[Senate Hearing 106-928]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-928
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4942 and 5633/S. 3041
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,
2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Council of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
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
62-772 cc WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
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 FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman
JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Beth Nethercutt
Terry Sauvain (Minority)
Administrative Support
Liz Blevins (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
Page
Council of the District of Columbia.............................. 1
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority..... 1
Office of the Mayor.............................................. 1
Nondepartmental witness.......................................... 87
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison, Kyl, and Durbin.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Office of the Mayor
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
Council of the District of Columbia
STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE RIVLIN, MEMBER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. I would like to make a short opening
statement, and then we have two other Senators who are going to
be late. We are going to start and proceed and then as they
come, we will certainly welcome them to take part in the
hearing.
I want to welcome our witnesses today, Mayor Williams,
Council Chairman Cropp, and Dr. Rivlin. Each of you is playing
a critical role in the revitalization of the District of
Columbia.
PERCENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS
Today's hearing, of course, focuses on the District's 2001
budget. The Federal Government is providing nearly $400 million
in direct spending for the District and in combination with
Federal grants, the U.S. funds 27 percent of the District's
budget.
I think there is good news in the District budget. Clearly,
the City is headed in the right direction financially. For
fiscal year 2001, I am told you are planning to hold a surplus
of approximately $260 million above the 4 percent requirement
of $189 million.
RESERVE
The District is also doing the right thing with the reserve
fund, continuing to hold the $150 million in emergency reserve.
There are, I think, some other financial safeguards that should
benefit the City, and I hope that we can discuss those as we go
through this process.
EDUCATION SPENDING
Education spending, under this budget, will improve
dramatically for both the public school system and charter
schools. Spending will be on a per-pupil basis so that charter
schools are not discriminated against.
TAX CUT
And the District is continuing with its tax cut that was
passed last year, reducing property rates and income tax rates,
hopefully making the District more competitive with neighboring
jurisdictions. I think these are positive developments.
DEBT POLICY
Having said that, I do see some red flags for the future. I
believe the District is moving in the wrong direction on debt
policy. The City is refinancing its debt, albeit saving on
short-term interest costs, but putting itself in debt for a
longer term.
The City already has $3 billion in debt. And it seems to be
intent on expanding that debt, planning nearly $1.6 billion in
new debt in the next 5 years.
In 1999 Moody's Investors Service, assessing the District
of Columbia, said, `` The District's annual debt service burden
is projected to remain a heavy 11 to 12 percent of local
revenues.''
PER CAPITA DEBT
Cities with low debt that receive high bond ratings have
per capita debt of approximately $743 per person. The
District's per capita debt ratio is almost $6,200 per person.
As you can see, the District's debt ratio is far beyond what it
ought to be.
In looking at the Moody's comments, they say that all of
the ratios for the District of Columbia are high when you are
looking at its debt from any standpoint.
So I am going to raise the caution flag and say that I
think the one thing that the District must do to get on a track
to receive a better bond rating is to look at debt principles
and a debt policy that is more restrictive rather than less.
I know there are infrastructure needs, but this kind of
increasing debt, I think, is the wrong direction. And as we all
know, we are going into a higher interest rate market.
RESERVE FUNDS
During the budget debate, there was considerable discussion
about the $150 million reserve fund. I do not believe the fund
needs to be cumulative. I do believe, however, that the
District must hold a real reserve each year, and that it must
only be spent for real emergencies.
Further, I think dipping into the reserve should be the
funding source of last resort, and all other surplus funds
should be exhausted before tapping the emergency fund.
I will propose that the reserve be placed in a separate
interest-bearing account so that the public and the market
watchers will know that the reserve is real and tangible, a
rainy day account, and not a bookkeeping entry.
Additionally, if there is a need for unanticipated
expenses, which we did see this year, versus genuine
emergencies, then I would be open to providing the City with
greater flexibility.
UNANTICIPATED NEEDS
Unanticipated needs are those spending items that might
arise after the budget process or something required by Federal
legislation, perhaps something due to severe weather or even a
court order.
Any new flexibility must be accompanied by more established
criteria for what is emergency spending and what is simply
unanticipated. I believe we must have very certain parameters
if we are going to have greater flexibility, which I think we
need.
So let me conclude by reiterating that I think the City's
overall financial picture is good. I believe that working
together, we have been able to make some great progress. And I
think we can craft a budget that will even go further to give
you needed flexibility but solid financial parameters, so that
you will continue to build toward a better bond rating and
lower borrowing costs and, of course, a healthier city.
I want to thank all of you for being here and for all you
are doing and for the great working relationship that I feel
that we have.
Before we begin with your testimony, I just want to remind
you that your entire statement will be made part of the record,
so that if you can limit your opening statement to 5 minutes or
so, we will put your entire statement on the record.
And then I will also say that without objection, the record
will remain open until 5 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2000 for the
submission of any additional testimony or responses to
questions that members may raise as they come.
As I mentioned, Senator Durbin will be here later, and
Senator Kyl, as well, will be here later.
So with that, I would like to recognize Mayor Williams and
welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of
the Committee for having us here today to talk about the
District of Columbia's fiscal year 2001 budget.
I have submitted my testimony for the record. As I go
through it, I will try to give you the highlights to allow the
maximum amount of time for my colleagues to submit their
testimony and for questions and answers.
This budget builds upon the strong financial recovery we
have achieved over recent years. We are going to begin the 2001
budget having met the three financial goals set by Congress.
FOUR CONSECUTIVE BUDGETS
First, we will have balanced four consecutive budgets,
those for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000; second, we
will have gained full access to credit markets; and third, we
will have established financial reserves totaling over $400
million.
Now that we have stabilized our finances, I believe the
District government has and must necessarily triple its efforts
to enhance service delivery for residents and businesses to
create the climate for investment that will expand our economy
in the long run.
Although we still have much work to do in managing
difficult areas such as procurement and street repairs, tree
maintenance and infrastructure improvements, we are making
tremendous strides every day, and will continue to demonstrate
a strong record of steady improvements.
Most important among the improvements supported by the 2001
budget are those that support children. As you know, Senator,
our budget flows from something we are calling Neighborhood
Action, where we have brought in the faith leadership, business
leadership, non-profit leadership and citizens of our city.
Some 3,000 of them gathered in the convention center to
talk about a vision for our city. And chief among their goals
was supporting children and families and building safe and
prosperous neighborhoods.
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION
And very importantly, our citizens proceeded with
Neighborhood Action with the understanding that government
itself cannot achieve all these goals, but must act as a
reliable partner with the faith community, with our non-profits
and, very importantly, with our businesses.
That is why I am proud that the Council has joined with me
in a budget that is based on these priorities, including full
funding for our schools, because as I said in my State of the
District address at Ballou High School, this budget is an
education budget.
