation Services) 1976--Case filed in federal court. 1991--After extensive deinstitutionalization and the privatization of service delivery, Forest Haven closes. 1996--Court appoints a special master to ensure vendors are paid timely. 4. Jerry M. v. District of Columbia (Youth Services) 1985--Case filed in Superior Court. 1993--Cedar Knoll is closed. 1995--Receiving Home is closed. 1996--Oak Hill School is privatized. 1997--Court appoints Special Master to develop plan for administration of the education program. 5. Salazar v. District of Columbia (Medicaid) 1993--Case filed in federal court. 1997--Remedial Order issued and Court names a Monitor. Additional committee questions Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Casey. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. The Metropolitan Police Department entered into its memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Mayor, Police Chief, City Council Chair and others to carry out badly needed reforms. The results were immediate--arrests are up and crime is down. Do you think putting in place a model like the Police Department's MOU would benefit your Department? Answer. While the MOU on the surface may appear to work for the Metropolitan Police Department, it would not be a prudent administrative approach for the Department of Human Services. It caters to an independent agency structure resulting in turfism and divisiveness. History has demonstrated that this has not worked in other areas throughout the government. Coordination and linkages to other governmental entities undergrid the smooth operation of a human service agency. The absence of coordination would overtime seriously undermine the agency's service delivery effectiveness. Moreover, it sets in motion a fragmented governance. An MOU would only put in place a short term solution destined to collapse over the long term. This would be counter productive. Question. The budget documents report that one of the department's initiatives is to return to the District 10 percent of the youth who are in out-of-state facilities. One option for the placement of these young people is to convert the D.C. Village facility. What is the status of this initiative? Are you still looking at the D.C. Village site? Answer. The Youth Services Administration (YSA) has exceeded the 10 percent return goal. Before this initiative, approximately 102 youth were in out-of-state residential placements. The number of youth in these facilities is now 78. Given the reduction in out-of-state placements, D.C. Village is no longer being considered for the placement of young people. Rather, the city will use the facility for economic development purposes. Further, YSA's planned participation in the Managed Care Initiative for the Child Prototype, which will build local capacity, should reduce the number of youth being placed in out-of-state residential facilities. Question. One of the department's cost-cutting initiatives calls for contracting out services at Oak Hill Youth Center. Budget documents provided to the Committee report that the Youth Services Administration had planned to conclude the RFP process by December and seek Control Board approval for the contract award in January 1997. It appears that the contract is not yet in place. What is the cause of the delay in contracting at Oak Hill? Answer. There is no delay in contracting Oak Hill Youth Center. This was proposed as a fiscal year 1998 initiative by YSA. YSA is moving toward this fiscal year 1998 goal. One difficulty is the physical condition of the Oak Hill facility. YSA received notice that capital funds were available in July 1997, to repair the Oak Hill boiler. In fiscal year 1998, other life and safety repairs are scheduled, which will enhance the likelihood of an increased pool of bidders for this initiative. Question. It was recently reported in one office in the D.C. Department of Human Resources, 51 people were being paid from an office that only had 39 employees assigned to it. If you want to hire or fire someone, what is the process you must follow? What changes would you make in the process if you could make changes? Answer. Hiring of employees is done on the basis of merit, pursuant to the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (CMPA) (D.C. Code Sec. 1-101.1 et. seq.). Applicants for employment are evaluated either on a written examination (as is the case for police officers, firefighters and correctional officers) or established qualification requirements. Additionally, candidates are awarded veterans preference and residency preference, as applicable. New employees are subject to a one year probationary period (except for police officers, who are subject to an 18 month probationary period), during which time they may be separated at will. Removal of employees is based on cause, as defined in title XVI of the CMPA (Subchapter XVII). The CMPA provides that an action to remove an employee must be proposed no more than 45 days from the date that the agency knew or should have known of the act or event which constitutes cause. Further, the employee is entitled to make a written response and to receive a written decision within 45 days of the date that charges are preferred. The employee may appeal a removal to the District's Office of Employee Appeals (OEA), established by Title VI of the CMPA. Also, the employee may appeal under an alternative process (generally, grievance arbitration) if covered by a collective bargaining agreement that so provides. On January 30, 1997, the Executive submitted proposed personnel reform legislation to the Council for consideration. The Executive's bill (Bill 12-44) proposes to transform the existing adverse and corrective action system, as well as the grievance system by first simplifying the statutory framework of these systems. Under the CMPA, corrective and adverse actions must be proposed within 45 days of the act which constitutes cause. Surveys have been conducted on the efficiency of the ``45-day rule'' since its inception. The results of one survey indicated that, in as many as 245 cases, there was probable cause to take action, however, these actions could not be initiated because of the agency's inability to propose the action within the 45-day limit. Such inflexibility is being addressed in the Executive's bill. We propose to remove this arbitrary limitation; further, we propose to consolidate the number of causes for which action may be taken from 22 to 5. This modification would eliminate the necessity of making arcane distinctions as is currently needed to determine the appropriate cause to be cited in a proposed action. Another revision to the adverse and corrective action system which Bill 12-44 proposes is the removal of yet another arbitrary time frame in the internal agency process. Currently, the CMPA directs that within a 45-day period from the date the proposed notice is issued, the employee is entitled to receive a written decision, except when there is an on-going criminal prosecution against the employee for the same act or offense. (This 45-day period is commonly referred to as the ``2nd 45-day period''). The 2nd 45-day period has been an issue in countless appeals before the OEA, notwithstanding the fact that case law has defined the ``2nd 45-day'' requirement as directory, whereas the ``1st 45-day period'' was determined to be a mandatory. Accordingly, we propose to remove this unnecessary hurdle in light of the fact that the revised disciplinary system will reduce the amount of time that it takes to process a disciplinary action. These measures will provide our managers with greater flexibility while eliminating artificial limitations and distinctions which complicate these processes. The Executive's bill will also address the limitations in our current adverse and corrective action systems which permit employees who have been involved in criminal activity to remain on the payroll while agencies or law enforcement entities conduct required investigations. The bill proposes to reduce the period during which an employee must be carried in an administrative leave status from ten to five work days in instance where the employee has falsified official records, fraudulently secured appointment, or has been indicated on, arrested for, or convicted of a felony charge or of any crime that bears a relationship to the employee's position, and to permit personnel authorities to place such employees on enforced annual or personal leave or leave without pay at the conclusion of the administrative leave period. In any instance where a determination is made that no further administrative action is to be taken against the employee, leave or pay which was lost to the employee during the period of enforced leave would be retroactively restored. Further, proposed reductions in the time needed to process a disciplinary action included revisions to the appeal process Bill 12-44 provides that appeals to the OEA will be limited to terminations for cause, thus guaranteeing a smaller caseload for OEA. An employee whose termination is proposed for cause will have a right, upon request, to an adversary hearing prior to a final decision by the agency. Accordingly, the proposed legislation strikes an appropriate balance by preserving the essential requirements of due process for employees and by providing management with the tools to act promptly when it needs to discipline an employee. We also propose to integrate into the disciplinary and grievance process alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to more economically and efficiently resolve disputes and to provide an expedited, responsive, less formal means of redress for employees. Question. What aspects of the city's contracting system would you change? Answer. The District of Columbia's contracting system is similar to the federal government's contracting system. What is needed in the District of Columbia government is training for procurement and program personnel and performance standards. An aggressive training program has been implemented to train program and procurement personnel in our efforts to reform the contracting process. Program/technical staff greatly affect the procurement process, which makes program and procurement personnel stakeholders in the contracting process. A collective approach from procurement/program staff is needed in order to reform the contracting process Question. In a recent Control Board report on the status of all grants in the District of Columbia: 57 grants were listed for your department, totaling over $90 million. Of these grants: the department has not obligated any funds on 12 of the grants; the department has over obligated funds on 5 of the grants; and the department has obligated less than 25 percent of the funds on 20 of the grants. Question. What is the department doing to address this problem? What role does the District's Office of Grants Management and Development play in overseeing your department's grants? Answer. Report on the status of all grants in the Department: As the Financial Authority report referenced in this question has not been identified and it is not clear that the report was shared with the Department, we cannot specifically comment on the referenced grant report. Further, number of grants mentioned (57) appears to include grants from the Department of Health (formerly a component of DHS). Nonetheless, the Department loads budgets based on the approved grant authority received from the granting Agency. The process to load and obligate funds is as follows: --The agency receives a grant award and forwards the request for approval to the Office of Grants Management and Development; --The budget is loaded into the Financial Management System (FMS) in accordance with the approved budget; --The program requests the obligation of funds through a requisition to the office of the Chief Financial Officer for the Department for approval and transmission to the Office of Contracts, Grants and Procurement. --The Office of Contracts, Grants and Procurement processes the request and sends it to the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority for review and approval. --The Office of Contracts, Grants and Procurement forwards a copy of the approved executed agreement to the Chief Financial Officer's office. --The Chief Financial Officer's payables unit enters the request for obligation into FMS and forwards it to the District's centralized obligation unit for final review and obligation. The Department has not obligated any funds on 12 of the grants: The approval process and untimely procurement actions are generally responsible for delays in grant obligations. However, most of our grants have more than one year spending authority. The Department has over obligated funds on five of the grants: The FMS system will not allow obligations which exceed the approved budget authority level. An assessment of the grants in question must be made in order to respond to this comment. The Department has obligated less than 25 percent of the funds on 20 of the grants. As stated earlier this number probably is inclusive of the Department of Health's grants and therefore, would need to be reviewed on a grant by grant basis. The obligation process is based on the timing and approval of grant authority and approved executed agreements which often cause delays in obligation of grant funds. Question. In 1996, the president signed into law the Personal Responsibility Act. This Act requires the District to monitor support payments from non-custodial parents. Failure to do so could result in a reduction of Federal grant money to the District. For example, under the Act, the department is required to provide paternity information to a national database by October 1, 1998. Question. Would you please give the Committee a progress report on the department's compliance with this legislation? Answer. The federal New Hire legislation will be introduced to the Council of the District of Columbia during the September 1997 session. The development and maintenance of the database will be the responsibility of a private contractor who will be selected by October 1997. The Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement (OPCSE) has entered into a cooperative agreement with the State Center for Health Statistics to enhance the voluntary acknowledgment process with all D.C. birthing hospitals. As well as implementing an incentive agreement for increasing the number of paternities established. This will be accomplished with utilization of an automated database available to the State Center for Health Statistic and the local hospitals. The privatization of OPCSE operations is to be completed by the end of 1997. The REP issuance is scheduled for August 1997, with selection and award of a prospective contractor by November 1997. Administrative process legislation, mandated under PRWORA to streamline the District's current judicial process of child support cases, will be submitted to the Council of the District of Columbia by September 1997. Question. It was recently reported that your department has spent more money from a federal victims assistance program on staff salaries than on helping victims of violent crime. None of the $.47 million was passed to community groups to provide crime victims with counseling, legal assistance and other aid. In 1996 the same thing happened in the department with a federal program designed to help abused children. This is a serious management program. Have you put in place a plan to make sure federal grant money reaches the people it is intended to help? Answer. Reports regarding the Crime Victims Assistance Program were inaccurate. In fact, through the program's social work staff, victims of violent crime received a variety of support services. The services included crisis intervention, counseling, bereavement support, emergency transportation and peer support groups. In fiscal year 1995, the crime victims assistance program served 4,740 citizens. While the District is treated as a ``state'' for funding purposes, it remains, characteristically, an inner city with an extraordinary homicide rate drive by street violence. The crime victims assistance program and its staff have been commended by federal agencies, community-based programs and local universities for their efforts on behalf of victims of violent crime. In April 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia presented the crime victims assistance program with the Justice for Victims of Crime Award for outstanding service to crime victims and their families. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also recognized the expertise of the District's staff in the area of support to survivors of homicide. The staff routinely served as consultants and facilitators in DOJ sponsored discussions about services for survivors of homicide. The federal grant permitted the use of funds to provide direct services to victims by agency social workers. The Department of Justice guidelines cite the following for use of funds: E. Allocation of Funds within the States--``VOCA (Victims of Crime) funds granted to the states are to be used by eligible public and private nonprofit organizations to provide direct services to crime victims. States have sole discretion for determining which organization will receive funds and in what amounts as long as the recipients meet the requirements of VOCA and the program guidelines''. The VOCA guidelines further allow states to ``pay salaries and benefits for staff and consultant fees to administer and manage the financial and programmatic aspects of VOCA''. Therefore, it was appropriate that DHS social workers and social service aides assigned to the program be paid from the grant. The single exception was the case of a GS-3 clerk typist who had intake duties. Because a portion of her time was spent on administrative functions unrelated to direct client services delivery, both the District and the Justice Department agreed that the District should pay 50 percent of the clerk's salary. However, following an April 1996 program review, Justice Department officials who monitor the assistance grant recommended in September 1996 that the District provide crime victims assistance through community-based service providers rather than government staff. The District was in agreement with this recommendation. Contrary to the published reports, the District had previously awarded subgrants in fiscal year 1994 to the House of Ruth, the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, Deaf Pride, Inc., the Whitman-Walker Clinic and Survivors of Homicide. In fiscal year 1996, an award was made to the D.C. Rape Crisis Center. Mayor Marion Barry, Jr. wrote to the Department of Justice on February 12, 1997 to inform the agency of his decision to designate the Office of Grants Management and Development as the official state agency to receive the funds and manage subgrants. The District phased- out the operation of the DHS crime victims assistance program and transferred the funds to the Office of Grants Management and Development on April 30, 1997. The District has begun the process of reform through the following actions: --development of a competency-based procurement training program in which procurement specialists and program staff have been trained; --trained program staff in the development of statements of work for contracts; --reduced the level of bureaucracy in the contracting and grants process by delegating contracting and small purchase authority to agency heads; --established a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Human Services and United States Department of Health and Human Services, Program Support Center for the acquisition of goods and services; --worked with the Office of Grants Management and Development to ensure quarterly reporting of the status of expenditures of grant funds and reporting of programmatic actions to achieve the goals of the grants. Question. The Control Board had identified over 2 dozen city employees who have been detailed from different departments to the Mayor's Office. The Control Board determined that 7 employees in your department were detailed to the Mayor's Office. What 7 positions were detailed to the Mayor's Office? Why were they detailed? What were their duties in the Mayor's Office? What is the current status of these 7 employees? Are they still on detail to the Mayor's Office? Have their positions been terminated or are they still employed by your department? Answer. Employees are currently detailed to following positions in the Mayor's Office: Deputy Ombudsman--DS-13--Office of the Ombudsman; Program Assistant--DS-07--Office of the Ombudsman; Clerk--DS-03--Office of the Ombudsman; Staff Assistant--DS-11--Office of Intergovernmental Relations; and Public Health Advisor--DS-11--Office of Policy and Evaluation. The employees were detailed in order to carry out certain duties and responsibilities required to ensue undue interruption to the operation of the organization. The duties assigned to these positions are as follows: Deputy Ombudsman--Responsible for assisting in the development and implementation of a District-wide community outreach program. Oversees the day-to-day operation of the office as well as in the communities and business areas. Program Assistant--Prepares, coordinates and controls various documents dealing with program/project assignments, policy development/ modification proposals, and organization implementation issues. Assist in the coordination of the work plans with the professional staff, monitors and evaluates the status of long and short range objectives or initiatives of the office. Clerk--Provides Clerical and administrative support to the operation of the office. Staff Assistant--Serves as Legislative Analyst, performing a variety of legislative project assignments relating to congressional legislative matters affecting the District of Columbia. Public Health Advisor--Provides advise and conducts research on policies and legislation relating to HIV/AIDS. Five of the seven employees are still on detail to the Executive Office of the Mayor. We are reviewing the duties and responsibilities of these employees as it relates to the mission of the Department of Human Services. It is anticipated that this issue will be resolved in the near future. Question. Since August 1995 the department's child welfare program has been run by a receiver. This program runs the city's foster care agency. It is the Committee's understanding the foster care program costs $103 million, has 400 employees and care for 2,700 foster children in the District. The city expects to spend $88.5 million during the next fiscal year to comply with this court-ordered receivership. What is the status of this case? Answer. In early 1997 the Court-approved Monitor found that on virtually every measure, the District was more successful at compliance with the governing Court Orders in 1995 than the Receivership. In June 1997 the Court-appointed Receiver, Dr. Miller, resigned and the Receivership is managed currently by an Acting Receiver. It is anticipated that the Court will appoint a new Receiver in September 1997. letter from wilfred hamm Child and Family Services, LaShawn General Receivership, Washington, DC, July 30, 1997. Hon. Lauch Faircloth, Chairman, Subcommittee of the District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Faircloth: This letter is in response to your letter of July 24th to Mr. Wayne Casey, Interim Director, D.C. Department of Human Services, asking several follow-up questions to a recent testimony he presented to the Committee. Due to timing, I am responding directly to you, with regard to your question number nine, involving the District's Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), which is presently under the authority of the LaShawn General Receivership, per LaShawn A. v. Barry et al, civil no. 89-1754, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. First, you asked about CFSA's budget. CFSA's fiscal year 1997 budget is broken down as follows: [Dollars in millions] Local Appropriation............................................... 70.5 Title IV-E Funding................................................ 19.9 Capped Federal Grants............................................. 4.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total....................................................... 94.5 It is our view that the Agency's Title IV-E budget authority should reflect $22.8 million, and therefore we are currently in discussions with the District's CFO to reconcile the difference ($2.9 million). It is also the view of the Receivership that the Agency's current budget level does not allow it to maintain existing services to children and families, while also making the necessary up-front investments that will allow the Receivership to reform the District's child welfare system. Many improvements and resources are needed to provide a more efficient and effective capacity to better serve and protect the District's children. The Agency provides services to approximately 9,000 children and their families. The District is legally responsible for 2,800 children who are currently in the foster care system. In an effort to prevent children from entering the foster care system and preserving the family, the Agency also provides services to 6,200 children who are currently with their parents or relatives. In addition, the Agency provides services to 415 adoptive parents. The Agency provides services to these various client groups through its 647 employees (448 District employees and 206 contract employees), and various provider organizations. Finally, you asked for a status of the case creating the Receivership. In that the court order creating the Receivership is not time limited, the Receivership intends to continue to proceed with instituting the necessary child welfare reforms. Perhaps the greatest impediment to reforming the system is that there exists a lack of sufficient resources to invest in reform measures. This clearly has and will continue to slow up our reform efforts, thereby prolonging the life of the Receivership. I thank you for your interest, and if there are any further questions, please feel free to write and/or call me at (202) 546-9343. Sincerely, Wilfred Hamm, Interim General Receiver. Question. St. Elizabeths Hospital was put under a court order that went into effect in 1975, and in June 1997 the court appointed a receiver. The Control Board and City Council report that the fixed costs of operating St. Elizabeths cannot be meaningfully reduced unless entire units are closed. The city spends $40 million a year on St. Elizabeths and the facility is reportedly half-empty. In your opinion, what are the city's options for St. Elizabeths? Answer. St. Elizabeths Hospital must be aggressively down-sized/ consolidated. The hospital occupies two campuses (West and East campuses) that rely on antiquated centralized utility infrastructures. These infrastructures require on-going and expensive maintenance to ensure that the hospital's patient safety and security meet accrediting and certifying agency standards. For the hospital consolidation to be successful, the Commission must take a number of steps to change how service is delivered and the appropriate facilities that should be allocated to this service. These include: --Close the psychiatric child and adult acute inpatient beds (150) by contracting out this care to local hospitals. --Down-size the hospital's long-term/continuing care adult beds from 392 to between 50 and 125 beds. These beds should remain on the East Campus. --Move all administrative and community services to the East Campus and establish appropriate utility support for the remaining patient care and support sites (all on the East Campus), making each building utility self-sufficient. --Maintain the John Howard Pavilion/inpatient forensic building (located on the East Campus). Question. Should the facility be closed? Answer. No. Question. The department has an ongoing problem of executing contracts and this has resulted in late payments to vendors. To address this problem, the department has been working to make sure that vendors have been paid on time and has put in place an automated payment system. Is the automated payment system helping the department make its payment deadlines? Answer. The automated payment system applies to the ``Child and Youth'' educational program in the Commission on Mental Health. The system requires that on a quarterly basis, estimate of payments for three months be made and checks generated on the 25th day of each month. The system is working and payments are made on time. Question. Is the department late in its payment to any vendors? If so, how many? What percentage of the late payments are more than 30 days late?