[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 Appropriations
Available 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