I believe if we want our city to attract residents, if we
want our city to attract businesses that have employees that
have children that need a school, we are going to have to
improve our schools. So we are committing full funding for the
public schools, an increase of $52 million for next year.
SCHOOL FUNDING
This is the first time in over 20 years that a mayor
proposed a budget with a needed level of funding for our
schools. And we have balanced the approach of full funding with
accountability. We are going to be working with the Council to
see that our schools have, not only strength and accountability
in terms of a referendum that we are pushing to give more
direction and control in our school government's process, but
also to give our schools independence and autonomy in their
procurement, in their finance, in their personnel, and we hope
as well in their budget year.
With this investment, we hope to provide incentive pay for
teachers who go the extra mile to provide funding for something
we are calling ``Lead Principals,'' an effort to go out and
find 30 of the very best principals in the country to work in
our school system.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
As well, and very, very importantly, the budget expands
options for public school students and parents. To accommodate
increasing enrollment in charter schools, we committed $77
million next year to continue the reform effort. Currently,
charter school enrollments are increasing year to year, but the
budgets are based on last year's enrollment.
And I am hoping over the next year to work with members of
Congress, Kevin Chavous, the Chair of our Council Committee on
Education, the Chair of our Council Community Leaders, to
correct this situation, to ensure that all of our schools are
funded on a reliable, adequate basis, which I think will save a
lot of us time and trouble, and allow us to really get at the
appropriate level of oversight and program evaluation.
YOUTH VIOLENCE
This budget also includes a major continued initiative as
it relates to youth. We are going to be announcing shortly a
major youth violence initiative focused on east of the river,
where we have high incidents of youth violence.
I have always believed that a key to this is not only a
relationship between the local and the Federal Government, a
relationship between our government and the private sector, but
very importantly on a competitive basis, in partnership with
the sectors that I described, an investment in out-of-school,
after-school programs for youth. And so we are continuing in
the effort, investing in this budget $10 million for after-
school programs.
TUITION ASSISTANCE
I want to spend a minute and talk about tuition assistance
because this is something in which we have been heavily
involved with the Congress and with our business leadership.
I am proud that our business leadership for the first time
on a regional basis really committed itself to our children in
this tuition assistance program and joined with the Congress to
make this happen.
We all know that to compete in this global economy, it is
imperative for our kids to continue their education beyond the
12th grade. The success of Bill Gates is truly one in a
billion. The rest of us need the opportunity to obtain a
college degree.
To that end, I thank all the partners who have made this
possible. Now, as you may know, the residents of every State in
the union have a variety of public institutions to choose from.
Thanks to this tuition assistance grant program in our
city, the residents of the District will now have the same
choices as residents of other States.
We face many challenges in getting the tuition assistance
grant program up and running. We must design and build an
administrative process that utilizes the latest technology and
must do it even as we administer the program.
This is a costly and painstaking undertaking. It is also
important to understand that administrative outlays in the
first few years of the program are slightly higher than they
should be. That is why I have taken the step of investing
District money into the program over and above the monies
received from the Federal Government for administration.
We want to study and match the best practices of other
State scholarship programs.
An even more difficult challenge lies in letting our
population know they have many low-cost, low-tuition choices
for educating our children. Unfortunately, our young people
have had too few choices for too many years.
Too many of our African-American, Latino and Asian youth
have been deprived and have felt alienated rather than assisted
and praised. And it has taken a massive public relations effort
to let our young people know about this innovative program and
convince them that they now do have a choice. They do have an
alternative.
We have also stepped in with District resources to pay for
this increased outreach. We are pleased at the way our young
people have responded. Last week, we received over 300
applications.
We are finding that 95 percent of those who apply are
eligible. The current rate of applications gives us great
confidence that we will oversubscribe our predicted number of
applications.
PELL GRANT PROGRAM
Only 15 percent of the target population applied for the
Pell Grant Program in its first year. In the second year, just
35 percent of the potential applicants submitted an
application.
We are well on our way to doubling that second year figure
in our first year. We are confident that participation in the
program will increase in each coming year.
A large proportion of our graduating high school seniors as
well as students attending eligible institutions will receive
the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant. Unfortunately, a large group
of students, who otherwise would be eligible, have been left
out. These are District residents that would be seniors in
college this fall.
A cutoff date of January 1, 1998, written into the
legislation, results in most seniors being ineligible for the
program. I am requesting that Congress reconsider this cutoff.
By moving it back to January 1, 1997, a whole class of
students will become eligible. This will give us the ability to
have a full cohort of students in the program in its first
year.
And I am confident that we have the capacity to administer
a full program, including our college seniors this year.
SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
In the area of safe neighborhoods, another top priority of
our city, I will say briefly that in this budget we have
committed $4.4 million to hire 175 more police officers. And I
am going to continue to challenge the police, the prosecutors,
and the courts to manage our resources efficiently, and get
more out of our officers on the beat where we need them.
GUN BUYBACK PROGRAM
Second, as part of MPD's budget, we will continue our gun
buyback program, which collected almost 3,000 guns last year.
Third, we will continue our Capitol Communities Initiative
to shut down open air drug markets in our city. We have already
seen the benefits of community policing in these neighborhoods.
In some cases, crime has gone down over 50 percent.
Fourth, we will mount a coordinated effort to root out the
conditions that breed and foster crime in our communities with
an anti-graffiti campaign and renovating more abandoned
properties.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In addition to crime fighting, we are going to insist that
we support our dedicated firefighters who risk their lives to
protect our homes and neighborhoods. This budget invests $7.5
million to buy new pumper trucks, ladder trucks and rescue
vehicles.
You can never take all the risk out of being a firefighter,
but you can and should invest in their safety. And that is why
this budget commits $4.3 million to add a fifth firefighter to
our fire trucks and a battalion aide, so that no fire team will
go into action without the full complement and resources they
need.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I go into my testimony in what we are doing in economic
development, rehabilitating--for example, committing $21
million over 3 years to demolish more than 1,000 units of
vacant and abandoned housing, committing to home ownership,
committing to boarding up houses that go toward abating
nuisances and stabilizing our neighborhoods; and as well, a
commitment in this budget, more than $7 million to acquire
sites to relocate our District agencies in our neighborhoods.
RIGHT SIZE GOVERNMENT
I believe as we right size our government, we can also make
our government more accessible to our people, not only, as I
will say in a second, through E-government, but making it more
accessible out in our neighborhoods, which gets me to the point
of government efficiency.
I believe that the long-term salvation, redemption,
recovery of our city is not only in the area of expanding our
economy in the ways we have suggested, but also very, very
importantly in bringing our costs of our government to size.