--more than 60 days late?--more than 120 days late? Answer. The District's prompt payment act requires that payment to vendors be made within forty days of submission of a valid invoice. Some payments are made beyond the stipulated period, however, because of the volume of transactions, approximately 2,500 per month, and the fact that checks are generated centrally through the D.C. Treasurer's Office, it is difficult to age the late payments. Question. In your capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Human Services: What kinds of successes have you realized and what obstacles have you encountered in implementing welfare reform in the District of Columbia? Have you been able to move people from welfare to work? Have you been able to save money in the budget? Answer. Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD).--The District is implementing a campaign to increase the supply of licensed child development homes which was begun with an initiative involving IBM and AT&T, the Child Care Resource and Referral Service and the Office of Early Childhood Development. Twenty new providers will be added to the available pool of care in the District as a result of this initiative. We will award school age care grants to 20 organizations to increase the supply of before and after school care before the end of this fiscal year. rehabilitation services administration Successes The DDD has closed 259 cases as allowances or continuances of the ``under age 18'' cases. Obstacles Many parents did not give full cooperation to the redetermination process. The Social Security Administration (SSA) should have identified and transferred cases of the 854 SSI recipients previously allowed as a child ages 18 or under in a more timely manner. DDD has experienced a tremendous increase in workload of 854 redetermination of children under age 18 and children 18 redetermination for adjudication under the SSA adult listings. Question. Have you been able to move people from welfare to work? Answer. Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) Successes The District of Columbia has successfully implemented the required portions of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. We implemented TANF on March 1, 1997, enabling the District to receive enhanced funding retroactive to the date of submission of the state plan, December 3, 1996. The second phase of implementation will focus on moving a far larger portion of recipients to work. We plan to achieve this by continuing our Work first effort, which requires applicants and recipients at recertification to engage in a job search as a condition of assistance, and offering a set of disregards from earnings that will ensure that work is always more profitable than welfare. One of our greatest frustrations with welfare reform is the relative scarcity of jobs in the District of Columbia. We are exploring the availability of jobs in the suburbs and ways to reduce transportation barriers. The District, as you know, has lost over 50,000 jobs this decade and our projected employment growth rate until the year 2000 is less than one percent. This bleak employment picture makes it very difficult to successfully implement a work-based welfare system. However, as of June 30, 1997, welfare-to-work programs have placed 246 individuals (TANF applicants and recipients) in full-time unsubsidized employment. Obstacles We have not saved money in the budget due to the implementation of welfare reform as, unlike other jurisdictions, our TANF caseload, while reduced, has not dropped dramatically. The absence of a steep reduction in the caseload no doubt reflects, in part, the general low employment growth rate, as previously discussed. Department of Health STATEMENT OF MARLENE KELLEY, M.D., INTERIM DIRECTOR ACCOMPANIED BY DR. PAUL OFFNER, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON HEALTH CARE FINANCE Senator Faircloth. We are going now to Dr. Kelley. Dr. Kelley. Good morning, Chairman Faircloth and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Marlene Kelley, the interim director of the Department of Health. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Department of Health. fiscal year 1998 budget for department of health The total fiscal year 1998 local budget request for the Department of Health is $455.8 million and 255 FTE's, which includes $409.1 million and no FTE's for the Medicaid Program and $46.7 million and 255 FTE's for programs formerly within the abolished Commission of Public Health. A summary of the department's budget is attached for your convenience. Spending reduction initiatives for fiscal year 1998 affect every major component of the Department of Health and the services that we deliver. Highlights of our initiatives are as follows. One, the Long Term Care Administration was eliminated. There have been reductions taken in the budgets for ambulatory health; the Office of the Director, including funding for staff development and improvements in technology; the school health program; the Preventive Health Services Administration; the Agency for HIV/AIDS; and the Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration. There have been budget reductions proposed for the medical charities program and the Office of Nutrition Planning. medicaid program Savings and cost containment proposals for the Medicaid Program include enrolling Medicaid-eligible persons in managed care organizations that are compensated at a capitated rate for a savings of approximately $1 million per month; reducing reimbursement rates for nursing homes, hospitals, and group homes for persons with mental retardation; implementing a prospective reimbursement system for group homes that builds in efficiency incentives and revises allowable cost standards; tightening nursing home payments and ensuring that Medicare is billed before Medicaid; obtaining a home and community-based waiver for persons with developmental disabilities and the preparation of a similar waiver for the elderly population; and embracing the President's proposal to increase the Federal Medicaid match for the District from 50 to 70 percent and the cost containment measures and initiatives for increasing program efficiency. assumption of professional licensing functions In fiscal year 1998, this new Health Department will assume the environmental regulation and professional licensing and service facilities regulation functions formerly provided by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs [DCRA]. Because the fiscal crisis is governmentwide, responsibility for the professional licensing function comes to us from DCRA with meager resources. A possible funding solution is to support the functions from a dedicated account comprised of fees generated by the transferred functions. prepared statement The Department of Health is the first new department under the Mayor's transformation plan and much is expected of us. We are committed to continued implementation of the Mayor's comprehensive vision and plan for a new D.C. government that is dedicated to planned, orderly, prudent management of our affairs. We will do our best to promote and protect the public health of the District for its residents and visitors. Thank you. [The statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Marlene Kelley Good morning, Chairman Faircloth and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Marlene Kelley, M.D., Interim Director, Department of Health (``DOH''). I am joined by Melvin Roberts, Chief Operating Officer, DOH; Paul Offner, Deputy Director for Health Care Finance; and Deloras Shepherd, Chief Financial Officer for Human Development and Comprehensive Health. We thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Department of Health. The mission of the Department of Health is to establish District- wide standards for safe and quality service delivery; ensure the provision of high quality health services; foster health promotion and disease prevention; structure an efficient and cost effective health care financing system; and implement, monitor and evaluate the department's strategic health plan and the District's State Health Plan. Our goals are to ensure full implementation of the reorganization plan transition work plan; centralize the State Health Agency functions to improve the coordination of policy development across agencies; promote healthier behavior through emphasis on preventive health services; enhance efficiency through automation and technology enhancement initiatives; and improve management efficiency by streamlining administrative functions. Our priorities for fiscal year 1998 are to reduce death and disability resulting from chronic and communicable diseases; perform essential state health functions; maximize utilization of Federal revenue; provide a quality and effective substance abuse prevention and treatment program within available resources; establish an effective and efficient contracts and procurement system; and improve the operations and physical plant of the medical examiner's office. The total fiscal year 1998 local budget request for DOH is $455.8 million and 255 FTE's, which includes $409.1 and no FTE's for the Medicaid Program and $46.7 million and 255 FTE's for programs formerly within the abolished Commission of Public Health. A summary of the department's budget is attached for your convenience. Spending reduction initiatives for fiscal year 1998 affect every major component of DOH and the services that we deliver. Highlights of our initiatives follow. The Long Term Care Administration (``LTCA'') was eliminated. Reductions have been taken in the budgets for ambulatory health; the Office of the Director, including funding for staff development and improvements in technology; the School Health Services Program; Preventive Health Administration; the Agency for HIV/AIDS (``AHA''); and the Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (``APRA''). Budget reductions are proposed for the medical charities program and the office of nutrition planning. Savings and cost containment proposals for the Medicaid program include: --Enrolling Medicaid eligible persons in managed care organizations that are compensated at a capitated rate for a savings of approximately $1 million a month; --Reducing reimbursement rates for nursing homes, hospitals and group homes for persons with mental retardation; --Implementing a prospective reimbursement system for group homes that builds in efficiency incentives and revises allowable cost standards; --Tightening nursing home payments and ensuring that Medicare is billed before Medicaid; --Obtaining a home and community-based waiver for persons with developmental disabilities and the preparation of a similar waiver for the elderly population; and --Embracing the President's proposal to increase the Federal Medicaid match for the District from 50 to 70 percent and the cost containment measures and initiatives for increasing program efficiency. In fiscal year 1998, the new department will assume the environmental regulation, professional licensing, and service facilities regulation functions formerly provided by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (``DCRA''). Because the fiscal crisis is government-wide, responsibility for the professional licensing function comes to us from DCRA with meager resources. A possible funding solution is to support the functions from a dedicated account comprised of fees generated by the transferred functions. Despite budget difficulties and reductions, we have made some headway. Our major achievements include the closure of the D.C. Village nursing facility; the establishment of the community health workers program; the receipt of a three year grant from CDC to improve pediatric nutrition surveillance system; implementation of substance abuse ``MATES'' intensive day program to provide counseling services to women who are substance abusers; restructuring the AIDS drug assistance program delivery system; and the achievement of a partnership with the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide contracts and procurement processing support. conclusion DOH is the first new department under the Mayor's transformation plan and much is expected of us. We are committed to continued implementation of the Mayor's comprehensive vision and plan for a new District of Columbia government that is dedicated to planned, orderly, prudent management of our affairs. We will do our best to promote and protect the public health of the District for its residents and visitors. Thank you. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1998 GROSS BUDGET BY TYPE OF FUNDING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local Local Nonlocal Nonlocal Gross Gross Department FTE amount FTE amount FTE amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health.............................................. 255 $46,712 454 $78,493 709 $125,205 Medicaid............................................ ..... 409,136 71 417,460 71 826,596 ----------------------------------------------------------- Total......................................... 255 455,848 525 495,953 780 951,801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional committee questions Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Dr. Kelley. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. The Department of Health's 1998 budget states that its number one program priority is to reduce the mortality rate resulting from violence and communicable and chronic disease. What was the District's mortality rate for 1996? Over the past three years did the District's mortality rate rise or decline? Please provide specific annual rates. How does this trend compare with the rates of other cities of comparable size? Has the Department established a specific mortality rate reduction for 1998? If so, what is it? How does the department plan to achieve this reduction? Answer. The District's mortality rates for the leading causes of death for 1990 through 1995 are listed on the charts contained at Attachment 1. The mortality statistics for fiscal year 1996 will be available within 90 days. [Clerk's note.--Attachment 1 is being held in the files of the subcommittee.] Mortality rates vary according to the condition being considered. However, the average life expectancy of African-American males in the District is ten years less than white males in the United States; and that of African-American females is some five years less than the white females in the United States. Moreover, the District's mortality rates vary according to the condition being considered. For example, mortality due to stroke and heart disease have declined; whereas mortality due to most forms of cancers has not significantly changed. In fact, the mortality rate for heart disease in 1990 was 289.5, and declined in 1994 to a rate of 281.6, reflecting a 2.7 percent reduction rate. Mortality rates for major health conditions such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were consistently higher in the District than in the rest of the United States during 1991-96. [See also Attachment 2 and 3.] [Clerk's note.--Attachments 2 and 3 are being held in the files of the subcommittee.] In general, the District's mortality rates are comparable to those found in other U.S. cities with over 500,000 population. It ranks in the upper quarter for conditions such as cancer and heart disease. The Department has not established a specific mortality rate reduction for 1998. It has adopted the mortality and morbidity reduction goals for the Healthy People 2000 plan as established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. To reach these goals, the Department expects to initiate such programs with regard to a number of conditions such as heart disease, cancers of the breast, cervix and prostate, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and prevention of violence and of disability. Reductions are a long term consequence of health promotion and disease reduction programs, and generally cannot be expected to show any significant effect in less than five years. Thus, we anticipate that the proposed programs will begin to influence mortality and morbidity rates around the year 2001. Question. The Metropolitan Police Department entered into its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the mayor, police chief, city council chair and others to carry out badly needed reforms. The results were immediate--arrests are up and crime is down. Do you think putting in place a model like the Police Department's MOU would benefit your department? Answer. The Department does not believe that the same relationship undertaken by the Police Department would assist the Department of Health to a great degree. An MOU may not permit the development of a clear departmental infrastructure that would result in the effective coordination of appropriate and necessary collaborative efforts. Moreover, it may cause great confusion in blurring the line of authority and responsibility within the Department if a team of consultants were on-site directing management and second-guessing managerial decisions. When the Department of Health Reorganization Plan was considered and reviewed by the Council of the District of Columbia and the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Financial Authority), the Department was required to develop an Implementation Plan that defined the direction that the new department must take, as well as specific management efficiencies and management accountability goals. Included in the plan is the completion of the Department's Strategic Plan and the development of Program Measures for all departmental programs and activities. The Department has set upon a course to develop and implement clearly defined goals, accountability standards, core competencies, and program measures. It is these tools that will permit the Department's management team, the City Administrator, the Council of the District of Columbia, the Financial Authority, the Mayor, the Congress, and the District's residents to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department. The Department also would like to share its Reorganization Implementation Plan [Attachment 4] and its most recent report of its Program Measures [Attachment 5]. As a part of its Reorganization Implementation Plan, the Department developed program measures, which it began collating and reporting monthly to the City Administrator, the Financial Authority, and the Mayor in April 1997. In addition, the Department has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Program Support Center of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide contracts and procurement support for two years while planning and reform occurs in the procurement and contracts system. As a result, contracts and procurement actions are being processed in a more rapid manner. [Clerk's note.--Attachments 4 and 5 are being held in the files of the subcommittee.] Question. According to the budget proposals for the department, approximately half of the department's budget and two-thirds of the department's employees are funded by the federal government. How many federal grants are under the department's jurisdiction? Is the department responsible for administering the HIV grants which were recently highlighted for poor implementation? Of the 515 federally funded staff positions in the department, how many are working on federal grant programs? Answer. There are approximately 50 grants under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health. However, given that several federal grants that have been awarded to the Department of Health span fiscal/calendar years and may be continuation grants, the number increases to 70 grants. Examples of grants that span several years include: Healthy Start, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), several Ryan White grants, WIC Infrastructure, Refugee Assistance, TB and STD. Each of the 515 federally funded staff positions actually work on federal grant programs. If employees worked in areas other than those that the grant programs fund, the District potentially would be liable for any disallowed costs, which would result in a default to the appropriation. We are unsure as to the reference with respect to poor performance in an HIV grant. The Department administers most of the grants through which funding for HIV/AIDS services and programs come. All the programs that the Department of Health's Agency for HIV/AIDS (AHA) administers grant funds for, to include the Ryan White Program (Titles I, II and IV), STD, HODRA, and HOPWA, are operating and being utilized to the maximum extent possible. Both service delivery and spending targets are being met. Moreover, the Ryan White Planning Council, an official entity that was established and is mandated by the Ryan White Care Act and includes representatives from the entire Washington, D.C. metropolitan region, monitors all HIV/AIDS funding programs. Question. The City Council and Control Board are recommending roughly the same amount of funding for fiscal year 1998 for the department. However, the Control Board is recommending an additional 55 full-time employees, whereas the Control Board is recommending 15 additional full-time employees. What do you believe is the reason for the difference in the two budget proposals? Answer. The difference in the bottom line FTE recommendation occurs only on the local funded FTE's. In the fiscal year 1998 budget proposal, the Council approved budget included a local funding authorized FTE ceiling level of 215 for fiscal year 1998 and the Financial Authority recommended a local funding authorized FTE ceiling level of 255 for the Department of Health. The difference reflects a need to include in the budget position authority that was removed from the authorized ceiling level in fiscal year 1997. The positions included those associated with the Office of Medical Services for Social Services (OMASS), which provides medical services to detained youth at the Oak Hill Youth Center in accordance with the Jerry M. Court Order and those associated with retention of the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Program by the Department. Initially, the Department sought to privatize the OMASS medical services. However, final implementation to transfer these medical services to an employee-owned ESOP Plan is near completion. Further, the positions associated with the STD Program were to be transferred to the Public Benefit Corporation. Following additional consultations and discussions internally and with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the department decided to retain responsibility for this program as an essential state function of the health department. These positions number approximately 26 FTE's. Although the positions were removed from the budget, the circumstances that led to their removal have changed and it is essential to reflect these positions in the authorized ceiling level in the budget for the department. The remaining positions that reflect the difference includes those positions that are associated with the establishment of the new department. The positions are infra-structure support positions and are essential for the effective and efficient management of the new Department of Health--contracts and procurement specialist positions, attorney positions in the Office of the General Counsel, information systems support, grants management positions, human resources positions, chief operating officer. These are essential positions that were not transferred from the Department of Human Services to the new Department of Health. Thus, the difference of the 40 FTE's in the Financial Authority's and the Council Approved budgets for the local funded authorized FTE ceiling reflects these essential positions. Question. A recent article in the Washington Post noted that the District of Columbia now has the highest rates of tuberculosis, new AIDS infection, and infant mortality in the nation. The article cites a situation where the District failed to spend money that was available through federal grants to provide housing for victims of AIDS. In fact the article points to several examples of the District's failure to monitor or spend federal grants that might have significantly improved the health situation in the city. Where does the District stand on this situation now? How has the District attempted to remedy this problem? Is the District government taking advantage of all federal health grants to which it is entitled? When do you see the District being able to show that it is fully using all available federal health resources to which it is entitled to improve the health of District residents? Answer. The recent article in The Washington Post contained factually incorrect information. The District does not have the highest rates of tuberculosis, new AIDS infection, and infant mortality in the nation. The response that follows will hopefully, correct some of the misleading information contained in the article. First, the District's tuberculosis rates have been declining over the past decade, and in 1995 the number of reported tuberculosis cases in the District was the lowest in history. Again, the mortality data that is included in Attachment 1 provides some insight with respect to mortality rates associated with tuberculosis. Moreover, we are awaiting confirmation of the 1996 rates. In addition, it should be noted that the number of tuberculosis cases reported in the District to date in 1997 is 25 percent lower than at the same time in 1996. This fact strongly suggests that what may have been an increase in 1996 was a temporary exception to the downward trend for this disease in the District. The federal grants dealing with tuberculosis control may not be used to diagnose or treat persons with this disease. Accordingly, the status of the District's management of its federal tuberculosis control grants is not directly relevant to the issue of the apparent increase in reported tuberculosis cases in the District. The Department's Tuberculosis Control Program is operating effectively, and it appears that the increase in the reported numbers of tuberculosis cases in 1996 is a temporary situation and not indicative of a future trend. Can more be done? Yes. In order to effectuate coordinated region-wide response to TB, the District's Department of Health in April facilitated the adoption of a Washington metropolitan regional agreement to coordinate a collaborative response to TB. The agreement includes all of the regional health departments and health officers. Second, the infant mortality rate, while still too high for us as health professionals, is not the highest in the nation. In the District, the infant mortality rate has fluctuated, and in 1995, the rate decreased to 16.