I think that we have an excellent opportunity here, not
only because the economy is going as well as it is, but because
while the economy is going well and while we have the advantage
of technology, we have the opportunity to take advantage of
early buyouts, to take advantage of a fairly high attrition
rate, to on a methodical, deliberate basis bring our government
down to its right size without the kind of dislocation and
displacement that is necessitated when you do things in the
midst of a crisis. And we are committed and determined to doing
that.
EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS
First, we have invested in the Department of Public Works
to move toward a gold standard, we are calling it, of customer
service. We have committed $19 million for more equipment,
including 10 garbage trucks, and 20 snow-ready dump trucks, so
we can get the trash picked up on time regardless of weather.
IMPROVEMENTS AT DMV
Second, we have increased staffing to reduce waiting times
at DMV. I am pleased to say to this Committee and to our public
that over the last month since we have made changes in our
staffing and in our complement at DMV, with the support of the
Council, no one in the inspection station in Southwest has
waited over 20 minutes, not one person.
Not one person going to renew their driver's license, renew
their registration, has waited over 20 minutes over the last
month. And that is definitely progress, as we count it in the
District.
TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
Third, we have invested $55 million to improve technology
and create a virtual E-government providing a wide range of
online services. We are going to be announcing our goal to make
the District the best E-government in the country in 2 years. I
believe the march toward E-government is another opportunity we
have to right size our government again without extraordinary
dislocation and displacement of our employees.
MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORY SERVICE
Fourth, we are going to be intensifying the implementation
of the management supervisory service, which will establish
performance requirements for key managers throughout our
government. It will bring real accountability to the
bureaucracy and make government more responsive.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Finally, we are going to be working aggressively to improve
our risk management. We still have areas of this government
that are fantastically dysfunctional. Lives are at risk. Rather
than waiting for the newspaper to tell us our marching orders,
we need to be proactive and aggressive and get this done
ourselves. We are committed to doing that in cooperation with
our CFO, our I.G., and our program managers.
HEALTH CARE
Finally, I want to talk about health and the commitment in
this budget, $10 million to build and expand community based
doctors' offices accessible to every home in the District.
We believe that we can save money in healthcare by making
this healthcare much more proactive and preventative,
clinically based, primary as opposed to intensive in major
institutions, in the emergency room.
RIDERS ON APPROPRIATION BILL
As I have stated finally in the area of democracy, the
District will, for the fourth straight year, enjoy a budget
surplus. And despite this good news and proof that we can
govern our city well, there is still the specter of riders to
our appropriations bill.
This year, I would hope that we can work with the Congress
to allow our citizens to make their own decisions like other
officials around the country do on a local level and use this
budget and use the strategy that informs this budget to make
our national Capital not only a model for children and
families, not only a model for safe and prosperous
neighborhoods, but a model to show that democracy can work at
the epicenter of the free world.
So I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl and
other members of the Committee for having us here today. And I
would be happy to answer your questions at the end of the
testimony.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mayor.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mayor Anthony A. Williams
Chairman Hutchison, Senator Durbin and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. It is indeed
an honor and a privilege to share with the Subcommittee the District of
Columbia's fiscal year 2001 budget.
This budget builds upon the strong financial recovery achieved over
recent years. The District will begin fiscal year 2001 having met the
three financial goals set out by Congress. First, we will have balanced
four consecutive budgets (those for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal
year 2000), second, we will have gained full access to credit markets,
and third, we will have established financial reserves totaling over
$400 million.
Now that we have stabilized our finances, the District government
has tripled its efforts to enhance service delivery for residents and
businesses. Although we still have much work to do in managing
difficult areas such as procurement, and street repairs, and the long
lines at the DMV, we are making tremendous strides every day, and will
continue to demonstrate a strong track record of steady improvements.
Most important among the improvements supported by our fiscal year 2001
budget are those that support our children.
EDUCATION
I am proud that the council approved my budget that was based on
citizens' priorities, including full funding for our schools. As I said
in my State of the District Address, this budget is an ``Education
Budget.'' If we want to attract residents back to our city and ensure a
future for our children, then we can settle for nothing less than the
best education system of any big city in America. We have a long way to
go, but we are making progress.
That's why I am committing to full funding for the public schools--
an increase of $52 million for next year. This is the first time in
over twenty years that a Mayor proposed a budget with the needed level
of funding for our schools. I have balance the approach of full funding
with accountability, which is the only way of ensuring that the funding
reaches the classrooms where it belongs.
With this investment, we will offer incentive pay to teachers who
go the extra mile and provide another three percent pay raise for them,
bringing our teachers' salaries more in line with neighboring
jurisdictions because I recognize the vital role they play in our
children's lives. The budget also includes funds to expand adult
education at UDC, support the Homework Helpers Program and extend
library hours.
Even as we make a big investment in education, we also need to hold
the school system accountable for those funds. That is why I support a
smaller, stronger School Board of both elected and appointed members.
Our citizens will vote on this proposal on June 27th. This is an
opportunity to fix what's clearly broken.
This budget also expands options for public school students and
parents. To accommodate increased enrollment in charter schools, we
committed $77 million next year to continue the reform effort.
Currently, charter school enrollments are increasing year to year, but
budgets are based on last year's enrollment. That means there's a one-
year lag between increased enrollment and an increased budget. Over the
next year, I look forward to working with Members of Congress, our City
Council and the community to correct this situation to ensure fair
competition. Educating our children is a first step, but we also want
them to live in safe communities. That's why the next priority I want
to discuss is making our neighborhoods safe.
YOUTH INITIATIVES
We also need to continue our commitment to provide quality
activities before school, after school, on the weekends, and in the
summers. As part of the Children Investment Trust, I included $10
million in additional funding to provide programs during these out of
school hours when our children are more likely to fall into trouble.
Studies show that after-school programs reduce juvenile crime and raise
academic performance, and it's time to give them the support they
deserve and allow them to grow up and compete in the global economy.
TUITION ASSISTANCE
To compete in this global economy it is imperative for our kids to
continue their education beyond the 12th grade. The success of a Bill
Gates is truly one in a billion. The rest of us need the opportunity to
gain a college degree.
To that end I want to thank the Congress for passing the District
of Columbia College Access Act and, through it, appropriating money for
the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program. This wonderful new program
will give many D.C. residents the opportunity to attend college for the
first time.
As you may know, the residents of every state in the union have a
variety of low-cost public institutions to choose from. Thanks to the
D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program, the residents of D.C. will now
have the same choices as residents of other states.
We face many challenges in setting up the D.C. Tuition Assistance
Grant Program. We must design and build an administrative process that
utilizes the latest technology. We must do it even as we administer the
program. This is a costly undertaking. It is important to understand
that administrative outlays in the first few years of the program will
be greater than normal. That is why I have taken the step of investing
District money into the program over and above the monies received from
the Federal government for administration. We want to study and match
the best practices of other state scholarship plans.
An even more difficult challenge lies in letting our population
know that now they have many low-cost, low-tuition choices for
educating our children. Unfortunately, our young people have had too
few choices for too many years. Too many of our African-American,
Latino, and Asian youth have been deprived and alienated rather than
assisted and praised. It has taken a massive public relations effort to
let our young people know about this innovative program and convince
them that now they do have a choice. We have also stepped in with
District resources to help pay for this outreach.
We are pleased at the way our young people have responded. Last
week we received over 300 applications. We are finding that 95 percent
of those who apply are eligible. The current rate of applications gives
us great confidence that we will oversubscribe our predicted number of
applications. Only 15 percent of the target population applied for The
Pell Grant Program in its first year. In its second year, just 35
percent of the potential applicants submitted an application. We are
well on our way to doubling that second year figure--in our first year.
We are confident that participation in the program will increase in
each coming year.
A large proportion of our graduating high school seniors as well as
students attending eligible institutions will receive the D.C. Tuition
Assistance Grant. Unfortunately, a large group of students, who
otherwise would be eligible, have been left out. These are the District
residents that will be seniors in college this Fall. A cut-off date of
January 1, 1998, written into the legislation, results in most seniors
being ineligible for the program. I am requesting that the Congress
reconsider this cutoff. By moving it back to January 1, 1997, a whole
class of students will become eligible. This will give us the ability
to have a full cohort of students in the program in its first year. I
am confident that we have the capacity to administer a full program,
including our college seniors, this year.
SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
We've made some progress in the past year at reducing crime in our
neighborhoods, but I will be the first one to tell you that we've got
to do more. We need a budget that supports our men and women in
uniform, and empowers citizens to reduce crime in their neighborhoods.
For starters, the District committed $4.4 million to hire 175 more
police officers and I'm going to continue to challenge the police, the
prosecutors, and the courts to manage our resources efficiently and get
more of our officers on the beat where we need them. Second, as part of
MPD's budget, we will continue our gun buyback program, which collected
almost 3,000 guns last year. Third, we will continue our Capital
Communities initiative to shut down six open-air drug markets. We've
already seen the benefits of community policing in those neighborhoods,
and I want to take this strategy citywide. Fourth, we will mount a
coordinated effort to root out the conditions that breed crime in our
communities like an anti-graffiti campaign and renovating more
abandoned properties.
In addition to crime fighting, I will also insist that we support
our dedicated firefighters who risk their lives to protect our homes
and neighborhoods. This budget invests $7.5 million to buy new pumper
trucks, ladder trucks, and rescue trucks. You can never take all the
risk out being a firefighter, but you can and should invest in their
safety. That's why this budget commits $4.3 million to add the fifth
firefighter to our fire trucks and a battalion aide, so that no fire
team will have to go into action with one arm tied behind their backs.
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
The next priority of this budget is economic development in our
neighborhoods. In this budget, I committed $21 million over three years
to demolish more than 1,000 units of vacant and abandoned housing
throughout the city to make way for new homes. This budget also
contains funds to hire 24 new housing inspectors to preserve our
housing stock as well as an additional $2 million to support
neighborhood cleaning efforts.
Following through on a commitment I made last year, this budget
contains more than $7 million to acquire sites to relocate District
agencies to our neighborhoods. These new facilities will also provide
retail space and spur neighborhood economic development just like the
Reeves Center has done for U Street.
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
I also want to discuss our ongoing effort to improve services for
residents. In the last year, we've made real progress, but much more
remains to be done.
First, we've invested in the Department of Public Works, to deliver
that ``gold-standard'' of customer service. That is why this budget
contains $19 million for more equipment, including 10 garbage trucks
and 20 snow-ready dump trucks so we can get that trash picked up on
time.
Second, we have increased staffing to reduce waiting times at DMV.
We have made some improvements at DMV, but we also face increased
demand because more people are moving to the city.
Third, we invested $55 million to improve technology and create a
virtual ``e''government, providing a wide range of on-line government
services.
Fourth, we are intensifying the implementation of the Management
Supervisory Service, which will establishes performance requirements
for key managers across the government. MSS brings real accountability
to the bureaucracy, and make government more responsive.
Fifth, we are working to improve risk management. We still have
areas of this government that are fantastically dysfunctional. Lives
are at risk. Instead of constantly reacting to lawsuits and court
orders, I want to proactively and systematically look into this
government, find the problem areas, and root out the dysfunction before
the next crisis comes along. In the process, I believe we will save
taxpayers millions of dollars in legal settlement costs.
HEALTH CARE
This budget provides $10 million to build and expand community-
based doctor's offices conveniently accessible to every home in the
District. I also have a deep personal conviction that the government
has an obligation to protect vulnerable citizens. To that goal, this
budget will provide $1.4 million for 4 new senior wellness centers,
expanded home care services, and job opportunities for seniors.
This budget makes important strides in the areas of Lead Poisoning,
HIV Tracking, clean water initiatives and full funding the Commission
on Mental Health and Child and Family Services to bring receiverships
back under my control.
DEMOCRACY
As I have already stated, the District will, for the fourth
straight year, enjoy a budget surplus. Despite this good news and proof
that we can govern our city well, there is still the specter of anti-
democratic riders to the annual D.C. Appropriations bill. This year, we
hope the Congress will allow District leaders to make their own
decisions, just like other officials around the country make for their
citizens. Over 90 percent of this budget is District taxpayer money.
This year, I hope that the Congress will follow the President's
lead and choose not impose these unnecessary riders on the DC
Appropriations bill.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify before you
today. I will be glad to answer any questions you might have at this
point.
Senator Hutchison. First, I never did see her myself, but
my staff tells me that Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is here
and if she is, I would like to recognize her great work for the
District.
Thank you for being here.
Senator Kyl, did you have any kind of statement, or did you
just want to participate in questions?
Senator Kyl. I just have a couple of questions.
Senator Hutchison. All right.
With that then, I will call on Ms. Cropp, our Council
Chairman.
STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much Chairwoman Hutchison,
Senator Kyl, members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
of the District of Columbia. I am pleased to be here with my
colleagues to testify on the District's fiscal year 2001
budget.
Also in the chambers this morning is a Council colleague,
David Catania, at-large member to the Council.
Let me fast forward to next year and imagine another
oversight hearing, except we will be celebrating that day for
the following reasons: We would have balanced our budget for
four straight years. We will, again, present to Congress
another fiscally sound budget. The Financial Authority would
disappear. And I think Dr. Rivlin and the members of the
Authority will also be happy about that, because they will
not----
Senator Hutchison. I think they are celebrating that you
will not be here, Dr. Rivlin. How does that make you feel?
Dr. Rivlin. I think that is right.
Ms. Cropp. And I think she will----
Dr. Rivlin. And I am glad.