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, its lowest rate in the District's history. The 1996 rates are not yet available; but, the infant mortality rates for the past five years are reflected in the chart below: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FIVE-YEAR INFANT MORTALITY TREND ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infant Year Births deaths IMR \1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1991......................................... 11,650 235 20.2 1992......................................... 10,939 200 18.3 1993......................................... 10,614 177 16.7 1994......................................... 9,911 180 18.2 1995......................................... 8,993 145 16.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Infant Mortality Rate/1,000 live births. Source: State Center for Health Statistics, D.C. Department of Health. Because of the quick turn-around time, we were unable to obtain comparative data on the infant mortality rate with other cities. However, we do know that the low birth rate among black infants in the District and Baltimore, Maryland was the same for 1992-94--16.4. The program targets of our Maternal and Child Health Program are ward specific. In fiscal year 1998, the program will target high-risk areas in Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8. In 1995, these wards accounted for 55.5 percent (4,995/8,993) of all District births; 72.4 percent (105/145) of all infant deaths; 73 percent of all births to unmarried Black women (3,922/5,320); 66.9 percent of all births to teens (931/1,392); and 65.9 percent of all low birth weight infants (800/1,214). Through intensive case management, care coordination, targeted at high-risk women especially substance abusers, we believe that we will continue to decrease significantly infant mortality. Our experiences to date with the Healthy Start Program and Comprehensive HIV Intervention and Prevention Services (CHIPS) for Families Program prove that a targeted approach linking women to needed services provides measurable results. Third, the District does not have the highest rate of new AIDS cases in the nation. When the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) reports AIDS statistics, the District is compared with other states. But, when compared to similar cities, the District ranks lower. While the rate of AIDS/HIV infection is high, it must be remembered that the District is the hub of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region and many residents of the region use District facilities and programs that conduct anonymous HIV/AIDS testing and counseling. In addition, the statistics for this region include not only the District of Columbia, but Southern Maryland, Northern Virginia cities and counties, and Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia. These areas are all a part of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Indicated below are two charts representing reported AIDS/ HIV cases in selected states and SMSA's. REPORTED AIDS CASES BY SELECTED STATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995 1996 State Cases Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Connecticut......................................... 1,645 1,112 Georgia............................................. 2,310 2,411 Louisiana........................................... 1,079 1,470 Maryland............................................ 2,567 2,253 Massachusetts....................................... 1,438 1,307 New Jersey.......................................... 4,400 3,613 North Carolina...................................... 1,000 895 Virginia............................................ 1,605 1,195 District of Columbia................................ 1,027 1,262 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1996; Vol 8. (No.2): p.7 (Table 1). REPORTED AIDS CASES BY SELECTED SMSA METROPOLITAN AREAS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Metro Area 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlanta, GA......................................... 1,580 1,642 Baltimore, MD....................................... 1,711 1,525 Boston, MA.......................................... 1,254 1,102 Houston, TX......................................... 1,166 1,719 Los Angeles, CA..................................... 3,962 3,715 Miami, FL........................................... 2,348 2,063 New York, NY........................................ 10,478 10,385 San Francisco, CA................................... 2,117 1,572 Washington, DC...................................... 2,124 2,160 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1996; Vol 8. (No.2): p.8 (Table 2). Also included at Attachment 6 is a report that was issued in March 1997 that contains the latest HIV/AIDS Surveillance Update that is published by the Agency for HIV/AIDS, Department of Health, every six months. The updated surveillance report is under review and will be published within the next few weeks. [Clerk's note.--Attachment 6 is being held in the files of the subcommittee.] On the issue of the District taking advantage of all federal health grants to which it is entitled, please be advised that the District is attempting to apply for and obtain all federal resources for which it is eligible. Currently, we apply for as many grants as possible given the small staff we have with grant writing skills and abilities. A key aspect of the Department's Implementation Plan, which reflects the proposed increase of 40 FTE's for additional infrastructure staff, is intended to enhance and expand our grant writing and grant acquisition capabilities. In the area of HIV/AIDS, the Department also takes advantage of all federal AIDS funding to which it is entitled. These include Ryan White Titles I, II, and IV; CDC Prevention/Counseling Testing grants, CDC AIDS Surveillance grants; and housing grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for People with AIDS (HOPWA). In addition, the Department assists community-based HIV/AIDS providers in obtaining federal and private grants funds as well in various public- private collaborative efforts. While it is correct that there have been systemic barriers in the past three years that delayed some federal grant spending, the District never lost any federal grant funds. Generally, the barriers were the result of the quarterly 25 percent budget allocation requirements, application of gross budget ceiling limitations that affected staffing and hiring, contracts and procurement difficulties, and limitations in the District's Financial Management System (FMS). Those problems have been or are being addressed. The gross budget concept is no longer being applied by the Financial Authority; the D.C. Budget Office is permitting the full loading of federal grants into the FMS System at the beginning of the fiscal year in accordance with the Department's Budget Obligation Plan instead of requiring a fixed quarterly allocation application. In addition, while the Department restructures its contracts and procurement function, it has executed a two-year Memorandum of Understanding with the Program Support Center, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to provide contracts and procurement support for many procurement needs in order to implement programs in a more effective manner, and to get services direct to the public more rapidly and efficiently. However, the Department's utilization of federal grants funds has been constant. It should be noted that budget grants are not lost if unspent at the end of a fiscal year. In most instances, federal grants cross fiscal and calendar years, and often includes carry-over authority, which means that funds not spent in a particular fiscal year are rolled-over into the next fiscal year. Given that appropriated funds are becoming more restricted as the District confronts decreasing revenue opportunities, the Department recognizes a need for greater reliance on attracting and spending federal grant funds. Listed below is an analysis of grant spending versus budget for the Commission of Public Health, the predecessor agency to the Department of Health: FEDERAL GRANT ANALYSIS--FISCAL YEAR 1991 THRU FISCAL YEAR 1996 BUDGET VS EXPENDITURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget............................ $40,219,883 $46,791,980 $48,717,045 $67,267,839 $70,556,482 $78,030,031 Percentage........................ 80 75 81 75 67 74 Federal Grant Expenditure......... $32,356,186 $34,880,109 $39,458,280 $50,304,596 $47,379,329 $57,819,887 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Office of Budget and Management, Commission of Public Health. The Department is starting to see a turn-around. As a new Department, we still experience growing pains and confront glitches that must be resolved. But, despite budget reductions, the Department is making some headway. The Department is on the move, it has a vision and goal, and is experiencing some achievements. In fact, the District's Healthy Start and State Systems Development Initiative are known and respected nationally. Both initiatives were recently highlighted during this year's American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in New York, New York. In addition, the Department has received a three year grant from the CDC to improve the pediatric nutrition surveillance system, established a community health workers program, restructured the AIDS Drug Assistance Program delivery system, and effectuate a partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Program Support Center to provide contracts and procurement processing support. Department of Public Works STATEMENT OF CELLERINO BERNARDINO, ACTING DIRECTOR Senator Faircloth. Now, Mr. Bernardino. Mr. Bernardino. Good morning, Chairman Faircloth and members of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Cell Bernardino, acting director of the Department of Public Works. I am happy to appear before you today to answer your questions about our proposed fiscal year 1998 budget. performance-based organization However, I want to take the opportunity first to bring you up to date on DPW's efforts to become a performance based organization because this information, I think, provides an important context for budget deliberations. As part of the Mayor's transformation of government, we have been quietly remaking DPW. Over the last year, we have substantially implemented, probably 60 to 70 percent complete, systematic measurement of performance. Performance measures have been developed for all of our direct services. In the case of sanitation services, fleet management, and motor vehicle services, strategic, tactical, and operational measures are in use, and data is being collected against them. The performance measures for sanitation services and motor vehicle services have been released to the public, together with a survey instrument that will be used to track the customer approval rating component. With the expert assistance and consultation of the people who implemented performance based operation in the national model, the Oregon Department of Transportation, we have trained over 600 employees in the development and use of performance measures, including a small group of internal trainers to carry on after the consultants depart. performance contracts I have signed performance contracts with the managers of the key direct service agencies in public works. These contain specific accountabilities, not only for strategic performance measures, but for specific budget objectives and for leading change in helping to develop employees. These performance contracts provide for cash bonuses for outstanding achievement, but also for salary reductions and termination for poor performance. A group of people that included DPW staff and staff of the District's chief financial officer has been trained in the concepts and use of activity based costing. They have been trained by the people who implemented and currently oversee activity based costing in the city of Indianapolis, another model jurisdiction. activity-based costing Activity-based costing is a prerequisite for managed competition, for employee gain-sharing, and for performance budgeting, all of which DPW has committed to implement. Jointly with the CFO's staff, we have examined available activity-based costing software and selected a package for purchase and installation. DPW's management and key technical staff have also been trained in the development and use of customer surveys. Point of service comment cards addressing service quality have been drafted or finalized for all of DPW's services. Strategic surveys which query customers' views about resource allocation priorities will be conducted annually. DPW has largely completed the slow, painstaking work of communicating the new departmental vision and strategy to all levels of employees, and involving people in the development of service delivery strategy and performance measures. The fruits of that effort can be seen in the service improvement initiatives that have been announced over the last 6 months, things like the resumption of bulk trash collection on an appointment-only basis; the testing of decentralized accountability and neighborhood-based coordination of sanitation services in two wards as a pilot for the rest of the city; the new one-stop driver licensing and vehicle registration areas in motor vehicles; and the eight-weekend pothole blitz with in-house forces. These initiatives were not handed down by top management, and they are not reactions to complaints. Rather, they were hatched and fleshed out by groups of employees guided by explicit strategic direction and performance expectations and armed with new concepts and tools. These employees now have the self-confidence to be creative and work in teams to solve problems. Managers, supervisors, frontline workers, and union officials all participated in developing these initiatives, and all contributed. department to transform itself The department is poised to transform itself, and I believe with consistently adequate resources for the chosen level of service, it should be able to improve much more quickly over the next couple of years. Structurally, DPW is a diversified corporation with a broad range of regulatory, operational, and planning responsibilities that in other jurisdictions would span multiple agencies of municipal, county, and State government. solid waste management The key line business units are solid waste management, which is responsible for residential trash collection and disposal, street and alley cleaning, public space rodent control, and enforcement of sanitation laws. transportation systems administration The Transportation Systems Administration, which is the State DMV, regulates the operation of motor vehicles and the use of public space for parking. design, engineering, and construction administration The Design, Engineering, and Construction Administration which, together with the staff offices that plan for mass transit and overall transportation, are the State DOT. This administration manages most of the components in the city of transportation infrastructure and public space. fleet management administration The Fleet Management Administration maintains and manages the majority of the District's vehicles and mobile equipment. facilities operation and maintenance administration The Facilities Operation and Maintenance Administration provides building management and engineering services for 37 District-owned buildings and facilities. fiscal year 1998 operating budget The proposed fiscal year 1998 total operating budget is $148.2 million and 1,901 authorized positions. This is a decrease of $8.4 million, or 5.4 percent, and an increase of 60 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. The proposed fiscal year 1998 local funds budget is $95.6 million and 1,157 positions, a decrease of $71,000 and an increase of 72 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. The nonlocal funds budget request is $52.5 million and 744 positions, a decrease of $8.3 million, or 13.6 percent, and a decrease of 12 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. fiscal year 1998 capital budget The fiscal year 1998 proposed capital budget and financing plan of $125,780,000 provides $36,902,000 for DPW projects budgeted in the general fund; $47,747,000 to support federally programmed transportation projects budgeted through the newly established highway trust fund; and an additional $41 million budgeted in the general fund for mass transit projects. federal highway grants Federal highway grants of approximately $90 million are anticipated to be added to the transportation program in support of outyear projects. In addition, previously allocated Federal highway grants of $220,900,000 will bring the department's capital budget and financing plan in fiscal year 1998 to $346,549,000. The proposed budget includes 15 continuing projects and programs for Federal aid transportation and 6 for local transportation. It includes 10 continuing projects for government facilities and environmental projects and 3 continuing projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. In addition to the new authority being requested, the city has restructured the budget to identify the required financing necessary to support total project implementation. The financing and borrowing plan which propels the implementation of the capital budget has been prioritized and formulated to stay within the established debt ceiling and the projected revenue within the highway trust fund. transportation facilities The requested program for transportation facilities stresses life cycle rehabilitation of bridges and highways and provides for reconstruction and upgrading of low-cost streets to full standards. New authority in financing is requested to support all ongoing project categories within transportation facilities. governmental and environmental facilities The proposed budget for governmental and environmental facilities will continue efforts to rehabilitate and enhance deteriorating District government buildings and systems to meet current life safety and fire code requirements. Most notable is the proposed upgrading of the motor vehicle information system and the main operational facility for motor vehicles. During the past several years, the Department of Public Works has begun the fiscal year with budget amounts that allowed us to begin restoring many critical services. However, because of the District's financial condition, our budgets have been revised downward later in the fiscal year. If the requested fiscal year 1998 budget remains the same for the whole fiscal year, it will allow us to make major improvements in service. It will allow us, for example, to restore regularly scheduled alley cleaning for the first time in a number of years. vehicle replacement One of DPW's perennial obstacles to improving service delivery is the lack of funding for regularly scheduled vehicle replacement based on useful life. This may finally be addressed. The District is instituting a master lease financing program, and the department plans on participating in the program. The program will allow DPW to replace a substantial number of heavy and light vehicles and other equipment that is no longer reliable through the master lease program. The average age of mission-critical vehicles and equipment in DPW's fleet is 10-plus years. The vast majority of sanitation services problems and almost all of the unscheduled overtime results from vehicle breakdowns. prepared statements This concludes my formal statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions you have at this time. [The statements follow:] Prepared Statement of Cellerino Bernardino Good morning, Chairman Faircloth and members of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Cell Bernardino, Acting Director of the Department of Public Works. I am happy to appear before you today to answer your questions about our proposed fiscal year 1998 budget. However I want to take the opportunity first to bring you up to date on DPW's efforts to become a performance based organization, because this information provides important context for budget deliberations. As part of the Mayor's transformation of government we have been quietly remaking DPW. Over the last year we have substantially implemented (60+ percent complete) systematic measurement of performance. First cut performance measures have been developed for all of our direct services. In the case of sanitation services, fleet management and motor vehicle services three levels of measures-- strategic, tactical and operational, are in use, and data collection has started. The sanitation and motor vehicles measures have been released to the public together with the survey instrument that will be used to track the customer approval rating component. With the expert assistance and consultation of the people who implemented performance based operation in the national model Oregon Department of Transportation we have trained over 600 employees in the development and use of performance measures, including a small group of internal trainers to carry on after the consultants depart. I have signed performance contracts with business unit managers that contain specific accountabilities not only for strategic performance measures but also for specific budget objectives and for leading change and developing employees. These contracts provide for cash bonuses for outstanding achievement but also for salary reductions and dismissal for poor performance. A group that included DPW staff and staff of the District's chief financial officer (CFO) has been trained in the concepts and use of activity based costing (ABC), by the people who developed and currently oversee ABC in Indianapolis, Indiana, another national model jurisdiction. ABC is a prerequisite for employee gainsharing and managed competition and a great help in performance budgeting, all of which DPW has committed to implement. Jointly with the CFO's office we have examined available ABC software and selected a package for purchase and installation. DPW's management and key technical staff have also been trained in the development and use of customer surveys. Point of service comment cards addressing service quality have been drafted or finalized for all of DPW's services. Strategic surveys which get at customers' views about resource allocation priorities will be conducted annually. DPW has largely completed the slow, painstaking work of communicating the new departmental vision and strategy to all levels of employees; and involving people in the development of service delivery strategy and performance measures. The fruits of this effort can be seen in the service improvement initiatives that have been announced over the last six months, things like the resumption of bulk trash collection on an appointment basis; the testing of neighborhood based coordination of sanitation services in wards 5 and 7; the new one stop driver licensing and vehicle registration areas in motor vehicles; and the eight weekend pothole blitz with in-house forces. These initiatives were not handed down by top management, and they are not reactions to complaints. Rather, they were hatched and fleshed out by groups of employees who, guided by explicit strategic direction and performance expectations, and armed with new concepts and tools, have the self- confidence to be creative and to work in teams to solve problems. Managers, supervisors, front line workers and union officials all participated and all contributed. The department is poised to transform, and with consistently adequate resources for the chosen level of service, it should be able to improve much more quickly over the next couple of years. Structurally a diversified corporation, DPW has a broad range of regulatory, operational and planning responsibilities that in other jurisdictions would span multiple agencies of municipal, county and State government. Our line business units are: --The solid waste management administration which is responsible for residential trash collection and disposal, street and alley cleaning, public space rodent control and enforcement of sanitation laws. --The Transportation Systems Administration which regulates the operation of motor vehicles and the use of public space for parking. --The Design, Engineering and Construction Administration which manages most components of infrastructure and public space. --The Fleet Management Administration which maintains and manages most of the District's fleet and mobile equipment. --The Facilities Operation and Management Administration which provides building management and engineering services for District-owned buildings and other facilities. The proposed fiscal year 1998 total operating budget in the congressional submission for all funding sources is $148.2 million and 1,901 authorized positions; a decrease of $8.4 million, or 5.4 percent, and an increase of 60 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. The