Ms. Cropp. She will join us in that celebration. And that
day would be a proud occasion for the District of Columbia
government, because this is what we have been striving to
accomplish, the Council, the Mayor and the Financial Authority
during the past 3 or 4 years to become solvent financially and
to end the control period.
In this context, we are pleased and proud to present a good
product for fiscal year 2001, a spending package that is
fiscally disciplined, prudent and balanced.
It includes more money for schools, police, health care,
neighborhoods and a modest tax credit for some 54,000 low-
income families.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
In this budget, the Council has set forth several goals for
our city. We have joined with the Mayor in doing this, service
improvement, fiscal discipline, strategic financial
investments. It not only takes us closer to removing the
Financial Authority and solvency; this budget continues to
invest for the District and its future specifically and
strategically in the following priorities: Clean and safe
neighborhoods; tax reforms for working families; quality health
care; economic and job growth; an effective education system
with expanded funding; and improved customer service.
During the past several weeks, the Council has worked
diligently to reach agreement with the Mayor on various issues,
funding critical needs, addressing freed-up appropriated funds
from the reserve carryover--and we thank you very much, Madam
Chair, for your help and your support in this particular area--
augmenting our revenue, expanding our investing--or investing
tobacco funds, to producing a solid financial plan that will
meet the needs of our citizens.
In this process, we align the priorities of the Mayor and
the Council to produce a budget that will move the City in the
right direction and make it a much better place to live.
COUNCIL REPORTS ON BUDGET REQUEST
I submit for the record a copy of the Council's Committee
Report on the Budget Request Act, and I ask that it would be
made a part of the record.
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Ms. Cropp. In addition, if you have not received it, I will
be submitting also, a copy of the Council's legislative agenda
that will show you the direction that the Council is going
during this legislative period.
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
[Clerk's note.--The Council of the District of Columbia
report ``Bill 13-640, Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request Act of
2000'', can be found in the District of Columbia's subcommittee
files.]
Ms. Cropp. This final budget reflects the Mayor and the
Council coming together. The result is a very good budget.
When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 13, he
had proposed a local budget of $3.1 billion, in addition to
going into the reserve and tapping tobacco fundings amounting
to $171 million.
While we concurred with the Mayor that the District does
need a budget that invests in critical services, educates our
youth, funds health programs adequately, and cares for our
elderly, our approach to this challenge was decidedly more
cautious and even bordered on, as has been said, ``of excessive
fiscal restraint.''
Better yet, we assisted the Mayor, worked together with the
Mayor in tackling these problem areas such as our schools,
blighted neighborhoods, enhanced health services for the
elderly, improved services for the underprivileged children and
the mentally retarded within the core budget. And that was
extremely important.
Because we thought that these priorities were so important,
our solution was to fund the priority areas in our core budget.
We simply could not trust funding these priorities on a one-
time windfall source or revenues that could be beyond our
control.
We wanted to ensure the citizens that we met that, through
direct and reliable funding, their needs were met. We wanted to
eliminate the happenstance of underfunding in areas that might
later require budget recuts to these programs.
We resisted the tendency to just add on top of existing
budgets. We found ways to selectively enhance revenue. We did
all of these because as an oversight body, we have a duty not
to waste the taxpayers' dollars.
And prior to taking on these responsibilities, the Council
and its 10 standing committees devoted many hours with our
citizens and spent much time and effort in reviewing the
agencies' performances at the budget and oversight hearings.
At the end of the review process, we had conducted a total
of 55 public hearings, where appropriate, incorporated the
input from our citizens and workforce in putting this budget
together.
And that is what government is all about, the Executive
proposing, the Legislative Branch working out with oversight
hearings, and coming together with a good process.
$150 MILLION RESERVE
At this point, Madam Chair, we want to thank you again for
your action regarding the District's $150 million reserve. Your
clarification that the unspent portion of this fund could be
carried over to the next fiscal year has greatly boosted our
efforts as we continue to rebuild, strengthen and revitalize
this city.
This enables the District to use its reserve like any other
government. I have, at the beginning of my testimony,
highlighted the Council's philosophy and our oversight of this
budget--service improvement, fiscal discipline, strategic
financial investments.
Not only did we hold fast to these watchwords as we
reviewed the budget, there are additional precautionary steps
and insurance policies built into this list of reserve
expenditures.
TIERS OF SPENDING RESERVE
In agreeing with the Mayor, the spending of these funds
will occur sequentially and be guided by several safeguards.
The three tiers of spending: Trigger one includes $32 million
for foster care receivership for the Lashawn receiver. These
unspent portions that were carried over will free up local
funds carried over and budgeted in the 2001 reserve. Only with
certification by the CFO can these funds be spent.
Trigger two has $37 million targeted for programs for our
children, elderly, the Latino population, public safety, just
to name a few.
And trigger three contains $6 million to be allocated to
the following: The police department, the Citizens Complaint
Review Board, Human Resource Training and Settlement and
Judgments.
$37 MILLION MANAGEMENT REFORM SAVINGS
To safeguard further and to ensure trigger--spending
triggers two and three, there are the insurance policies: The
Mayor will achieve a $37 million management reform savings by
downsizing the government as proposed in his budget.
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT SAVINGS
The Mayor will also achieve the $10 million in operational
improvement savings by various methods; outsourcing, managed
competition, private-public partnerships; and other savings
reductions initially proposed in the Mayor's budget.
CERTIFICATION BY CFO
The CFO will certify the carryover of the fiscal year 2000
reserve, and the CFO will also certify that the collection of
the additional revenues in fiscal year 2001 will be achieved.
If, and only if, these conditions are met can the CFO certify
the availability of funds.
Any balance will be used for ``Paygo'' capital funds,
instead of borrowing it, and if the CFO certifies that the
balance is not required to replace funds expended in the fiscal
year 2000 reserve.
This journey is not an overnight miracle by any means. We
have paid off our accumulated deficits. We have crafted five
straight balanced budgets, and we will do no less in the years
to come.
We have obtained clean audits in the City's checkbooks
since 1997. We continue to receive favorable investment bond
ratings. We made legislative reductions in programs and
personnel throughout the government. We imposed tight controls
on spending.
FULL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS
We did not neglect our citizens, especially our young
people. Schools, for the first time, have received full
funding, which includes $2 million for universal pre-
kindergarten. And as many of us know, if we start out on the
early side with our young people, that will certainly move them
in a stronger position in later years. A cadet program for high
school students will be implemented in the police department.
MORE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC WORKS
We invested more money in public works, nuisance property
abatement programs to make this city a better place to live.
And those are the very basic issues, the quality of life issues
that many of our citizens often talk about.
EXODUS FROM CITY SLOWING
I think you will see a reflection of it in our population,
in that the exodus from the City seems to be slowing down
considerably.
Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask
that you support and leave intact this budget, which has been
mutually put together by the Council and the Mayor and the
Financial Authority, with their approval.
Even though the Financial Authority is still in place--and
we thank them so very much for their service and their
commitment--we, the elected representatives, felt that this
budget should have been resolved by us. The Council and the
Mayor worked together to present this budget.
We cannot wait until year 2001 to celebrate the fruits of
our labor, balanced budgets, unqualified audits, better tax
collections, tight control on spending and most of all, the end
of the control period. However, we intend to be vigilant in our
oversight role as we continue to strengthen the financial
health of the City.
It is the Council's responsibility, even more so after the
control period, to work with the Mayor, to produce responsible
good budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a
legacy for future generations.
The Mayor and the Council will continue to have public
differences, debates and compromises. That is the nature of
government.
More importantly, we, the Mayor and the Council, shall
continue to do what is necessary to have a strong financial
structure and to improve service delivery.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp
Good morning/afternoon, Chairwoman Hutchison and members of the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am
pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on the District's
fiscal year 2001 budget.
INTRODUCTION
Let me fast forward to next year--imagine another oversight
hearing--EXCEPT we will be celebrating that day for the following
reasons. We would have balanced our budgets four straight years. We
will, again, present to Congress another fiscally sound budget. The
Financial Authority would disappear. And that day would be a proud
occasion for the District Government because that is what we have been
striving to accomplish during the past three years, i.e., to become
solvent financially and to end the control period. In this context, we
are pleased and proud to present a good product for fiscal year 2001, a
spending package that is fiscally disciplined, prudent, and balanced.
It includes more money for schools, police, health care, neighborhoods,
and a modest tax credit for some 54,000 low-income families.
In this budget, the Council has set forth several goals for our
city-service improvement, fiscal discipline, and strategic financial
investments. It takes us closer to removing the Financial Authority,
but it also continues to invest for the District and its future,
specifically and strategically in the following priorities: Clean and
safe neighborhoods; Tax reform for working families; Quality health
care; Economic and job growth; Effective education system with expanded
funding; and Improved customer service.
BUDGET AGREEMENT WITH THE MAYOR
During the past several weeks, the Council has worked diligently to
reach agreement with the Mayor on various issues, e.g., funding
critical needs, addressing freed-up appropriated funds from the reserve
carryover (we thank you for your help on this issue), augmenting our
revenue, expending or investing tobacco funds, to producing a solid
financial plan that will meet the needs of our citizens. In this
process, we aligned the priorities of the Mayor and the Council and
produced a budget that will move the city in the right direction and
make it a better place to live. (I submit a copy of the Council's
committee report on the Budget Request Act and I would ask that it be
made part of the record.)
COUNCIL'S REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 13, he had
proposed a local budget of $3.1 billion in addition to dipping into the
reserve and tobacco funds amounting to $171 million. While we concurred
with the Mayor that the District does need a budget that invests in
critical services, educates our youth, funds health programs
adequately, and cares for our elderly, our approach to this challenge
was decidedly more cautious and, even bordered on ``excessive fiscal
restraint''. Better yet, we assisted him in tackling those ``problem''
areas such as our schools, blighted neighborhoods, enhanced health
services for the elderly, improved services for the underprivileged,
children, and the mentally retarded within the core budget. And let me
repeat this . . . within the core budget--and without using the reserve
or the tobacco money--the Council did the hard work, scrubbed the
numbers, made some tough decisions, and fixed many problems. We cut
excessive growth in several administrative areas. We scrutinized the
numbers, found savings within the schools transportation budget, and
then fully funded the schools. This is in accordance with a suggestion
by the Special Master for the special education programs when he
testified that more savings could be made in the transportation budget.
We gave an estimated $20 million to address the District's foster care
system by leveraging federal Medicaid dollars for which the District is
eligible. Additionally, $13 million was given to the Corrections
Department and $3 million to the Mental Health Services, just to list a
few. Had we not done this, these areas would have been underfunded!
Because we felt that these priorities were so important, our
solution was to fund them within the core budget. We simply could not
trust funding these priorities by one-time, windfall sources of revenue
beyond our control. We wanted to insure that citizen needs were met
through direct and reliable funding. We wanted to eliminate the
happenstance of underfunding in areas that might later require budget
cuts to these programs. We resisted the tendency to just add on top of
the existing budget. We found ways to selectively enhance revenue. We
did all these because as an oversight body, we have a duty to not waste
the taxpayer's dollars. And prior to taking on these responsibilities
of ``fixing'' the budget, the Council and its ten standing committees
devoted many hours of discussion with our citizens and spent much time
and effort in reviewing the agencies' performances at the budget and
oversight hearings. At the end of the review process, we had conducted
a total of 55 public hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the
input from our citizens and workforce in putting this budget together.
THE FREED-UP APPROPRIATED FUNDS FROM THE RESERVE CARRYOVER
At this point, Madam Chair, we want to thank you again for your
benign action regarding the District's $150 million reserve. Your
clarification that the unspent portion of this fund could be carried
over to the next fiscal year has greatly boosted our efforts as we
continue to rebuild, strengthen, and revitalize the city. This enables
the District to use its reserve like any other governments. I have, at
the beginning of my testimony, highlighted the Council's philosophy in
our oversight of this budget, i.e., service improvement, fiscal
discipline, and strategic financial investments. Not only did we hold
fast to these watchwords as we reviewed the budget, there are
additional precautionary steps and ``insurance policy'' built into this
list of reserve expenditures. In agreeing with the Mayor, the spending
of these funds will occur sequentially AND be guided by several
safeguards (I will elaborate on how fiscally cautious these safeguards
are). The three tiers of spending are:
(i) Trigger 1 includes $32 million for the foster care receiver
Lashawn, Commission on Mental Health, DCPS, and the Mayor.\1\ The
unspent portion from the fiscal year 2000 reserve, when carried over,
will free up local funds currently budgeted in the fiscal year 2001
reserve. Only with certification by the CFO, can then these funds be
spent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first trigger spending consists of $6.3 million for LaShawn
Receiver, $13 million for Commission on Mental Health, $12 million for
DCPS, and $0.6 million for the Mayor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Trigger 2 has $37 million targeted for programs for our
children, elderly, the Latino population, and public safety, just to
name a few.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The second trigger spending consists of $10 million for
Children Investment Fund, $1.5 million for Department of Parks &
Recreation, $1.3 million for Fire & Emergency Medical Services,
$120,000 for Arts & Humanities, $400,000 for the Public Library,
$574,000 for Aging, $3.3 million for Housing & Commission Development,
$200,000 for Employment Services, $2.5 million for UDC, $4.1 million
for Public Works, $4.2 million for Department of Health, $1.5 million
for Latino Affairs, $2.5 million for Property Management, and $5
million for the Cafeteria Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Trigger 3 contains $6 million to be allocated to the Police
Department, the Citizen Complaint Review Board, the Human Resource
Training, and Settlement and Judgements.