proposed fiscal year 1998 local funds budget is $95.6 million and 1,157 positions; a decrease of $71,000, and an increase of 72 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. The non-local funds budget request is $52.5 million and 744 positions; a decrease of $8.3 million, or 13.6 percent, and a decrease of 12 positions from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. In addition to utilizing operating funds to carry out its programs, the Department of Public Works also plans on leveraging funds from three other areas. First, Capital Grant Funding from the Federal Highway Administration, second, the District's Transportation Trust Fund which was established pursuant to the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act of 1995, and finally, the District of Columbia's 1998 general obligation bond borrowing. In fiscal year 1998, the department will receive funding of approximately $90 million from the Federal Highway Administration. In order to leverage these funds--or meet the local match requirement--we will use funds from the District's Transportation Trust Fund which will be approximately $34 million in fiscal year 1998 and we will receive approximately $20 million in general obligation bond proceeds for local street improvements. During the past several years, the Department of Public Works has begun the fiscal year with budget amounts that allowed us to begin restoring many critical programs and services. However, because of the District's financial condition, our budgets have been revised downward later in the fiscal year. If the requested fiscal year 1998 budget remains the same for the remainder of the fiscal year, it will allow us to make major improvements in service. For example, it will allow DPW to expand street cleaning and to reinstitute regularly scheduled alley cleaning. It also will allow the department to replace a substantial number of heavy and light vehicles and other equipment that is no longer reliable. The District is instituting a Master Lease Financing Program and the department plans on participating in the program. The program will allow the department to replace a substantial number of heavy and light vehicles and other equipment that is no longer reliable, by allowing us to purchase, through the master lease, new equipment. In addition to procuring equipment through the master lease--the department will spend, in fiscal year 1998, approximately $2 million of capital dollars for major equipment acquisition. The fiscal year 1998 budget request moves us closer to adequately funding DPW's core services. That concludes my formal statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions you have at this time. With me at the table to help answer your questions are Art Lawson, our Acting Deputy Director, and Anthony Shelborne, our Budget Officer. Gerald Tolliver our Controller, Pamela Graham our new agency CFO, Leslie Hotaling our Solid Waste Administrator, Gwen Mitchell, Administrator of Transportation Services and Gary Burch our Chief Engineer are also with us and available to help answer your questions. ______ Public Works department of public works (ka) Mission The mission of the Department of Public Works (DPW) is to improve the overall quality of life in the District of Columbia and enhance the District's ability to compete for residents, business, tourism and trade. This is accomplished by delivering the services and building and maintaining the infrastructure that together foster a safe, sanitary and aesthetic environment, and the safe efficient movement of people, goods, and information. Organization Structurally, DPW is a diversified corporation, encompassing functions that, in most other jurisdictions, span both local and state government. To deliver this range of services, DPW is divided into five business units and several administrative units. These business units provide services to meet the needs of District residents and businesses, visitors to the District, other District agencies, the federal government, other jurisdictions, District employees and vendors. The business units are: Solid waste management; Transportation systems; Fleet management; Facilities operation and maintenance; and Design, engineering and construction. The Department is also responsible for the overall management of the city's mass transit, and energy assistance and conservation programs. The responsibilities of each business unit are described below. Solid Waste Management.--The Solid Waste Management business unit is responsible for sanitation functions provided by the Agency which are key to maintaining a clean and healthy environment for District neighborhoods, local businesses, and visitors to the capital city. This unit's mission is to help improve the District's quality of life and economic competitiveness by managing waste generated in the District, and to maintain a safe, sanitary and aesthetic physical environment for District residents. The major services provided by this unit include: --Trash collection for all residential buildings with three or fewer dwelling units; --Street cleaning services which currently include manual cleaning of major commercial strips and the city's residential and commercial center core, along with mechanical cleaning of major arteries and outer ring residential neighborhoods; and --Snow removal. Although the snow removal program is operated by several control centers in the department, program funding is centrally located in the solid waste administration. DPW also provides citizens with information, education and outreach services relating to proper sanitation practices along with educational programs in the public schools. Transportation Systems.--The transportation systems business unit promotes the efficient operation and movement of vehicles within the District, and assures the safety and convenience of residents and visitors. This unit's mission is to help improve the District's quality of life and economic competitiveness by ensuring the safe and efficient operation and movement of vehicles. This business unit encompasses a wide range of activities, as noted below: --Motor Vehicle Administration.--DPW provides the full complement of typical state DMV services such as testing drivers license applicants; issuing drivers licenses and other permits for private and commercial vehicles; inspection and registration of motor vehicles; and the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles. --Parking Management and Enforcement.--DPW is responsible for developing parking regulations, writing parking tickets, adjudicating vehicle parking and minor moving infractions, and parking meter maintenance and collections. --Taxicab Vehicle Registration and Adjudication.--In fiscal year 1997, transportation systems absorbed these functions of the Taxicab Commission. Fleet Management.--Fleet management directs all activities related to the District's fleet and mobile equipment program to ensure clean, safe and dependable transportation and other services for the conduct of District government business. This function directly affects other direct service program (i.e., snow removal, trash collection, parking enforcement, tree and building maintenance) provided by DPW and is necessary to maintain and manage the physical assets of the District. This unit's mission helps improve the District's quality of life and economic competitiveness by servicing and maintaining District government-owned vehicles and other equipment that make delivery of services to the public by DPW and other District agencies possible. Fleet management encompasses all District Government vehicles including light, heavy and specific purpose vehicles such as trash compactors and dump trucks. However, DPW does not provide fleet management to all District government agencies. Specific fleet management activities include: Procurement and disposal of vehicles and equipment; Performance of preventive and corrective maintenance and repair; Analysis of vehicle utilization; and Receipt, storage, and distribution support for the department's equipment and for leased equipment used in the District's snow and ice control program. Facilities Operations and Management.--Facilities Operation and Maintenance Administration (FOMA) provides building engineering services for 36 District owned buildings, which include: maintenance, repair, improvements, and warehousing of construction materials. FOMA activities are critical to providing safe and comfortable work spaces and working conditions for District citizens, visitors and employees. Additionally, FOMA is key to preserving the value of the District's physical assets. This unit's mission is to help improve the District's quality of life and economic competitiveness by maintaining and operating District government buildings and facilities and providing emergency repairs to privately owned facilities when required by law to assure the safety of District residents and visitors to the District of Columbia. In particular, FOMA does the following: --Surveys and monitors the condition of District-owned buildings and develops standards and procedures for annual and long range maintenance; --Prepares contract documents and administers contracts for repairs and maintenance of various District-owned facilities; and --Provides 24-hour emergency repair service throughout the city. Design, Engineering and Construction.--The Design, Engineering and Construction Administration (DECA) manages all permanent components of public space in the District of Columbia. DECA is central to assuring the safe (i.e., in compliance with local and Federal legal standards) and efficient use of public space. Additionally, DECA enhances the District as the economic core of the larger metropolitan region. This unit's mission is to improve the District's quality of life and economic competitiveness through managing the design and construction of District facilities and infrastructure to ensure that they foster a safe, sanitary and aesthetic environment and the safe, efficient movement of goods, people, and information. This business unit is responsible for: --Design, construction and maintenance of streets, bridges, highways, tunnels, sidewalks, public buildings; --Traffic control management which includes activities such as: operating and maintaining traffic signals, making and installing directional and safety signals, and pavement markings; --Rehabilitation and restoration of District of Columbia Government facilities and the construction of new facilities for use by District of Columbia Government agencies; and --Storing all official land records within the District and public space management through the issuance of public space permits to private entities. Programmatic Issues The administration views public works as an essential function of the District government and realizes that maintaining the physical infrastructure increases economic development opportunities in the District. In fact, physical infrastructure will be the future agency workgroup title as outlined in the ``Vision for America's First City, A Transformed Government for the People of Washington D.C.'' The administration and other District stakeholders are in agreement with the priorities being placed on the physical infrastructure needs of the District. Nonetheless, many core services have been scaled back or discontinued in prior fiscal years as reductions in funding and staffing levels have been required. Unfortunately, these past reductions are placing an expensive value cost on DPW, which faces a number of challenges in providing industry-standard levels of service in nearly every business unit of the Agency. These challenges are described below. Equipment Renewal and Replacement.--During the last four fiscal years, DPW has been unable to maintain a regular schedule of replacing aged vehicles and equipment when they reach the end of their useful life. Regular replacement has been deferred due to limited capital financing, one of the effects of the District's stressed financial position. Consequently, over 60 percent of the department's inventory of vehicles exceeds its useful life by more than five years. In the most extreme cases, vehicles with useful lives of five to six years have now been operating for nine to 12 years. Additionally, some vehicles, such as stump cutters, are no longer operative and have not been replaced, resulting in a lack of necessary equipment to deliver certain services. Two conditions result from these circumstances. First, vehicles breakdown more often and require repairs, second, when vehicles are down, services are inevitably affected. The Department must employ more costly techniques to insure it has enough vehicles to provide certain services. For instance, the department's fleet of snow plows were inadequate to clear snow from the over 1,045 miles of major arteries and neighborhood streets in the event of a snowstorm. As a result, during the wake of the Blizzard of 1996, the department leased 50 vehicles to ensure the delivery of this very important service. The fiscal year 1997 cost to lease this equipment is $488,000 and is expected to remain relatively flat in fiscal year 1998. Therefore, resuming a regular renewal and replacement schedule for vehicles and equipment are priorities. To meet this objective, according to The District of Columbia 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Plan and Fiscal Year 1998 Capital Budget, DPW has committed a total of $4.3 million in capital funds for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 toward major equipment acquisition. Facilities Operation and Maintenance Administration.--Because of the District's financial crisis, buildings and facilities maintenance and repair have not been regularly scheduled. DPW's annually decreasing budget has resulted in the department's diminished ability to provide these services which protect the District's physical assets. Additionally, because other government agencies have not been able to afford regular maintenance, FOMA service utilization has declined overall, regular maintenance service has resulted in more emergency service required. In fact, the Department's annual expenditures on building maintenance are estimated at $0.80 per square foot of space which is less than half of the industry standard of $1.75 per square foot. Additionally, staffing levels for facilities maintenance is approximately one building engineer per 125,000 square feet (40 engineers), or 55 percent less than the industry standard for this ratio of 1 Building Engineer per 80,000 square feet (62 engineers). Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the gap between the costs of timely and deferred repairs widens in proportion to the age of buildings. Streets and Bridges Preventative Maintenance.--Similar to vehicles and equipment, during the past five fiscal years, resources devoted to repair and maintenance of the streets and roads in the District have declined. As a result, activities to prevent potholes have been limited, potholes have increased, and a backlog of repairs continues to amass. The District's street system comprises 1,104 miles of roadway. Of this, 3.15 miles is owned and operated by the Architect of the Capitol, and 6.1 miles by the National Park Service. DPW is responsible for 1,094 miles of roadway, which includes 237 bridges--some of which are major structures crossing the Potomac River. Several studies have indicated that as a result of deferred maintenance, the condition of the District's streets and bridges is among the worst in the nation. Specifically, several oversight reports have indicated that 60 percent of the bridges in the District are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Water and Sewer Authority Transition.--In fiscal year 1997, the water and sewer services provided by the District and the Washington Aqueduct were transferred to a newly created, independent Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). Consequently, a number of internal administrative costs and services which were formerly shared by the water and sewer program and the rest of DPW now fall solely to DPW. Additionally, the management information systems staff which administers, services and maintains the Department's LAN, and other computer software and hardware needs have joined the independent authority or left DPW. The primary challenge facing DPW as a result of this change is to replace lost resources resulting from the separation of the water and sewer administration, improve DPW's information services and bring most of DPW's equipment in-line with the 1990's. Another area effected by this transition is the snow removal program. In previous years, WASA provided snow removal services for one-third of the District. However, while DPW has filled this service need temporarily with the leasing of snow plows, a long-term solution must be put in place to manage these needs. Service Restoration.--As the District has faced financial difficulty, DPW eliminated or scaled back services to match reduced resources. In most cases, when these services are not provided on a regular basis, more costly actions are required to make up for the lack of regular service. For example, in the past DPW had no dedicated resources to perform routine scheduled alley cleaning services; services are now provided on a complaint basis only, usually when the situation is a threat to public health and safety. These services will be reinstated in fiscal year 1998. For a full listing of the Department's program priorities, please refer to the program priorities table. Program Priorities DPW's program priorities are allocated on a $95.6 million local budget mark. DPW plans to administer eleven programs: Trash Collections and Disposal; Traffic and Pedestrian Operations and Safety; Street and Bridge Maintenance/Repairs; Fleet Management; Tree and Landscaping Management; Street and Alley Cleaning; Snow Removal Operations; Motor Vehicle Regulation; Parking Management and Other Services; Facilities Management; Public Space Management (business program management, policy, procurement, mass transit, information systems and financial systems). Included with these 11 programs are 84 subprograms. The agency's top priorities in fiscal year 1998 will be cleaning up the city, resurfacing streets, and replacing the Motor Vehicle Information System. Of the 84 subprograms, 59 are mandated by District law or federal matching requirements representing approximately $88,352,000 in gross funds, and 1,204 FTE's. Performance Measures The agency has developed new performance measures that can more accurately determine customer satisfaction, labor productivity, vehicle downtime, public space cleanliness, waiting time for key public services, and parking turnover. The performance measurement program will build on the department-wide strategic planning already being undertaken as part of the pilot productivity improvements projects approved by the authority. Since the data collection for new measures is not complete, the existing measures are shown below through fiscal year 1998. In the future, the department does not plan to utilize these measures, as it moves forward with its performance pilot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Performance measures ----------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tons recycled material collected................................ 26,288 18,715 6,484 10,000 Tons of household solid waste collected......................... 119,971 120,043 133,500 140,000 Operator permits issued......................................... 175,000 193,000 193,000 193,000 Vehicles registered............................................. 246,000 246,000 246,000 250,000 Motor vehicles inspected........................................ 324,475 324,475 324,475 150,000 Tons of asphalt for street repairs.............................. 3,500 2,700 3,000 3,800 Dollar value for agency purchasing fleet maintenance service.... $4,500,000 $2,156,457 $4,300,000 $4,300,000 Number of District-owned joint/special use facility............. 37 36 36 35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Measures provided by agency. Fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 represent estimated outputs. As the department develops new outcome measures, it is also compiling benchmarking data which will allow DPW to compare its performance in certain areas. This data will also permit the department to analyze its performance for trends and identify areas for increased efficiency or improved performance. initiatives update DPW has been successful in completing a number of initiatives identified by the agency in the fiscal year 1997 budget and financial plan, as described below. Notwithstanding these efforts, DPW faces major challenges in other areas which require attention. Performance Pilot Program Initiative: Implement a pilot performance-management-for-results program in DPW. Benefit: Will help to improve services and measure performance in the department. At this time, DPW has completed phase one of the performance pilot project, an initiative identified in the fiscal year 1997 budget and financial plan to implement a pilot performance management-for-results program in the Agency. As part of the mayor's plan to transform government, the primary goal of this pilot is to transform DPW into a self-directed, performance based organization that (1) strives continuously to provide better, cheaper, faster service and (2) routinely achieves a level and quality of service that is nationally competitive as determined by benchmarking, internal performance measurement and regular, periodic surveys of customers. During phase one of this pilot, the agency has been working with an expert consultant to develop outcome-based objectives, performance measures at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, and a system of performance contracts with individual managers. Training of managerial positions in DPW is more than 70 percent complete to be internal consultants and trainers in performance measurement, thereby building and sustaining DPW's capacity to systematically plan work, as well as track and evaluate performance. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) has been the other main focus of phase one tasks in this pilot. ABC will allow DPW to assess the true costs of services and to determine individual transactions (unit costs) so that the department can link resources to results. Knowing the unit costs will facilitate meaningful comparisons with private contractor's costs for comparable work and allow employees to set cost-reduction targets, measures, and the cost reduction impacts of changes in work processes. ABC supports reengineering and is a prerequisite to managed competition. A number of DPW's financial staff are being trained to be internal consultants/trainers in ABC. Phase two of the pilot is currently underway including continued performance measurement and ABC training for DPW staff. The next steps in the pilot will include, pilot implementation of financial incentives including gainsharing and distribution of citizen surveys. Parking-Related Initiatives Initiative: Remove recourse provision described on back of traffic parking ticket. Benefit: Estimates suggest that $600,000-$700,000 in additional revenue will be generated per annum. Initiative: Hire additional parking control aides (PCA's) to strengthen enforcement efforts. Benefit: Estimates suggest that approximately $600,000 in additional net revenue will be generated per annum. DPW implemented both of the parking related initiatives identified in fiscal year 1997. The first initiative was aimed at increasing DPW revenues by removing the recourse provisions described on the back of the District's traffic parking ticket. The recourse provision offered drivers the option of returning the ticket with an explanation for the offense without submitting payment. Many drivers would select this option and often the cases would be dropped. After elimination of this option, two options remain: (1) sending the payment by mail or (2) appearing in court to contest the ticket. As of November 1996, implementation of this initiative is expected to generate an estimated $600,000 of additional revenues in fiscal year 1997 and annually thereafter. The second parking related initiative was to hire PCA's to strengthen enforcement efforts. PCA's issue parking tickets and collect coins from the meters. Vacancies due to the retirement incentive programs in fiscal year 1995 resulted in fewer PCA's and therefore less revenue. DPW has added 20 parking enforcement officers which is expected to result in additional revenue of $11.4 million in fiscal year 1997 and annually thereafter. Assuming an annual cost for each officer of $30,000, this initiative generates annual net revenues of $600,000 per additional PCA. Trash Collection Routes Initiative: Redesign truck routes for trash collection. Benefit: Increased efficiency and cost savings in solid waste management. Truck routes for trash collection have been redesigned to increase efficiency and generate cost savings. A total of five out of 51 routes were redesigned, resulting in a reduction of staff and overtime. As a result, the redesigned routes free up trash packers which can be tapped as reserves if other packers go down. Recycling Alternatives Initiative: Explore less costly alternatives of recycling, including legislative changes. Benefit: Increased efficiency and cost savings in solid waste management. Analysis of this initiative continues. D.C. Law 7-226, the solid waste and multi-material recycling law, established several mandatory requirements that contribute to the cost of implementing the program. The law establishes a mandatory source separation program, including mandating the commodities to be included, for all properties in the District. This provision essentially requires a curb-side collection program, with a frequency of no less than twice each month. Solid Waste Disposal Privatization Options Initiative: Assess privatization of the solid waste disposal system which is currently operated at two transfer stations at Fort Totten and Benning Road. Benefit: Increased efficiency, reduced disposal costs and an estimated $15 million in one-time avoided repair costs which will be needed to maintain the fleet in safe and operable condition. Analysis of this option continues and DPW expects the initiative to move forward in fiscal year 1998. Currently, a solicitation is in progress to hire a contractor to provide hauling services. One year from now, the department plans to issue a second request for proposal which will be broader in scope and aimed at procuring private services which would optimize its solid waste disposal operations. The contract to privatize would be structured in such a way as to guarantee the delivery of solid waste collected by DPW and