To safeguard and further insure the spending Triggers 2 and 3,
these are the ``insurance policies'':
--The Mayor will achieve the $37 million in management reform savings
by downsizing the government as proposed in his budget;
--The Mayor will achieve the $10 million in operational improvement
savings by various methods, i.e., outsourcing, managed
competition, public-private partnerships, etc., another savings
reduction initially proposed in his budget;
--The CFO will certify the carryover of the fiscal year 2000 reserve
funds; and
--The CFO will certify that collection of additional revenues in
fiscal year 2001 will be achieved.
If, and only if these conditions are met, can the CFO certify the
availability of funds. Any balance will be used for ``Paygo'' capital
funds instead of borrowing, and if the CFO certifies that the balance
is not required to replace funds expended in the fiscal year 2000
reserve.
These ``insurance policies'' are imperative because to the extent
which the Mayor cannot achieve the savings, the $37 million will be
used to replace the savings and not on the programs. Previously, this
city had fallen into serious financial trouble by spending one-time
infusions of money on ongoing programs and services. Since 1997, thanks
in part to the Revitalization Plan that transferred, in fiscal year
1998, various costly state-like functions from the District to the
federal government and increased the federal Medicaid share from 50
percent to 70 percent, the city has been on the road to fiscal
solvency.
This journey is not an overnight miracle by any means. We paid off
our accumulated deficits. We crafted five straight balanced budgets and
will do no less in years to come. We have obtained ``clean'' audits in
the city's checkbook since 1997. We continued to receive favorable
investment bond rating. We made legislated reductions in programs and
personnel throughout the government. We imposed tight controls on
spending. We did not neglect our citizens, especially our young people.
Schools, for the first time, have received full funding, which includes
$2 million for universal pre-kindergarten. A cadet program for high
school students will be implemented in the Police Department. We
invested more money in public works and nuisance property abatement
programs to make this city a better place to live.
CONCLUSION
Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that
you support and leave intact this budget which has been mutually put
together by the Council and the Mayor. Even though the Financial
Authority is still in place and we thank them for their service and
commitment, we, the elected representatives felt that the budget should
be resolved by us. We cannot wait until year 2001 to celebrate the
``fruits of our labor'', i.e., balanced budgets, unqualified audits,
better tax collections, tight control on spending, and most all, end of
the control period. However, we intend to be vigilant in our oversight
role as we continue to strengthen the financial health of the city. It
is the Council's responsibility--and even more so after the control
period--to work with the Mayor to produce responsible good budgets that
invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for future
generations. The Mayor and the Council will continue to have public
differences, debates and compromises; that is the nature of government.
More importantly, we, the Mayor and Council, shall continue to do what
is necessary to have a strong financial structure and improve service
delivery.
Senator Hutchison. And now the Chairman of the control
board. With everyone applauding your exit, I hope that you feel
welcome here for your, hopefully, last meeting.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE RIVLIN
Dr. Rivlin. I do, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Cropp has already alluded to the situation that we
might be in a year from now when it will, we very much hope, be
clear that the control period is about to end on September 30,
2001.
END OF CONTROL PERIOD
But this 2001 budget already represents a milestone for the
Authority. It is likely the last year that we will have to
approve the budget and appear as participants in the budget
process, and we consciously played a lower profile role this
year for that reason.
This budget is the result, as the Mayor and Chairman Cropp
have pointed out, of direct negotiations between the Council
and the Mayor in which we played largely an advisory role.
So by next year, we hope we will be celebrating the end of
the Control Period because we will have had four consecutive
balanced budgets, the year 2000 being the last one which should
be evident by, we hope, February 1, 2001.
For the next 15 months until we actually fade into the
sunset, the Authority will work very hard to support the Mayor
and the Council in improving the management and the fiscal
health of the District of Columbia, and to minimize the chance
that the President will have to reactivate the Authority at any
time in the near future.
SIX ITEMS NEED ACCOMPLISHING
We believe that there has been much progress over the last
several years in the District of Columbia, but that there is
still serious work to be done. And I want to mention six
priorities that we hope to be working very closely with the
Mayor and the Council on accomplishing over the next 15 months.
First, we believe that the budget process, while the
outcome was good, revealed that both the Mayor and the Council
need to strengthen their budget staffs. The Authority staff
helped a good deal behind the scenes this year with the
mechanics of getting the budget put together.
The Mayor needs a stronger budget staff, and I know that
the new chief financial officer, Natwar Gandhi, is working hard
on this.
And the Council does, too. I am not suggesting that they
need a Congressional Budget Office, but they need a stronger
staff, a kind of mini-Council budget office, to strengthen
their ability to assess the impact of the Mayor's plans and to
evaluate the proposals of the Council committees.
Second, we all need to work hard to strengthen the
financial management and information systems of the District
especially, but not exclusively, cash management. The lateness
of the 1999 audit revealed serious problems that need to be
corrected, and we will be working with our strong new CFO to
accomplish this over the next 15 months.
SCHOOL SYSTEM REFORM
Third, the school system reform must be pushed ahead. We
were all sorry to lose Ms. Ackerman as superintendent. We need
to work together to keep up the momentum of the reforms that
she started.
I met yesterday with the advisory committee that we have
appointed to help us choose a new superintendent, and they are
working diligently on this. The good news is that there are
several very good candidates to be considered.
Whoever takes over as interim superintendent will need to
take major steps both to improve the management functions of
the school system--procurement, payroll, buildings, and other
management functions, as well as to continue the progress
toward accountability for academic results on which the Mayor
has put emphasis.
SCHOOL PROBLEMS--SPECIAL EDUCATION, TRUANCY, WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH
CHARTER SCHOOLS
And there are at least three really serious problems facing
the school system. One is improvement of special education.
Another is the reduction of truancy, which is a major problem
in the District of Columbia. And the other, I think, is finding
a good working relationship between the District of Columbia
public schools and the charter schools. We need strong public
and public charter schools with a good working relationship
with each other.
PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
Fourth, there is the problem of the Public Benefit
Corporation. The audit revealed clearly what many of us knew,
that the PBC is not solvent and that its financial management
has been disastrous.
The Mayor is proposing new members of the PBC board, and we
hope the Council will act on them soon. In the meantime, the
Authority is working closely with the Mayor and the Council in
a collaborative relationship employing a consultant to help
manage the hospital and reform the financial management
immediately.
The new board must work very closely with the City to
define the role of the Public Benefit Corporation, and to make
sure that it is managed efficiently.
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT
Fifth is the University of the District of Columbia. While
tuition assistance is a wonderful program for our D.C.
students, we also need a strong, well-managed public university
right here in the District of Columbia.