encourage the bidder to provide capacity for commercial and multi-family waste in the District. If more solid waste can be disposed of at these facilities, the District's disposal costs would be reduced as commercial and multi- family waste would provide revenue to pay indirect costs and associated facility maintenance costs. Rights of Way Initiative: Charge public utility companies, communication providers, and other private entities for the use of public rights of way, public space, and public structures in the District. Benefit: Generate new revenue. At this time, the department has awarded a contract to an expert firm to determine the fee structure for the leasing of rights of way. Annual fee revenue under franchise and rental agreements can be estimated at $5 to $20 million based upon fee revenue received by comparable municipalities for the use of public rights of way and infrastructure by utilities and communications providers. Nonetheless, the initiative is moving forward and the legislation has been passed by the District Council and the department is proceeding to implement the initiative. The Authority and the Administration will work with the Department to ensure that the fee does not impede economic development activity in the District. Trash Collection Crews Initiative: Reduce size of trash collection crews. Benefit: Possible increased efficiency and cost savings in solid waste management. The Department reviewed this alternative as part of the research to redesign trash collection routes. After completing its review, DPW concluded that this initiative is not feasible for the District. Currently, DPW utilizes 40 three-person crews in its household trash collection program. Under this configuration, two crew members work the back of the truck, either emptying cans from both sides of the street or alley, or setting up loose bags for collection. The District's trash collection program is exclusively residential, picking up small quantities of trash from the District's single family properties. At no time does the truck park and the crew work to load a large amount of trash onto the truck. Additionally, two-person crews are not expected to generate cost savings, since routes would have to be shortened to make allowance for slower collection. Additional routes would have to be developed, which would require more trucks and eliminate any possible staff reductions. Also, overtime would likely increase if all of the routes could not be completed in the same time as before. Therefore, the department does not plan any additional action related to this initiative. Expand Fleet Management Administration Initiative: Expand fleet management administration to include all aspects of fleet management in the District and the feasibility of privatizing the fleet. Benefit: Possible savings realized from economies of scale. Implementation of this initiative is unlikely. As noted later in this presentation, DPW's capacity to manage the existing fleet within its current resources is strained. Furthermore, police and fire want to maintain their own vehicles. Expanding the existing program under current fiscal conditions is not feasible and the Department does not plan continued review of this initiative. Solid Waste Collection Privatization Initiative: Conduct a competitive cost comparison to determine whether waste and refuse collection should be privatized. Benefit: Increased efficiency and cost savings in solid waste management. Implementation of this initiative is unlikely. The department does not believe that privatization would improve service or save money. In general, the department supports managed competition as a superior alternative to privatization for Mayor services. fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2001 programmatic changes Parking Management and Enforcement Enterprise Fund A proposed policy change to enhance the parking function is the creation of an independent enterprise fund for the administration of parking services in the District of Columbia. All parking services will be included in the fund such as the maintenance of parking meters, the collection of parking meter revenue and the enforcement of parking infractions through ticketing and booting. The enterprise fund structure will allow for the costs of services to be recovered through parking meter and ticket revenues. Any excess in revenues over expenditures generated by the enterprise fund will be transferred back to the general fund. Parking services are suitable for enterprise fund financing because parking revenues are directly tied to the expenditures allocated to the service. An increased investment in parking personnel and equipment is expected to generate increased revenues. However, the current budgetary environment limits the resources which can be invested in parking services. The creation of an enterprise fund will allow the parking function to fully invest in the service and maximize revenues. Possible future expansion of parking services in the District, such as the construction of a municipal parking garage, will be enhanced by the creation of an enterprise fund. As of this budget submission, the Council voted against the legislation to establish the fund. DPW, however, plans to revisit the issue next fiscal year. In addition, DPW is interested in including additional motor vehicle services, such as licensing and permitting, within the enterprise fund structure. The office of the chief financial officer will analyze the inclusion of additional services within the proposed enterprise fund. Parking Meter Privatization The department has issued an REP to potential providers for parking meter installation, replacement, repair and coin collection services. Although this initiative is not expected to generate cost savings, it is expected to protect the existing parking meter revenue base and generate additional parking meter revenues over the long term since the privatization of these functions will result in the upgrade of existing aged meters. The current inventory of meters is often broken or vandalized which hampers DPW's ability to collect parking meter fees and reduces the total amount of collectible fees. New electronic meters which are more resistant to vandalism and may be programmed to allow differential pricing are expected to replace the existing inventory. Auto Inspection Privatization Historically, DPW has performed all required vehicle safety and emissions inspections in-house at its own facilities. In fiscal year 1998, the department is required to implement new, enhanced vehicle emissions inspections in order to comply with a federal mandate required by the Clean Air Act. While preparing to provide these new inspections operations, the department has determined that it could reduce its annual operating costs by approximately one million dollars by privatizing its existing vehicle inspection operations along with the new federally mandated services. An RFP is being developed to solicit these services and it is expected that the process will utilize the design-build-operate privatization model. Replace the Motor Vehicle Information System (MVIS) The information systems, which are used to maintain and manage motor vehicle records are old and regularly experience system crashes and frequent downtime. When this system goes down, customer service suffers tremendously and revenue collection is delayed. A solicitation is currently open to update and operate these systems, including re-programming to fix the year 2000 problem. Fleet Management Several management audits performed for DPW suggested that the department convert the current system of fleet management operations to a leasing company format. Under the current system, various agencies throughout the District purchase their own vehicles and bring them to DPW for maintenance. Often times, no regular schedule of preventative maintenance has been followed, and maintenance is sought when more costly repairs are needed to operate the vehicle. Additionally, under the existing system, the size of the District fleet has increased while overall budget authority for maintenance has been reduced. This initiative proposes to consolidate the purchasing of certain District fleet through DPW who would own and maintain the vehicles and lease them to various other agencies. DPW would be responsible for regular scheduled maintenance and estimates that the size of the District's fleet could be reduced by 10 to 20 percent. Implement Community Based Coordination of Sanitation Services The department is planning a pilot program to test community based coordination of sanitation services. Under the existing system, sanitation services (i.e. trash collection, bulk trash collection, street and alley cleaning) are provided from a centralized service provider which does not allow for services to be customized according to the particular sanitation needs of a neighborhood. In the pilot program, DPW will designate a ward manager who will be responsible for monitoring the cleanliness of his or her ward and deploying the Sanitary services needed by that particular ward from the centralized service provider. This approach will decentralize program responsibilities for sanitation services and is expected to improve customer satisfaction. Although this initiative is not expected to produce cost savings or generate new revenues, it does not require an increase of current funding for DPW's sanitation programs which demonstrates the department's efforts to involve service delivery and customer satisfaction within existing fiscal constraints. budget summary The proposed total budget from all funding sources for fiscal year 1998 is $148.2 million, a net reduction of $8.4 million from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. The total FTE positions proposed for fiscal year 1998 is 1,901, an increase of 60 FTE's, or 3.2 percent, over the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. Personal services expenditures represent 54 percent of the proposed fiscal year 1998 total budget; nonpersonal services, 46 percent. Local Funds The proposed local funds budget for fiscal year 1998 is $95.6 million and 1,157 FTE's, which is $71,000 less than the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. Major changes include the following: --An increase of $4.1 million and 72 FTE's to support an expansion in the street and alley cleaning program. This funding will allow the agency to deploy 36 two-person crews, along with the requisite supplies, equipment and materials, throughout the city to routinely clean the District's streets and alleys. While streets will have dedicated crews, the main focus of this increase will be on alley cleaning. Currently, alleys are cleaned on an emergency basis only. This has been the case since regularly scheduled alley cleaning was discontinued after fiscal year 1993. The objective of this effort is to have cleaner alleyways and better sanitary conditions in our neighborhoods. --An increase of $1 million to support citywide pothole repairs. This funding will permit DPW to repair the numerous potholes that the severe 1995-96 winter season created. --$1.3 million has been allocated to restore the recycling to District residents on a biweekly basis. An additional $1.1 million is to be generated from management efficiencies, bringing recycling funding to a total of $2.4 million for fiscal year 1998. --$300,000 has been allocated for the disposal of household hazardous waste. This funding will allow DPW to notify the public of its intent to collect such material, identify drop-off points within the city to receive hazardous household waste and collect and properly dispose of the hazardous waste four times yearly. The objective of this effort is to improve the delivery of basic solid waste management activities to the District residents. --A reduction of $2.9 million for projected District-wide savings from lease renegotiations, security services, overtime, and energy costs, as appropriate, to be achieved in fiscal year 1998. Savings in overtime will be achieved due to the requirement that employees will receive compensation only for overtime work in excess of 40 hours per week of work actually performed (or other applicable tour of duty). It is projected that additional savings will be achieved from lease renegotiations and reduced energy costs. Additional savings will be achieved in security services by reducing Manhour coverage through the use of electronic surveillance systems. --A reduction of $318,000 for projected workforce distribution savings. --The District has approved a plan to finance capital related items, such as vehicles and heavy equipment, through a master lease purchase program. The Department of Public Works plans to finance $4,498,000 of its equipment needs over a five-year period. DPW has reduced its fiscal year 1998 equipment budget by $4,498,000 which results in a reduction in fiscal year 1998 spending authority. In comparison to fiscal year 1996 actual spending of $83.0 million, the fiscal year 1998 local funds budget request represents an increase of $13.9 million, or 18 percent. This increase is largely attributed to the restoration of services that were discontinued or eliminated in prior years. The District's budget for the DPW does not include the following Authority adjustments: An increase of $1.3 million for the cost of financing equipment over a five-year period; and a $30,000 reduction for one employee detailed to the Mayor's office. Nonlocal Funds The proposed nonlocal budget for fiscal year 1998 is $525 million, a decrease of $8.3 million, or fourteen percent, from the fiscal year 1997 adjusted budget. Almost 75 percent of DPW's nonlocal budget request is for intra-District funds to support personnel in the fleet management, facilities operations and maintenance, and design engineering and construction programs. Fiscal year 1996 actual spending for all funding sources was $132.9 million, or 12 percent, below the originally approved gross budget of $151.7 million. Additional nonlocal budget authority was approved by the Authority during fiscal year 1996. The final gross budget for fiscal year 1996 was $153.8 million. federal grants Federal grants are provided to DPW to help the agency achieve its objectives. The proposed federal funding level for fiscal year 1998 is $3,350,000. Federal grants have been awarded to DPW in the following programmatic areas: state planning and research The Office of Policy and Planning within the Department of Public Works administers the Federal State Planning and Research Program. This program is funded 80 percent from federal funds, and 20 percent local funds. Federally mandated planning and research activities related to the District's Transportation Improvement Program are performed with these grant funds. A portion of the funds are required by federal mandate to be passed through to the Metropolitan Washington Council of governments to perform regional transportation planning and coordination functions. Transportation Efficiency The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act provides funding for DPW street and bridge construction activities. Through the Act and National Highway System Funding, the agency awards contracts that are either 100 percent federally funded or funded on a 90/10 or 80/20 matching basis for certain infrastructure repair activities on roads and bridges that are eligible for federal-aid-transportation funding. Safety Grants are provided to assist the District in performing safety related data collection and programs to improve safety conditions on the District's roadway system. DPW works with the Metropolitan Police Department to identify highway safety problems, establish performance goals, and develop programs and projects to decrease roadway deaths. Elderly and Handicapped The Office of Mass Transit within DPW administers the Federal 16(B)(2) program. This program allows private nonprofit organizations to apply for funds on a 80/20 matching basis to buy vehicles to transport elderly and physically challenged individuals. Foresting The U.S. Interior Department's National Park Services provides grant funds to the District to promote community involvement in tree planting and other horticultural activities. FEDERAL GRANTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fund Revenue 1998 1998 Revenue source name code source 1997 1997 1998 1998 Estimated Estimated code Carryover Carryover Estimated Estimated grand obligational obligation total obligation total authority -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRDG INSPCTN-94.............................................. 87AV 100 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ CMG 999 (707)................................................ 100 87AZ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FORESTRY SRVC FISCAL YEAR 1993............................... 100 87BA .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ IVH 9311601.................................................. 100 87BM $10,000 $10,000 .......... .......... $10,000 $10,000 ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1993............................ 100 87DB .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ T.R. BRDG/MOVABLE BARRIERS/FED............................... 100 87DS .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ T.R. BRDG/MOVABLE BARRIERS/VA................................ 100 87DT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ TRANSIT PLANNING FISCAL YEAR 1994............................ 100 87EL .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FORESTRY SRVC FISCAL YEAR 1994............................... 100 87FK .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ SPR 001 34................................................... 100 87FT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ SPRPL 0001 34................................................ 100 87FU .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1994............................ 100 87GC .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FORESTRY SRVC FISCAL YEAR 1995............................... 100 87GK 20,000 20,000 .......... .......... 20,000 20,000 TRANSIT PLANNING FISCAL YEAR 1995............................ 100 87GM 42,375 42,375 .......... .......... 42,375 42,375 HPRPR 1 34................................................... 100 87HA 633,756 633,756 .......... .......... 633,756 633,756 MCSAP/CDL/MC-95.............................................. 100 87JA .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1995............................ 100 87KF 20,000 20,000 .......... .......... 20,000 20,000 NHTSA FISCAL YEAR 1997....................................... 100 87KK 1,000,000 1,000,000 .......... .......... 1,000,000 1,000,000 FHA-FISCAL YEAR 1997......................................... 100 87KL 100,000 100,000 .......... .......... 100,000 100,000 FORESTRY SRVC FISCAL YEAR 1996............................... 100 87KX 10,000 10,000 .......... .......... 10,000 10,000 TRANSIT PLANNING--FISCAL YEAR 1996........................... 100 87LK 42,365 42,365 $615,695 $615,695 658,060 658,060 LABOR MGMT PRTNRSHP/FLT MGMT................................. 100 87PE 33,487 33,487 .......... .......... 33,487 33,487 INTRNTNL REGSTRTN PRGRM/MC................................... 100 87PX .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1996............................ 100 87QF 138,242 138,242 .......... .......... 138,242 138,242 ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1991............................ 100 88VT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ AIR RIGHT/SOUTHEAST FREEWAY.................................. 100 88YZ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ TRANSIT PLANNING--FISCAL YEAR 1992........................... 100 88ZW .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ELDERLY/HANDICAP FISCAL YEAR 1992............................ 100 88ZX .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ELDERLY/HANDICAP--FISCAL YEAR 1997........................... ..... ........ 248,968 248,968 230,000 .......... 478,968 248,968 ELDERLY/HANDICAP--FISCAL YEAR 1998........................... 100 ........ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FHA-FISCAL YEAR 1998......................................... 200 ........ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FORESTRY SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 1997............................ 100 ........ 80,000 80,000 .......... .......... 80,000 80,000 NHTSA FISCAL YEAR 1998....................................... 100 ........ .......... .......... 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 TRANSIT PLANNING FISCAL YEAR 1997............................ 100 ........ 85,022 85,022 .......... .......... 85,022 85,022 TRANSIT PLANNING FISCAL YEAR 1998............................ 100 ........ 257,028 215,632 .......... .......... 257,028 215,632 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBTOTAL............................................... ..... ........ 2,721,243 2,679,847 900,195 670,195 3,621,438 3,350,042 ========================================================================================== CAPITAL GRANTS: \1\ ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IMPV................................... ..... ADT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ HIGHWAY MATCHING FUND.................................... ..... AFT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ BARNEY CIRCLE............................................ ..... AP6 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ WHITEHURST FREEWAY....................................... ..... AV6 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ RIDGE REHAB/REPL......................................... ..... CDT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ROADWAY RESURFACE........................................ ..... CET .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ROADSIDE IMPROV.......................................... ..... CGT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ROADWAY UPGRADE.......................................... ..... CHT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ TRAFFIC OPER IMPR........................................ ..... CIT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ROADWAY RECONSTRU........................................ ..... CKT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ MITIGATION AIR QUAL...................................... ..... CMT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPR...................................... ..... CPT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ FED PLAN AND MGMT SYS.................................... ..... PMT .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBTOTAL............................................... ..... ........ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENCY TOTAL........................................... ..... ........ 2,721,243 2,679,847 900,195 670,195 3,621,438 3,350,042 ESTIMATED IDCR......................................... ..... ........ .......... .......... .......... .......... 348,705 ............ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Capital grants data not provided by agency. The following tables detail expenditures and FTE's at the object class level for the agency. Differences between budget and actual results are also presented. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (KA) FISCAL YEAR 1997-FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGETED AND PROJECTED GROSS EXPENDITURES [In thousands of dollars \1\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Projected--Fiscal year fiscal Proposed ----------------------------- Object class year fiscal Variance 1997 year 1999 2000 2001 approved 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURES: Personal Services: Regular Pay................................ 58,720 53,775 (4,945) 54,797 55,838 56,899 Other Pay.................................. 6,849 5,380 (1,469) 5,482 5,586 5,693 Additional Gross Pay....................... 4,049 3,894 (155) 3,968 4,043 4,120 Fringe Benefits............................ 10,680 9,519 (1.161) 9,700 9,700 9,884 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal Personal Services............... 80,298 72,568 (7,730) 73,947 75,167 76,596 Non-Personal Services: Supplies and Materials..................... 5,815 6,307 492 6,427 6,549 6,680 Utilities.................................. 10,045 8,570 (1,475) 8,570 8,570 8,570 Communications............................. 2,408 2,403 (5) 2,468 2,517 2,558 Rent....................................... 1,217 1,217 ......... 1,193 1,169 1,145 Other Services and Charges................. 54,384 52,643 (1,741) 54,222 55,849 57,524 Subsidies and Transfers.................... 887 1,115 228 1,136 1,165 1,194 Depreciation and Land...................... ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Equipment.................................. 1,533 3,375 1,842 3,439 3,549 3,663 Debt Service and Other..................... ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal Non-Personal Services........... 76,289 75,630 (659) 77,455 79,368 81,334 ============================================================ TOTAL EXPENDITURES....................... 156,587 148,198 (8,389) 151,402 154,535 157,929 ============================================================ AUTHORIZED SPENDING LEVELS \2\ By revenue type: Local...................................... 95,746 95,675 (71) 97,715 99,624 101,761 Federal.................................... 3,047 3,350 303 3,434 3,533 3,634 Private and Other.......................... 9,958 10,030 72 10,247 10,481 10,723 Intra-District............................. 47,836 39,143 (8,693) 40,005 40,897 41,812 ------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL AUTHORIZED SPENDING................ 156,587 148,198 (8,389) 151,402 154,535 157,929 ============================================================ AUTHORIZED STAFFING (FTE's): Local.......................................... 1,085 1,157 72 ........ ........ ........ Federal........................................ 32 51 19 ........ ........ ........ Private and Other.............................. 68 76 8 ........ ........ ........ Intra-District................................. 656 617 (39) ........ ........ ........ ------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL FTE's.................................. 1,841 1,901 60 ........ ........ ........ ============================================================ AGENCY PROGRAM CHANGES: Local.......................................... ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Workforce program changes \3\.................. ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Non-workforce Program changes \4\.............. ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Federal........................................ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Private and Other.............................. ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ Intra-District................................. ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL AGENCY PROG. CHANGES................... ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ============================================================ TOTAL AUTHORIZED SPENDING.................... 156,587 148,198 (8,389) 151,402 154,535 157,929 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. \2\ Net of agency program changes. \3\ Amount shown is 75 percent of maximum possible savings. \4\ Amount shown is 60 percent of maximum possible savings. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (KA) FISCAL YEAR 1996-FISCAL YEAR 1997 ACTUAL AND BUDGETED GROSS EXPENDITURES [In thousands of dollars \1\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Budgeted Actual Fiscal year fiscal Object class fiscal fiscal Variance 1997 year 1997 year 1996 year 1996 approved \5\ approved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURES: Personal services: Regular pay.................................. 28,243 47,475 (19,232) 59,367 58,720 Other Pay.................................... 28,134 5,237 22,897 6,911 6,849 Additional Gross Pay......................... 4,418 6,789 (2,371) 4,049 4,049 Fringe benefits.............................. 11,805 9,145 2,660 10,703 10,680 ========================================================== Subtotal Personal Services................. 72,600 68,646 3,954 81,030 80,298 ========================================================== Non-Personal Services: Supplies and Materials....................... 9,667 3,521 6,146 6,178 5,815 Utilities.................................... 8,590 5,434 3,156 10,045 10,045 Communications............................... 2,438 2,242 196 2,408 2,408 Rent......................................... 1,292 1,330 (38) 1,217 1,217 Other Services and Changes................... 53,655 49,767 3,888 55,744 54,384 Subsidies and Transfers...................... 916 790 126 887 887 Depreciation and Land........................ ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... Equipment.................................... 2,571 1,217 1,354 1,533 1,533 Debt Service and Other....................... ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Non-Perstonal Services............ 79,129 64,301 14,828 78,012 76,289 ========================================================== TOTAL EXPENDITURES......................... 151,729 132,947 18,782 159,042 156,587 ========================================================== AUTHORIZED SPENDING LEVELS: \2\ By revenue type Local........................................ 87,494 83,016 4,478 98,201 95,746 Federal...................................... 2,682 4,958 (2,276) 3,047 3,047 Private and Other............................ 13,648 6,317 7,331 9,958 9,958 Intra-District............................... 47,905 38,656 9,249 47,836 47,836 ---------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL AUTHORIZED SPENDING.................. 151,729 132,947 18,782 159,042 156,587 ========================================================== AUTHORIZED STAFFING (FTE's): Local............................................ 1,140 1,149 (9) 1,143 1,085 Federal.......................................... 32 26 6 32 32 Private and Other................................ 68 54 14 68 68 Intra-District................................... 656 508 148 656 656 ---------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL FTE's.................................... 1,896 1,738 158 1,899 1,841 ========================================================== AGENCY PROGRAM CHANGES: Local: Workforce Program Changes \3\................ ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... Non-workforce Program Changes................ ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... Federal...................................... ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... Private and Other............................ ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... Intra-District............................... ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... ---------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL AGENCY PROG. CHANGES................. ......... ......... .......... ............ ......... ========================================================== TOTAL AUTHORIZED SPENDING.................. 151,729 132,947 18,782 159,042 156,587 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. \2\ Except for fiscal year 1997 Approved, figures are net of agency program changes. \3\ Amount shown is 75 percent of maximum possible savings. \4\ Amount shown is 60 percent of maximum possible savings. \5\ Public Law 104-194. Agency budget does not reflect unallocated initiatives or an additional $25 million of reductons required by the Congressional deficit ceiling. ______ Prepared Statement of Michael C. Rogers, City Administrator, District of Columbia Good morning, Chairman Faircloth and Members of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Michael C. Rogers, City Administrator for the District of Columbia. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget requests for the Departments of Health, Human Services, and Public Works. This hearing evidences your commitment to the revitalization of the Nation's Capital. The three agencies whose budgets we are to discuss are three of the key operating agencies in the District. Their activities touch the lives of the residents of the District in one way or another every day. Their combined functions directly affect the well-being of the full range of the District's residents, visitors, and neighbors. The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department of Health is $961.3 million and 776 FTE's. This request includes $826.6 million and 71 FTE's for the Medicaid Program. The request for the Department of Human Services is $637 million and 4,891 FTE's. $357 million is local funding and $279 million is non- local funding--primarily Federal grants. The fiscal year 1998 budget has 264 FTE's less than the revised fiscal year 1997 budget. The request for the Department of Public Works is $148 million and 1,901 FTE's. $95.6 million is local funding and $52.5 million is non- local funding. This request represents a decrease of $8.4 million and an increase of 60 FTE's from the revised fiscal year 1997 budget. Mr. Chairman, before we get into more detail on the budgets and operations of these departments, please allow me take some time to discuss the issue of management in and of the District of Columbia. In the recent past there has been a lot of discussion on the management or lack thereof in the District of Columbia. Because I am the appointed Operations Officer for the city, I believe it incumbent upon me to address such issues. Public management, in its broadest terms is the manipulation of people and resources to achieve the ``public good.'' Any public manager, whether called a city manager, a chief operations officer, or a city administrator, must evaluate resources, including personnel, to identify deficiencies and to develop appropriate solutions. The mark of the effectiveness of a public manager is not whether he can identify problems. Anyone, in fact, everyone can do that. The mark of a public manager's success is the implementation of measures designed to fix identified and anticipated deficiencies. In developing solutions, one of the primary responsibilities of management must be to remove obstacles, including laws and regulations, that prevent employees from providing quality services to the public. Over the past twenty-eight months, this administration has evaluated its resources, identified deficiencies and implemented or proposed plans to cure identified and anticipated inadequacies. To begin with, we developed a plan to transform the government of the city into the kind of organization we thought it should be in the year 2000. This plan was unique and unprecedented in that it sought to move a large, labor-saturated, labor intensive government which attempted to do all things for all people, to an operation that was focused, effective, and technologically advanced. Implementation of this plan required significant repair and often creation of the internal infrastructure necessary to support this transformation. Twenty-eight months ago, the management sector of the government of the District of Columbia, like everyone else, recognized there were fundamental problems with the structure and operation of the government. Consequently, it is not news to say there have been and continue to be problems with the procurement system. The real news is that in fall of 1995 the District government commissioned a study of its procurement system--to analyze the deficiencies in the system and to develop an implementation strategy. To implement the strategy, we drafted and submitted to Council the ``Procurement Reform Amendment Act of 1996.'' The act, which was passed by Council, allows the city to: --Raise the small purchase threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 and $50,000 for construction. --Permit the use of purchase cards for items costing up to $2,500.00. --Utilize evolving technology to manage procurement making contract decisions based on ``best value.'' --Revise the contract appeals process. The net effect of these changes in the law regarding the procurement process is to streamline that process. To implement the strategy, management recognized the need to train personnel and to revise regulations. Management also initiated a massive effort toward automation. By the end of this fiscal year, the procurement process will largely be automated. Likewise, it is not news to observe or report problems with the District's personnel rules and regulations. Because we recognized the problems, we proposed and forwarded to the City Council legislation that would create a flexible personnel system that will allow management to more easily recruit, to better train, to better compensate, and to more easily separate those employees who do not perform to standard. It is also not news to observe or to report problems with the way the District handled its real estate transactions. The real news is: A public/private partnership of real estate executives and city managers was created to identify opportunities for cost savings; to insure better return on the District's real property assets; and, to create an effective space plan for the future. Consequently, the following steps have been taken: --An independent CPA firm has been hired to conduct audits of all the District's leases and to identify deficiencies. --A regional law firm has been retained to pursue claims against landlords who have improperly invoiced the District. --Contracted with two nationally recognized firms to act as representatives for the city in the negotiation and administration of leases. --Drafted and submitted to the Council, legislation which will overhaul current law and create a comprehensive, modern and less burdensome legal environment for the District. Another management improvement measure has been the development of a comprehensive performance management system. You will hear from the Department of Public Works on the strides that they have made in creating a performance-based organization. This system when completed will allow us to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the various departments and enhance public accountability. Specific performance measures for programs and services have been developed for the Departments of Health, Human Services, Public Works, Recreation and Parks, consumer and regulatory affairs, personnel, fire, corrections, and administrative services. Extensive training in performance measurement has taken place for senior managers. By the beginning of the next fiscal year, I will have entered into performance contracts with department directors. Every manager knows that the best plan will fail if the people expected to implement the plan are not properly trained and are not properly led. The management sector recognized early in the process, that the extreme pace of downsizing, and the absence of technological support would deplete the management infrastructure that had been in place for years and would leave untrained and inexperienced managers. To address the problem, the Mayor budgeted a significant amount of money ($8.5 million) for training in the 1997 budget. To replace the infrastructure lost to downsizing, we entered into a public private agreement with George Washington University to provide a more advanced level of training and leadership development to our employees. Participants in the Center for Excellence for Municipal Management are chosen on the basis of merit and not politics. Each year we will graduate 120 managers and every successful candidate will be qualified as a certified public manager. Senator Faircloth, this administration inherited severe and complex problems which could not, and cannot be fixed overnight. Complex problems require carefully drawn and thoroughly considered plans. That planning process has been implemented and continues in the management sector of the government of the District of Columbia. No matter how much they would like to, no city manager can function outside the law and regulations in effect in his jurisdiction. Our efforts over the past twenty-eight months evidence that we recognized when and where existing law hampered effective and efficient management. We have taken and continue to take the initiative to develop and to submit to the City Council new legislation which will make management of the city's resources more effective and more efficient. As you know from your experience in this body and more importantly from your experience in local and State government, the legislature is not required to agree with the manager's assessment or proposed solutions. The process of identifying deficiencies, developing solutions and working through the legislative process to implement a plan requires time. No one should legitimately expect this city, or any other governmental entity, to respond overnight, to every deficiency identified by even an informed observer. Our obligation to our citizens and to this body, is to work continually to resolve problems in an orderly and thoughtful manner with due regard for the law and the legislative process. We are doing this. At this time allow me to introduce Dr. Marlene Kelly, the Interim Director of the Department of Health; Mr. Wayne Cassey, the Interim Director of the Department of Human Services, and Mr. Cell Bernardino, the Acting Director of the Department of Public Works. They will in more detail discuss their respective agency's budget request. interim or part-time directors Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Bernardino. The first question that occurs to me is that all three of you are either interim or part time. Mr. Casey, how long have you been an interim director? Mr. Casey. Approximately 15 months. Senator Faircloth. Who was there before you? Mr. Casey. Vernon Hawkins. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Mr. Casey. He was there about 1\1/2\ years. Senator Faircloth. Who was before him? Mr. Casey. Vincent Gray. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Mr. Casey. He was there the total of the Kelley administration, 4 years. Senator Faircloth. Why are you interim? Why have you not been appointed? Mr. Casey. I have not sought the position as director. I am not a candidate for the job. time limit on interim director Senator Faircloth. Well, I thought there was a rule that an interim job be held for only 90 days. Is that correct? Mr. Casey. I do not know the exact timeframe. I think there has been some difficulty in trying to find a director. Senator Faircloth. I was not asking that. How long are you supposed to be interim? Mr. Casey. I cannot give you the exact number of days that that holds. Someone here probably can. Senator Faircloth. Does anybody know? Mr. Casey. One hundred eighty days. Senator Faircloth. How long have you been there? Mr. Casey. As I indicated, 15 months. Senator Faircloth. Why was it not changed at 180 days? Mr. Casey. I think one of the reasons was they were not able to find a replacement. tenure of directors of public health Senator Faircloth. So, the fact that the law says 180 days does not mean anything to the Mayor. Dr. Kelley. Dr. Kelley. Yes, sir. Senator Faircloth. I understand you have been there about 1 week, so you are brand new. Dr. Kelley. Yes, sir. Senator Faircloth. Who preceded you? Dr. Kelley. Dr. Harvey Sloan. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Dr. Kelley. Two years. Senator Faircloth. Two years. Who preceded him? Dr. Kelley. Dr. Mohammed Akhter. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Dr. Kelley. Approximately 2 years, almost 2 years. Senator Faircloth. Do you know who preceded him? Dr. Kelley. Reed Tuckson, Dr. Reed Tuckson. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Dr. Kelley. I think he was only there 1 year. Senator Faircloth. Well, you have sure had stability and continuity in your department, have you not? How long do you think you will be there? Dr. Kelley. Well, sir, I have been with the District government for quite some time, so I will be there until the candidate arrives that is to assume---- Senator Faircloth. I am sorry, ma'am. Dr. Kelley. I will be in this position until the candidate who has been selected for the position arrives. tenure of directors of public works Senator Faircloth. Mr. Bernardino, I see you are acting or temporary. How long have you been there? Mr. Bernardino. I have been acting director since October of last year. Senator Faircloth. October. Who was there before you? Mr. Bernardino. Larry King. Senator Faircloth. How long was he there? Mr. Bernardino. About 2, 2\1/2\ years. Senator Faircloth. Who was before him? Mr. Bernardino. Betty Francis. Senator Faircloth. How long was she there? Mr. Bernardino. She was there for the 4 years of the Kelley administration. Senator Faircloth. Well, we are just seeing a pattern that is what we have known, that so much of the city is simply out of control. Mr. Casey, I noticed you have Human Services employees. Of course, I say you. Nobody has been here long enough to get any continuity to answer the questions of why the problems are there. number of locations for department of human services But you have people working in 130 office buildings? Mr. Casey. We provide a variety of services throughout the District of Columbia: child care services, youth services, nursing services. A lot of our services are administrative functions. Senator Faircloth. Well, what kind of functions? Mr. Casey. Administrative functions. We provide a lot of different services to a lot of different people who are in need. I think it justifies the number of locations that we are in because we do what we can to get to where the people are, and they are all over the city. The poorest of our people are in wards where they can ill afford to get transportation. So, we provide services where they can come to the services, if needed. real estate company to look at leases Senator Faircloth. Do you think you need 130 offices? Mr. Casey. We have looked at all of our office locations, all of our space. We are doing a space review just as we speak. The city administrator has hired a real estate company to come in and meet with our facilities administration people to look at where we are in month-to-month leases and where we are in long-term leases to try and consolidate where appropriate, and we are in the process of doing that now. Senator Faircloth. There has been great criticism that you pay far more for leases than they are worth; that the city has property and is still leasing property; that a lot of leases are going to friends of the Mayor and the administration and that they are not going to the cheapest lease. What do you respond to that? Mr. Casey. The Department of Human Services does not negotiate leases. department of administrative services negotiate leases Senator Faircloth. Who does? Mr. Casey. The Department of Administrative Services negotiate leases. We tell them what our needs are and they work with us to try---- Senator Faircloth. They give you the key and you go to it. Mr. Casey. Yes. Senator Faircloth. All right. mental health services in receivership Mental Health Services has been placed in receivership. According to Judge Robinson, the Mayor and other city officials have failed to serve the District's 10,000 mentally ill residents. This is the fourth receiver order to run a city program due to the city's management failures. To make a bad situation worse, the commission has spent $180 million per year for the past 2 years. It seems an extremely high price to pay for receivership. Has a receiver been named to run the commission during its receivership? Mr. Casey. Yes; there is an interim director who was on board before the judge made the decision to place it in a receivership, Mrs. Arlene Elias, and she has been there for about 3 or 4 months and was there when the judge made that decision. I mean interim director. Not receiver. Senator Faircloth. Why did the judge give the decision? Mr. Casey. I think for the reasons that you've stated. We were concerned about our ability to process services, to do it effectively. Senator Faircloth. You mean you asked for it? Mr. Casey. No, no; we did not ask for it. We did everything we could to hold it off. The Mayor put in place a number---- Senator Faircloth. Well, you said you were concerned. What does that mean? You say you were concerned about it. I asked you why he was appointed, and you said you were concerned, the implication being that you had asked---- Mr. Casey. The judge was concerned about our ability to process and deliver services in a fashion that he thought we were not very effective at. So, he decided a receiver would need to be in place to do that. The Mayor had put in place a number of administrative functions, but they did not have time to work before the judge made his decision. Senator Faircloth. Was the judge right in making his decision? Mr. Casey. I do not think so. I think we were on our way to handling those problems. We had hired a commissioner out of Massachusetts who had a background in working in mental health and did a wonderful job in Massachusetts, but the judge did not think that that was what he wanted to hear at that particular time. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Kelley, you have been with the department a long time, although you have just become the director. Dr. Kelley. That is correct. chartered health care contract Senator Faircloth. In May there was a lot of publicity on a contract between the District and Chartered Health Care. As I understand, Chartered Health Care has a contract with the District to provide services to patients covered by Medicaid. The District then reimburses Chartered for its services. There is a dispute as to whether Chartered is entitled to $37 million to cover services it provided between 1992 and 1994. The chief financial officer has blocked the payment to Chartered. Could you tell us just exactly in plain language what is going on? Dr. Kelley. With your indulgence, I would like to ask Dr. Offner to come---- Senator Faircloth. I am sorry? Dr. Kelley. I would like to have Dr. Offner come to the table, please. He is our deputy director for Health Care Finance. money owed chartered health care Dr. Offner. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that there has been, as you said, a disagreement about how much money was owed Chartered. The chief financial officer has written Chartered indicating that it is his view that all the District owes Chartered is a little in excess of $6 million. At this point the chief financial officer informed Chartered it is up to them to either accept that or indicate that they are not going to accept that. To date they have not done that yet. Senator Faircloth. How much was first proposed to pay them? Dr. Offner. I beg your pardon? Senator Faircloth. Was $18 million proposed at one point to pay to Chartered? Dr. Offner. My agency signed an audit settlement, of I believe, around $18 million, and that has, as I said, been held up by the chief financial officer. Senator Faircloth. Was it not the Mayor's desire to send them the $18 million? Was your department not ready to send them $18 million with the acquiescence of the Mayor? Dr. Offner. That is my understanding. Senator Faircloth. You mean you do not know? Dr. Offner. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know that the Mayor has ever expressed himself on this subject, but that was certainly my understanding of his position. Senator Faircloth. Well, how anybody could propose or think about sending $18 million for a $6 million bill is more than I can comprehend. But the chief financial officer stopped it. Dr. Offner. That is correct. Senator Faircloth. And has offered what? Dr. Offner. He has offered the amount of a little over $6 million. audit chartered health care Senator Faircloth. Were you in on the audit? Dr. Offner. My agency conducted the audit. Senator Faircloth. How much do we owe them? Dr. Offner. The audit conclusion was the amount that the chief financial officer has authorized, a little in excess of $6 million. Senator Faircloth. Your department said you owed them $6 million. Dr. Offner. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunately a little more complicated than that. At the time in question, between 1992 and 1994, Chartered was being paid on a cost basis. Then Congress in its wisdom 2 years ago changed the law to retroactively change the rules in effect under which Chartered was paid. So, there's a dispute now about the methodology on the basis of which Chartered should be paid. Senator Faircloth. But your department decided that you owed them $6 million. Dr. Offner. That is correct. Senator Faircloth. All right. Why would you consider paying them more? All right, thank you. tenure of director of public works Mr. Bernardino, you have been here 18 months you said. You came in October. Mr. Bernardino. Yes; I think it is 10 months, but I was the deputy director for the 4\1/2\ years before that. Senator Faircloth. For how long? Mr. Bernardino. I was hired when I came to Washington to DPW in December 1991. I was hired as the deputy director. Senator Faircloth. You were hired when? Mr. Bernardino. December 1991. Senator Faircloth. I assume from the speech you gave that you have done an enormous amount of research into the history of what has gone on in the city and the Department of Public Works. In good, plain language, tell me why the city is in such an absolute dismal shape as far as public works is concerned. What happened? Mr. Bernardino. Let me just say that the per capita spending on public works, as you have seen, for street repair and sanitation is among the lowest in the country, and it was lower than the other cities surveyed by the Control Board. Senator Faircloth. Wait 1 minute. Was the money not appropriated by the Federal Department of Transportation? Was the money not sent to the city for street repair? Forty percent of streets federal aid eligible Mr. Bernardino. Only 40 percent of the District's streets are Federal aid eligible. So, the situation that we have is that we have money to resurface and occasionally reconstruct 40 percent of the District's streets. In the 5-plus years that I have been there--and my understanding is for at least the last decade--there has been very little local funding available for the other 60 percent of the streets, and there has been no maintenance. maintenance of streets Senator Faircloth. There has been no maintenance. Mr. Bernardino. As a former public works director, I am sure you know that resurfacing is not enough. You must crack seal periodically. You must slurry seal. The District has simply not had the funding and has not done the maintenance over the last decade. So, what we are seeing in terms of the potholes is a decade of neglected maintenance coming home to roost. Senator Faircloth. The streets of Washington have been neglected for a decade or more. Is that not right? Mr. Bernardino. Well, in terms of maintenance, the funding has just not been there at least in the 5\1/2\ years that I have been there. My understanding is that the department has not been able to do systematic crack sealing, slurry sealing, and other maintenance. As you are aware, the Federal funding is not available for maintenance and, as I said, is only available for 40 percent of the streets. That forces public works to compete with every other department for limited capital funding, and that is a situation that other States and cities do not find themselves in. Senator Faircloth. This funding comes on a matching basis, is that not right? Mr. Bernardino. Correct. matching money for federal funds Senator Faircloth. All right. Did Washington always have the matching money to receive the Federal funds? Mr. Bernardino. Well, always except for the situation we got in 2 years ago when we did not have the match and the Congress voted to provide a deferral of match for 2 years. Senator Faircloth. Has money been diverted from the Public Works Department, and money that should have gone to the public works, has it been diverted to some other aspect of government? Mr. Bernardino. Well, I do not think it is a question of diversion. It is a question of priorities and limited funding. Everything that the funding gets used for, whether it is police, fire, is important, and there is a limited pot. As I said, it is kind of a unique situation where road maintenance and road reconstruction has to compete with hospitals and schools and other capital items. Senator Faircloth. How many ladder fire trucks have you got today that are cocked, primed, ready to fight a fire? You have got 16. How many of them are ready to go at this moment? Mr. Bernardino. I have no responsibility for fire. I would have to defer. Senator Faircloth. You what? responsibility for fire department Mr. Bernardino. I don't have any knowledge of or responsibility for the Fire Department. We do not handle their fleet. The Fire Department does its own vehicle maintenance. Police, fire, and schools do their own. We do the rest. Senator Faircloth. Have funds paid to the utilities been put into the general fund? Mr. Bernardino. Funds paid to the utilities? Senator Faircloth. The utility funds. Have they gone into the general fund and not come back for the maintenance of utilities? Mr. Bernardino. I am not sure what you are referring to, sir. If you are referring to the rights-of-way funding, that has not been implemented yet. water funds Senator Faircloth. I am asking aboat money from, say, the water department. Has that gone back into the general fund? How is that handled? Pay the water bill. Where does the money go? Mr. Bernardino. Well, the water funding--and again, I am going to have to defer because that is no longer part of public works. That is now a separate authority. But traditionally for the time I have been here, it has been a separate enterprise fund for water and sewer, separate from the public works budget. Senator Faircloth. You know, 59 percent of the city's contracts--I feel like I am just somewhat wasting my time here because nobody has been on the job, nobody can give us an answer. You have been there since October and there is consistent shifting. percent of contracts sole-source But 59 percent of the city's contracts are sole-sourced. Now, can you give me an explanation of that? Mr. Bernardino. Not for the city's contracts. Senator Faircloth. Not what? Mr. Bernardino. Are you speaking about just public works? Senator Faircloth. Public works. Mr. Bernardino. Fifty-nine percent? Senator Faircloth. Yes. Mr. Bernardino. No; you mean citywide. Senator Faircloth. No; this is total city contracts. What percentage of yours are sole-sourced? Mr. Bernardino. I am being told probably less than 5 percent. I am being told by staff that it is less than 5 percent in DPW. Senator Faircloth. All right. Then 59 percent of city contracts are sole-sourced. Mr. Casey, can you tell me what percent of yours are? Mr. Bernardino. It would be a small percentage of our contracts. All of our contracts are competitively bid. There are some cases where there is a continuity of services and that you would want the same contractor, but that is rare. That is not the rule. Senator Faircloth. Dr. Kelley, could you tell me what percent of the contracts in your department are sole-sourced? Dr. Kelley. No; I cannot tell you exactly, but I do know that---- Senator Faircloth. Well, I will take close figures. Dr. Kelley. No; I do not have any figures at all, but I can say it is a very small number. Senator Faircloth. Well, if you have a small number, Mr. Casey has a small number, Mr. Bernardino has a small number, how does it wind up that 59 percent of the total contracts of the city are sole-source? Now, we heard testimony from Dr. Brimmer that contract after contract was coming through just below the amount that required supervision. In other words, contracts that were repetitive were coming through. Mr. Casey. In the last 2 years, we have paid real close attention to what was a competitive sole-source process for years. The numbers you are talking about are 1995 numbers. In 1996 and 1997, we have done everything humanly possible not to let sole-source contracts out, and the Control Board, who oversees our contract process, does not let that happen. Senator Faircloth. What is the limit to which a contract does not have to go before the City Council? Mr. Casey. Under $1 million. Senator Faircloth. What? Mr. Casey. Under $1 million. Senator Faircloth. Well, Dr. Brimmer was saying a lot were coming through and had in the past come through for under $1 million. Mr. Casey. And I agree in the past that was the case. In 1996 and 1997, we have made a concerted effort for that not to be the rule. Senator Faircloth. Ms. Kelley, do you read the Washington Post? Dr. Kelley. Yes; I do. management of district of columbia Senator Faircloth. Did you see the article that ran Sunday and Monday? Dr. Kelley. Yes; I did. Senator Faircloth. What did you think? Dr. Kelley. From the perspective of the Department of Health? I thought that there was some misinterpretation of some of the figures and some miscommunication as to the kinds of things that we do. I am not denying that there may not be some problems within the District government in terms of our delivery of services. Senator Faircloth. There may not be some problems. That is an understatement, but go ahead. I am sorry. Dr. Kelley. But there were some discrepancies in terms of the way the figures were presented. Senator Faircloth. As a citizen of the city of Washington-- do you live in Washington? Dr. Kelley. Yes; I do. Senator Faircloth. What did you think of it as a citizen when you read the whole thing? Dr. Kelley. Well---- Senator Faircloth. Were you proud to be a citizen of Washington after reading that? Dr. Kelley. I will always be proud to be a citizen of Washington. I do think that there are areas where there is improvement needed. There are areas where we are in the process of making improvements, and I will always, as I said, be proud to be a citizen of the District of Columbia. Senator Faircloth. Well, I understand that. It is the Capital of the Nation. We are all proud of it. Mr. Casey, did you read it? What did you think? Mr. Casey. Let me talk about this from a manager's point of view. I am a manager of managers. The city has taken an effort to improve the quality of managers. We have people---- Senator Faircloth. When did this take place? Mr. Casey. When did which take place? Senator Faircloth. We have been hearing the same thing now for years. Mr. Casey. That is why I am telling you---- Senator Faircloth. The management of Washington did not start last week. It started years ago, and we have been talking and hearing about the improvements that were going to happen, and none of them have happened. improvement in the city of washington, dc Mr. Casey. Let me say that I am a living witness to it, that there are improvements in the city of Washington, DC. I have been a part of those improvements. We have done the kinds of things that the Control Board suggested and the Congress suggested by downsizing and cutting the budget to comply with the Congress' 1998 budget mandate. We have done everything humanly possible to make all those kinds of things happen. We had a symposium for over 300 managers 2 weeks ago. It was well attended. The managers thought it was an excellent symposium. We have other symposiums planned for the future. We are addressing the lack of management skills in the District government. When people retired, they left a void and we understand that. The government and the Mayor and the city administrator have done everything humanly possible to identify those managers who have weak skills. We are moving forward with that, and I am pleased to say we are making progress. Senator Faircloth. Mr. Bernardino, did you read it? Mr. Bernardino. Yes. Senator Faircloth. What did you think? Mr. Bernardino. Well, on balance, first of all, the commentary on public works was positive. Senator Faircloth. The article was positive on public works. per capita spending on sanitation and streets Mr. Bernardino. On public works. I thought that the media continues to not report all the things that we have done in terms of becoming a performance based organization. I also thought that the areas where problems were identified--and there were two, sanitation and streets-- correlated with the spending which shows us lowest among all the cities surveyed on per capita spending on sanitation and streets. But overall, there was acknowledgment of some of the efforts we were making in public works, and I thought it was balanced coverage. director of public health Senator Faircloth. Dr. Kelley, do you know why the Mayor fired Dr. Sloan? Dr. Kelley. No, sir. Senator Faircloth. Was he fired for speaking out and saying what he thought? Dr. Kelley. I do not think that Dr. Sloan has been fired. Dr. Sloan is still working within the government in a policy area in the Mayor's office. Senator Faircloth. Why was he replaced as health director? Dr. Kelley. I think that, as far as I know, he was in an acting position. Once the new department was formed and it was understood that there would be a search, a nationwide search, for a new director of the Department of Health, he was one of the candidates. It is my understanding that of the candidates that were available to the Mayor, he then made a selection and Dr. Sloan was not the selectee. Mr. Casey. Senator, I think Mr. Rogers is here. That person reported directly to Mr. Rogers. I think he would be the appropriate person to respond to that and some other issues that you raised, if you would allow that. Senator Faircloth. Who was that now? Dr. Kelley. City administrator, Mr. Rogers. Senator Faircloth. Mr. Rogers had an opportunity to testify. He knew about the hearing. He did not request to do so. We cannot have hearings in which people simply walk in to testify. We have to have notice in advance, and he did not give us advance notice. There will be other hearings, I can assure you, and Mr. Rogers will be given an opportunity to testify. deterioration of basic infrastructure I have listened to the testimony and it is testimony we have heard before, not by you all, as there has been a constant change in people. What we have seen is a constant deterioration of the basic infrastructure of the city over the years. I am talking on the long haul, as you said, Mr. Bernardino, 10 years with no maintenance to the street system. This is a problem of concern that faces not only the citizens of Washington but the people of the Nation because it is the Capital. I hear the reports of what is going to happen and how it is happening. Yet we have heard these reports and commitments from the Mayor many, many years in the past, and we have seen a continuous deterioration of the infrastructure of the city and the management of it. I must say that you all, each of you is relatively new on the job--Mr. Bernardino since October; Mr. Casey, 18 months; and Dr. Kelley, a couple of weeks. You are in an extremely difficult position to try to defend the deterioration in various departments that has gone on for literally a decade and more. I thank you for coming. I thank you for being here, and I thank you for your testimony. We will have other hearings later on. Mr. Casey. May I say something in closing, Senator? Senator Faircloth. Yes. Mr. Casey. The Mayor has never interfered not one time in my day-to-day operation of the Department of Human Services. changing of management style Let me say we are on the upswing. We are going to be a different city when we get through this budget crisis, and we have had serious budget reductions. We have lost thousands and thousands of employees. We know we have to go through that because with that, there is some pain. In order to improve the city's quality of life, we have got to go through that process, but we are going through it. We have held our heads high. We have made the tough decisions that we need to make to improve service delivery. I think we have been on a kick Washington, DC, bandwagon for some time, and that needs to change because we are changing our management style. We are changing the way that we deliver services. We are committed to providing quality services to the citizens of the District of Columbia and anybody who comes to visit the city. I think the Mayor has done a wonderful job in that regard with transformation. It is painful. We have gone through it, and we are going to improve the quality of life in the city. I have been a government employee longer than I have been in the Department of Human Services, and I am committed to that personally. Additional committee questions Senator Faircloth. Well, there is a Nation and a city out there hoping that what you say is true. Mr. Casey. It will be true. Thank you. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth Question. The city's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal reports that the department provides educational programs in the D.C. Public Schools. Please describe these educational programs. What do these programs cost? Are the programs funded by city or federal funds? Answer. The D.C. Public Schools program is one of the components of the Solid Waste Education and Enforcement Program within the Department of Public Works (DPW) Solid Waste Management Administration. The goal of the school program is to shape the sanitation habits of the city's youth so that they will engage in clean, healthy and safe practices as adults. Sanitation presentations are made to students, pre-K through 12th grade, about their responsibility to practice proper sanitation. In-class sessions are reinforced through a variety of methods including school cleanups and projects, alley walk-throughs where students actually see the effects of poor sanitation habits (i.e., active rat burrows), and poster campaigns. This program reached 2,116 students in 33 educational sessions across the city during the 1996-97 school year. The DPW employees who present educational programs in the D.C. Public Schools do so in addition to their other responsibilities without additional pay. These employees are also responsible for compiling data about rat infestation in targeted District neighborhoods, meeting with community groups, and implementing neighborhood clean-up assistance, our Helping Hand program. Without a job costing system there is no accurate method to isolate the cost of the educational program in the schools. In the proposed fiscal year 1998 budget, the Solid Waste Management Administration developed its annual funding needs on a program-by- program basis. The Helping Hand/School Outreach program is projected to cost $140,227 in fiscal year 1998, and the program is to be funded out of Local (appropriated) funds. Question. The Metropolitan Police Department entered into its Memorandum of Understanding with the Mayor, Police Chief, City Council Chair and others to carry out badly needed reforms. The results were immediate--arrests are up and crime is down. Do you think putting in place a model like the Police Department's MOU would benefit the department? Answer. That greater independence and flexibility would be required for DPW if the department was to fully implement performance based management was recognized shortly after the Financial Authority dedicated funds in the fiscal year 1996 budget for DPW's ``Performance Pilot''. A year's worth of work has already gone into the development of an MOU that would provide the director of DPW with more flexibility to innovate, more authority to hire, fire and conduct procurement and legal reviews within the department, and other relief from the unpredictable and uncontrollable timeframes associated with central reviews and approvals. This enhanced authority and flexibility would be granted in return for a commitment to develop and be held strictly accountable for measurable outcomes, within the framework of performance based management. The MOU is currently at the Financial Authority for review. Question. In the Department's 1998 budget request, the number one priority for next year is ``cleaning up the city''. To achieve that goal the department has asked for an increase of $4.3 million and 72 FTE's to support an expansion in the street and alley cleaning program. The Mayor recently requested the federal government to expand the definition of ``work'' to include unpaid volunteers so the city can comply with the welfare reform law. Has your Department given any consideration to recruiting such volunteers for the cleaning program as a way of preventing current welfare recipients from being denied their benefits after October 1, 1997? What are the Department's thoughts about such a proposal? Answer. The Department has always been open to the use of nontraditional labor to assist us in our efforts to keep the District clean. Several years ago, the Solid Waste Management Administration participated with the D.C. Superior Court and Office of the Public Defender in a weekend alternative sentencing program for minor offenders (e.g., DWI, DUI). Participants in this program cleaned large public areas including roads, hillsides and tree boxes. While this program lapsed due to inconsistent participation, the Department is investigating the logistics of its resumption. To date we have not focused on recruiting welfare recipients. The Department is currently using inmate labor to clean problem public spaces and abate sanitation violations on vacant lots. This program is quite effective, and to the Department proposes to double the funding to pay for the inmate labor in fiscal year 1998. The Department will meet with the Department of Human Services to explore how we can further the Mayor's proposal to effectively utilize volunteers who receive welfare benefits. Question. It has been reported that the District's procurement officers recently attended a week of classes. How many procurement officers are employed by the Department? Answer. Since July 1996, a series of one week procurement courses were offered to all District procurement personnel. Of the six (6) courses, all procurement personnel were required to take the General Public Purchasing and Materials Management classes. All DPW procurement personnel have taken at least two (2) of the courses. The following is a course listing: General Public Purchasing and Materials Management; Government Contract Law; Writing Performance Based Statements of Work; Cost & Price Analysis; Negotiations vs Sealed Bidding; and Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. There is one Agency Chief Procurement Officer and twenty-three Contract Specialists in the Department of Public Works. Question. Solid Waste Management is responsible for trash collection, street cleaning and snow removal. These jobs involve the use of expensive equipment. Have any of these services been contracted out to private companies? If so, what percentage? If not, why not? Answer. The Department's Solid Waste Management Administration contracted with a private company for its curbside recycling collection, processing and marketing service prior to the program's suspension in January, 1997. The Department is currently in the process of contracting out its solid waste disposal operations. The solid waste disposal program is a support operation that does not provide direct service to citizens of the District. It is an industrial operation, and maintenance of the facilities is expensive. The two in-town transfer stations are old and require millions in capital funds to upgrade and modernize. We believe that this service could be provided by the private sector in a more cost effective manner. A Request for Proposals (RFP) is being crafted to provide a long-term (15 years) solution to handling the 200,000+ tons of waste moving through the transfer stations each year. The REP will request offerors to provide a comprehensive solution for our disposal needs, and offer the use of either or both of the two in-town facilities, if private capital is invested in them. Our target start date is the winter of 1999. The Department is also considering testing managed competition on public litter can installation, maintenance and collection. Question. One of the most difficult questions to answer about the District's government is how many people are actually employed by the different departments. How many people are employed by the department? Please break this number down into full-time and part-time employees. Answer. In the original fiscal year 1995 budget, DPW was authorized 2,509 positions overall, and 1,366 locally-funded positions. In fiscal year 1997 the agency has a total of 1,841 authorized positions overall and 1,085 locally-funded positions. Of the total authorized positions within the agency, there were 1,669 filled as of June 30, 1997 of which 1,132 were locally-funded positions. There are 4 employees who are part-time within the Department of Public Works. Question. The fleet management division of the department is responsible for all of the District's fleet and mobile equipment. Is any of this equipment leased by the District? If so, what percentage is leased, and what are the cost savings to the District by leasing this equipment? Answer. DPW's Fleet Management Administration (FMA) is responsible for servicing all of the District's fleet and mobile equipment with the exception of police, fire and public schools. Leased equipment/vehicles account for about 6 percent of the total serviced by FMA. Currently each District agency (including the business units within DPW) owns its own vehicles. Decisions about fleet size and compliment, acquisition and replacement, even maintenance are made by the owner, sometimes but not always in consultation with FMA. Under this structure DPW is not in a position to control or even track citywide vehicle costs, and finds it very difficult to influence vehicle utilization, control fleet size or enforce maintenance schedules. Three different management audits over the last five years, including one done pro bono by PEPCO have recommended that DPW's Fleet Management Administration own all of the vehicles it services and lease them to users. Based on the recommendations of these management audits DPW developed a comprehensive strategy and plan to transform FMA into the District's ``Full Service Vehicle Leasing Company.'' FMA would own all of the vehicles it services and support not only maintenance and repair operations but also regularly scheduled vehicle replacement out of mileage and usage fees charged to users. Unfortunately we have not been able to implement this new approach because like any other business start up it would require substantial up front capital (we estimate $7- $8 million) which has not been available. We project that this arrangement would allow FMA to reduce the overall size of the fleet it services by 10-15 percent because having to make monthly or quarterly lease payments (as opposed to buying vehicles with capital funds) would encourage user agencies to be more disciplined about planning vehicle utilization and controlling vehicle related costs. FMA would also be able to charge financial penalties for missing scheduled maintenance. Leasing vehicles, particularly through the kind of fleet master leasing program that other cities and states have used has the potential to reduce vehicle costs. However that option will be available to District agencies for the first time in fiscal year 1998. The FMA ``leasing company'' being performance based will have incentives to get the best deal it can. It will buy and/or lease vehicles and equipment for lease to user agencies based on costs and customer requirements. While there is certainly the potential to save money by using different financing mechanisms, the biggest challenge for DPW is finding a way to replace vehicles on a schedule, based on their useful life. There has been no funding available to support systematic vehicle replacement. As a result the mission critical heavy vehicles and equipment that are used to provide DPW's core services have an average age of 10+years (by contrast, Indianapolis turns over its entire fleet every five years, systematically replacing one-fifth each year out of the operating budget). We regularly spend more on maintaining vehicles than they are worth, but user agencies are afraid to dispose of old vehicles because it is so hard to get replacements. Question. A recent Washington Post article indicates that some city services are lean and reasonably efficient. The article compliments the department for some of the management improvements the department has initiated, such as having successfully repaired snow plows and sanitation trucks and redesigned garbage routes. The articles also indicate that the department will soon hold managers responsible for the cleanliness of their sanitation districts. At the same time, the article cites that in some areas, District spending is ``arguably undernourished'' because the city spends less on pothole repair and resurfacing than do most cities. The article indicates that in your case--in contrast to most other departments in the District--the lack of resources may very well be a legitimate problem. What can you tell the committee about this situation? Answer. DPW's core services, all ones that people value most have been underfunded for many years: --Appropriated or Local funds (i.e., funds derived from local revenue), which constitute the budget for DPW's core service (sanitation, infrastructure maintenance, motor vehicle inspection, licensing, registration and related activities, tree, streetlight and traffic signal maintenance, etc.) declined from $106.5 million in fiscal year 1988 to $79.8 million in 1994. The fiscal year 1995 appropriated budget increased to $89.1 million, but was down again to $84.1 million in fiscal year 1996 (after a mid-year adjustment). The increase to $95.7 million for fiscal year 1997 sounds promising when compared with prior years and allows DPW to resume suspended core services like bulk trash collection and scheduled alley cleaning. However our rough estimate (activity based costing will facilitate more accurate projections) of the level of Local funding that would be necessary annually to provide all core services at a level that the vast majority of residents would consider satisfactory is in the range of $120-$140 million. --Appropriated/Local funds positions (almost all of the direct service positions) have declined from 1,939 in fiscal year 1988 to 1,085 in fiscal year 1997. This loss of personnel has been compounded by the series of ``easy out'' and ``early out'' retirement incentives that resulted in the loss of many of DPW's most experienced employees, and the positions that they formerly occupied. --The structure of DPW's budget makes it difficult to prioritize mandatory budget reductions. Sanitation has ended up absorbing proportionally more cuts because it accounts for the largest share of appropriated/local funds and produces little revenue. The Transportation Systems Administration by contrast (the DMV functions) is hard to cut because almost everything it does is revenue producing. --The District's federal aid eligible roads and bridges account for only 40 percent of the city's mileage. The other 60 percent (the ``neighborhood streets'') have to compete with schools, hospitals, fire equipment, the WMATA subsidy, etc. for limited G.O. bond debt funds. On the federal aid side the District (with the exception of 1995 and 1996) has been able to match the annual FHWA allocation. However unlike many state DOW's, DPW cannot afford to have designs on the shelf or to spend at a rate that moves projects to construction as quickly as FHWA would like, thereby avoiding a backlog of projects. We estimate that the District's (recently created) $33 million transportation trust fund would have to provide at least $45 million annually in order for DPW to match the performance with federal aid projects of the state DOT's that it is frequently compared with. On the local side we estimate that there are at least $80 million in critical local street repair needs that would be addressed on a priority basis in the next two years if funding was available. If that investment was made we would then need to spend $20-$25 annually on local street repair and maintenance, to keep them in good shape. Compare these estimates with the average annual amounts budgeted for local street repair ($15 million) and maintenance ($4 million) of over the last five years and its easy to understand why there are potholes. Our estimates are conservative and we believe that the Federal Highway Administration would concur with them. --DPW generates between $110-$120 million in revenue (considerably more than it gets back in budget) each year and may be able to operate more effectively as a revenue driven enterprise that makes greater use of direct charge fees for service. While people tend initially to react negatively to this proposal, viewing it as an addition to their already high tax burden, taxes can be reduced proportionally. The benefit of this approach is a relatively predictable and stable revenue stream which would allow DPW to plan, and to guarantee a level and quality of service to its customers from year to year instead of being hostage to annually fluctuating appropriations. This approach would compliment performance based operation. public parking spaces Question. On average, and not counting designated ``rush hour'' times, how many public parking spaces are there currently available for privately-owned vehicle parking in the District? Has that number increased or decreased over the last ten years, and by how much? What activities has the District recently taken or is it currently taking to improve the availability of parking in the District of Columbia? For the last ten fiscal years, how much gross revenue has public space parking generated for the District of Columbia, enumerated by year? From fiscal years 1987 to 1997 under the D.C. proposed fiscal year 1998 budget, how many District employees (FTE's) in DPW or elsewhere have been and are responsible for the regulation, enforcement, collection, adjudication, administration, and other activities related to public space parking? Are DPW parking control aides (``meter maids'') given any incentive, of any kind, positive or negative, that are intended to or that influence the number of parking tickets they issue? Answer. There are 263,500 on street parking spaces available for the parking of privately-owned vehicles in the District of Columbia. This consists of metered spaces, restricted zone parking for residents and other unrestricted spaces. The number of on-street parking spaces has increased over the last ten years by some 3,200 spaces as a result of removing obsolete restrictions; e.g. entrances, no parking zone, etc. Additionally, in December 1993, 260 off-street parking spaces were made available at the Mt. Vernon & L Street, N.W., Municipal Parking Lot. (The municipal parking lot, an interim facility, is physically located on the proposed site for the convention center and will no longer be available for parking once construction begins). There are on-going efforts throughout the City toward improving parking availability through monitoring existing on-street parking regulations. We recently completed a study in the Georgetown area where over 400 additional on-street parking spaces have been identified by removing obsolete restriction. The appropriate sign revisions should be completed by early fall. The District's State Transportation Plan proposes parking garages or lots at locations where drivers could park once and get on transit or take some other form of transportation and get around the city. It is anticipated that these parking facilities would be developed in partnership with and be operated by the private sector parking industry. GROSS REVENUE FROM PUBLIC SPACE PARKING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1256 Meter Revenue source 1501 Ticketing 1504 Boot fees 1505 Tow fees 1506 Storage revenue Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year: 1987................................................ $35,808,223 $337,377 $639,722 $188,342 $9,718,017 $46,691,681 1988................................................ 41,590,392 390,790 688,968 126,435 10,507,811 53,304,396 1989................................................ 44,404,760 421,000 598,854 131,934 10,471,775 56,028,323 1990................................................ 52,871,493 642,950 492,103 184,010 11,080,112 65,270,668 1991................................................ 55,746,019 1,232,995 855,265 285,531 12,325,184 70,444,994 1992................................................ 57,222,126 1,031,675 566,340 193,390 13,164,140 72,177,671 1993................................................ 56,302,185 1,107,650 761,715 240,525 13,015,764 71,427,839 1994................................................ 51,634,382 976,860 885,611 289,033 12,818,822 66,604,708 1995................................................ 46,292,015 459,450 778,005 235,814 12,648,209 60,413,493 1996................................................ 46,312,437 382,036 436,565 191,441 9,497,322 56,819,801 1997................................................ 41,595,129 226,850 436,481 167,795 4,506,732 46,932,987 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 529,779,161 7,209,633 7,139,629 2,234,250 119,753,889 666,116,562 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Revenue collected from October 1996 through June 1997. All funds generated from public space parking have been placed in the General Fund. The total employees responsible for parking enforcement and management since fiscal year 1987 are as follows: Fiscal year 1987.................................................................... 1988.................................................................... 1989.............................................................. 291 1990.............................................................. 291 1991.............................................................. 285 1992.............................................................. 295 1993.............................................................. 335 1994.............................................................. 328 1995.............................................................. 290 1996.............................................................. 245 1997.............................................................. 245 Parking Control Aides (PCA's) are salaried employees responsible for enforcing parking regulations through the issuance of notice of infraction (tickets) to violators of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. There are no incentives, positive or negative, to influence the number of parking tickets issued by PCA's. Note that studies show that no more than 10-15 percent of parking infractions are caught. conclusion of hearings Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Casey, and this concludes our hearings. [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Wednesday, July 23, 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 Barry, Hon. Marion Jr., Office of the Mayor...................... 4 Letter From.................................................. 54 Prepared statement........................................... 9 Bernardino, Cellerino, acting director, Department of Public Works.......................................................... 155 Prepared statement........................................... 158 Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, questions submitted by................................................... 79 Brimmer, Andrew F., chairman, Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority................................ 29 Prepared statement........................................... 39 Casey, Wayne D., interim director, Department of Human Services.. 137 Prepared statement........................................... 138 Cropp, Linda W., acting chairperson, Council of the District of Columbia....................................................... 17 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from North Carolina, questions submitted by......................................... 25, 76, 103, 130, 140, 149, 186................................ Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, prepared statement...................................................... 92 Kelley, Marlene, M.D., interim director, Department of Health.... 147 Prepared statement........................................... 148 Moore, Margaret, director, Department of Corrections............. 107 Prepared statement........................................... 110 Rogers, Michael C., city administrator, District of Columbia, prepared statement............................................. 174 Soulsby, Larry, police chief, Metropolitan Police Department..... 93 Prepared statement........................................... 100 SUBJECT INDEX ---------- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Council of the District of Columbia Page Budget: Director available........................................... 21 Hearing on fiscal year 1998.................................. 20 Increase in fiscal year 1998................................. 20 Council and Authority budgets, difference between................ 18 Council's budget, support of..................................... 17 Department of Corrections, difference between Council and Authority in................................................... 19 Economic development, difference in.............................. 18 Government direction and support, reductions in.................. 20 Management problem............................................... 21 Medicaid cost.................................................... 22 Pension liability, unfunded...................................... 22 Police Department, difference between Council and Authority in... 19 Regulatory commission............................................ 21 Spending, hearing on actual fiscal year 1996..................... 20 Structural problems.............................................. 22 Tenant assistance program........................................ 19 Training......................................................... 21 Department of Corrections Accomplishments of past 3 years.................................. 110 Additional $15 million........................................... 118 Applicants, pool of.............................................. 129 Budget: Council's proposed........................................... 108 Fiscal year 1998 Department of Corrections................... 108 Recommendation on fiscal year 1998........................... 125 Communication system............................................. 117 Correction system, privatization or federalization of............ 123 Correctional employees in need of pay raise...................... 122 Court orders, number of.......................................... 127 D.C. General Hospital, services rendered by...................... 109 D.C. jail: Population................................................... 127 Receiver at.................................................. 127 Department of Corrections: Comprehensive study of....................................... 129 Mismanagement in............................................. 126 Overtime pay in.............................................. 120 Drug testing program............................................. 120 Drugs: Number of inmates testing positive........................... 121 Number testing positive for.................................. 120 Facilities, inadequacies of...................................... 123 Federal Bureau of Prisons, payment to............................ 110 Felons in system, number of...................................... 124 Georgetown coffee shop murders................................... 115 GSA doing purchasing request..................................... 119 Guards to inmates, number of..................................... 127 Halfway house beds, contract..................................... 109 Incidences of violence........................................... 107 Lorton: Escapes at................................................... 121 Security at.................................................. 121 Mayor's Office, employees detailed to............................ 124 Mayor's Security detail.......................................... 114 Medical receiver................................................. 108 Medical services................................................. 108, 126....................................................... National Institute of Corrections, study by the.................. 107 Park Police: Provides help................................................ 117 Utilization of............................................... 117 Police agencies, twenty-three different.......................... 117 Private sector/management flexibility............................ 124 Procurement system process....................................... 119 Recruiting process............................................... 129 Repeat offenders, number of...................................... 122 Report ``A Crisis in Management''................................ 118 Should system be privatized...................................... 128 Sick inmate population........................................... 126 Sworn police officers, number of................................. 128 Tourism.......................................................... 115 Department of Health Department of Health, fiscal year 1998 budget for................ 147 Medicaid Program................................................. 147 Professional licensing functions, assumption of.................. 148 Department of Human Services Budget, Department of Human Services............................. 137 Homemaker services............................................... 137 Mismanagement.................................................... 136 Performance-based organization................................... 136 Road maintenance................................................. 135 State functions.................................................. 136 Welfare Reform Program........................................... 138 Department of Public Works Activity-based costing........................................... 156 Basic infrastructure, deterioration of........................... 185 Budget: Fiscal year 1998 capital..................................... 157 Fiscal year 1998 operating................................... 157 Chartered Health Care: Audit........................................................ 180 Contract..................................................... 179 Money owed................................................... 179 City of Washington, DC, improvement in the....................... 184 Department of Administrative Services negotiate leases........... 178 Department of Human Services, number of locations for............ 177 Department to transform itself................................... 156 Design, Engineering, and Construction Administration............. 157 Director of public health........................................ 185 Director of public works, tenure of.............................. 180 Directors of public health, tenure of............................ 176 Directors of public works, tenure of............................. 177 Directors, interim or part-time.................................. 176 District of Columbia, management of.............................. 183 Federal aid eligible, forty percent of streets................... 181 Federal funds, matching money for................................ 181 Federal highway grants........................................... 157 Fire Department, responsibility for.............................. 182 Fleet Management Administration.................................. 157 Governmental and environmental facilities........................ 158 Interim director, time limit..................................... 176 Leases, real estate company to look at........................... 178 Maintenance of streets........................................... 181 Management style, changing of.................................... 186 Mental Health Services in receivership........................... 178 Performance contracts............................................ 155 Performance-based organization................................... 155 Sanitation and streets, per capita spending on................... 185 Sole-source, percent of contracts................................ 182 Solid waste management........................................... 156 Transportation facilities........................................ 158 Transportation Systems Administration............................ 156 Vehicle replacement.............................................. 158 Water funds...................................................... 182 Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Authority's mark compared to Council's........................... 32 Bidding versus sole source....................................... 72 Budget: Carefully worked............................................. 39 Detailed and exacting........................................ 53 Development of fiscal year 1998.............................. 31 Difference in school's....................................... 54 Impact of court orders on.................................... 63 Process...................................................... 31 City: Income earned in............................................. 67 Number of cars coming into................................... 69 Code violations, $2 billion in................................... 64 Commuter tax..................................................... 66 Contracts: Above and below $1 million................................... 72 Consideration and approval of................................ 71 Rebid of..................................................... 72 Types of emergency........................................... 71 Corrections contracted additional beds........................... 30 Court order: Mental health................................................ 61 Number of segments under..................................... 62 On population cap at jail.................................... 62 Services under............................................... 61 Court orders: Child welfare area........................................... 61 Cost of...................................................... 63 D.C. General, food service contract at........................... 73 Department of Administrative Services............................ 38 Economic development............................................. 38 GSA, buying from................................................. 74 Juvenile detention center, population cap at..................... 63 Mayor's office, staff from agencies working in................... 75 Opening schools, court mandates on............................... 64 Performance Accountability Act................................... 60 Police pay raise, funds for...................................... 30 Procurement: Process, number of employees in.............................. 73 Process...................................................... 70 Strategic plan for........................................... 74 System....................................................... 69 Public management, transformation plan for....................... 53 Public safety.................................................... 38 Public schools supplemental request.............................. 29 Quality of services.............................................. 67 Resources to fix schools......................................... 65 Revenue initiatives.............................................. 39 School boilers, repair of........................................ 66 Supplemental appropriation....................................... 29 Metropolitan Police Department Arrests up for first 6 months.................................... 95 Change schedule, suspension of 28-day notice to.................. 99 Court orders..................................................... 92 Crime, reduction in.............................................. 94 Decentralizing of authority...................................... 97 Drug testing, random............................................. 98 Drug use in prison............................................... 91 Entry level standards reviewed................................... 99 Helicopter branch, closing of.................................... 94 Improve management............................................... 97 Infrastructure, improvement in................................... 98 Memorandum of understanding...................................... 95 New mission statement............................................ 96 New operating model, implementation of........................... 96 Pay raise, ten percent........................................... 98 Performance and accountability................................... 100 Performance management system.................................... 99 Police chief, new powers of...................................... 92 Police department: Better services by........................................... 96 Fiscal year 1998 budget for.................................. 93 Problems confronting......................................... 94 Police performance up significantly.............................. 95 Police service areas, establishment of 83........................ 96 Recruiting unit reorganized...................................... 99 Training program................................................. 98 Office of the Mayor City Council and Control Board budgets, spending for............. 1 Bond rating...................................................... 7 Budget process, design a......................................... 4 City: Business leaving the......................................... 7 Number of residents leaving.................................. 2 Revitalization of............................................ 3 Commendation of chairman......................................... 4 Control Board: Elected officials part of.................................... 6 Established to rescue city................................... 2 Why a........................................................ 2 Council's budget................................................. 8 Deficity of $335 million......................................... 5 Government, reduction in size of................................. 6 Health Department, establishment of.............................. 7 Management reform................................................ 3 No consensus budget.............................................. 4 Police officers on street, additional............................ 8 President's plan................................................. 3, 8 Privatization.................................................... 6 Programs under court order....................................... 2 Summer jobs program.............................................. 5