Again, this year's audit revealed serious problems in the
financial management of UDC. We have new board leadership
there, too. We will work closely with them, with the Mayor and
with the Council to define the role of UDC and to strengthen
and build its usefulness to the District of Columbia.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
And finally, we will all be working extremely hard on
economic development. This is a high priority of the Mayor and
the Council, and is the key to the future fiscal health the
District of Columbia.
This budget is a very good start in the right direction. We
support it fully, and we are glad it is the last one that we
will have to approve.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Dr. Rivlin.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alice M. Rivlin
Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of my
colleagues at the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (``Authority''), I am pleased to
present testimony on the fiscal year 2001 District of Columbia
Financial Plan and Budget (``Budget''). I am delighted to represent the
Authority on this panel with Mayor Williams, and Council Chair Cropp.
This budget is the product of a consensus process. The process also
reflects the Authority's effort to restore increasing levels of
responsibility for this government's operations to local institutions.
The fiscal year 2001 submission is the product of direct negotiations
between the Mayor and the Council and reflects their shared vision of
the future of this government and the community it serves. Confidence
in the elected leadership of the District of Columbia continues to
grow. As a result, the Authority's role in developing the fiscal year
2001 Budget, although important, has been principally advisory.
Under Public Law 104-8, this is likely to be the last Budget for
the District of Columbia that this Authority will have to approve and
send to Congress. We anticipate that the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for fiscal year 2000, scheduled to be completed and delivered in
February 2001, will indicate an operating surplus for the District.
If so, that report will mark the fourth such operating surplus in a
row. There have been no borrowings issued by the Authority, there are
no borrowings to repay to the U.S. Treasury, and the District has
regained access to the capital markets on reasonable terms and
conditions. The statutory prerequisites for the Authority to begin its
transition out of the control period are falling into place.
The statute is clear that fiscal year 2001 is a Control Year, and
the Authority is statutorily prohibited from suspending its activities
during a Control Year, i.e., until September 30, 2001. However, our
review of the 2002 Budget will be just that--review, not approval. The
Authority suspends its activities if the statute is met. However, if
any of the principal conditions that led to the financial crisis in
1995 recur, legislative action to re-activate the Authority is not
necessary. The President can do so simply by appointing new members.
When the Authority was created in April of 1995 by an Act of
Congress to assist the District in restoring financial solvency and
improving management the District was: unable to pay its employees or
its contractors; running a significant operating deficit; carrying a
large accumulated deficit; and relying on the U.S. Treasury as the only
source of funds. The District's ordinary services, such as motor
vehicle inspections and building permits, were difficult to obtain, and
the District could not sell its bonds at market rates.
Five years later, the District is in much better shape, and the
Authority's statutory role, as well as its relationship with the local
elected leadership, has evolved.
Many of the suggestions for management improvements recommended
earlier in the control period are being implemented across many local
government agencies. For example, at the Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs, businesses and homeowners are able to obtain and
pay for building permits electronically. Broad financial successes
include collecting substantially more in tax revenue than in previous
years and turning projected deficits into surpluses in fiscal year
1997, fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Some of the best news for citizens is that the District's
accounting practices for business tax receivables are much improved,
and there is now a telephone information center to improve public
outreach and communications with the Office of Tax and Revenue.
Taxpayers in the District were issued tax refunds within 15 days during
the 1999 tax-filing period.
The days of an accumulated fund deficit are behind the District.
That deficit drained reserves, hindered access to capital markets and
adversely burdened the lives of every citizen and visitor to the
nation's capital. As a result of turning its fiscal house around, the
city and its citizens now enjoy an investment grade bond rating.
Ensuring that the District institutionalizes adequate financial
management systems is a prerequisite for future fiscal stability.
Although delayed, the District of Columbia fiscal year 1999
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Audit showed that the
District is in sound financial health. Ending fiscal year 1999 with a
substantial surplus, the District's General Fund balance grew by $85
million to over $198 million. The District used an additional $35
million of its surplus to reduce its debt burden.
The delay in completing the financial report is troubling. More
important are the problems that working through this process revealed.
These serious problems must be addressed. The District's executive
branch agencies, especially the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), have much work to do to ensure that the books will be closed
accurately and on time next year. The challenges involve a commitment
to staff training, information system remediation, and strong
management leadership.
The OCFO must manage a process that fulfills a commitment to
frequent reconciliation of the District's bank statements and cash--a
significant challenge. The Authority is providing active support to
this on-going effort involving the OCFO, the Office of the Mayor, the
Council and the leadership of all other major District agencies. The
solutions require strong central leadership, but they must be addressed
throughout the decentralized financial management system.
As you may know, the Authority on June 7, 2000 confirmed the
nomination of Dr. Natwar M. Gandhi to fill the position of Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. The Chief Financial
Officer is a critical position that is within, yet independent of, the
District Government. Dr. Gandhi is highly qualified to fill this vital
position with 30 years of broad experience, in both the private and
public sectors.
He has diverse management experience leading and supervising large
organizations and projects in business, academic and government
settings. The Authority looks forward to working with him.
Fiscal discipline is the first step toward a stable city in which
both residents and visitors can be assured of receiving high quality
public services. The fiscal year 2001 Budget is another important step
along the path the District has traveled since 1995.
The fiscal year 2001 Budget, which also includes out-year
projections for fiscal year 2002 to 2004, shows a modest growth in
total revenues and expenditures. The budget for fiscal year 2001 has
revenues of $4.871 billion and expenditures of $4.867 billion, a modest
surplus. It also reflects significant tax cuts geared to stimulate the
District's economy.
The plan foresees an accumulated fund balance of $260 to $270
million. In fact, the fiscal year 2001 Budget will also benefit from
the anticipated budget surplus in the current fiscal year of an
estimated $57 million. Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp will speak to
the budget in more detail, but I would like to highlight certain areas
of the budget that may be of particular interest.
As you know, Section 148 of the General Provisions of the fiscal
year 2000 Appropriations Act requires that the District budget a $150
million reserve at the beginning of each fiscal year. This budget and
financial plan provides sufficient budget authority to ensure that the
statutory reserve requirement is fulfilled for fiscal year 2001. Madame
Chairman, Section 148 has been the source of some confusion. Your
assistance in clarifying Congressional intent with respect to both the
funding for the reserve and its uses has been welcome. The
Appropriations process will provide an opportunity to explore these
alternative concepts of the reserve fund.
The tobacco settlement proceeds are expected to yield significant
revenues. Those payments, however, are not guaranteed future sources of
revenue, and therefore should not be used to support general
governmental operations. The District is wisely segregating these
proceeds, expected to range up to $61 million over several years, from
its general fund. The District will establish a non-lapsing independent
trust fund to manage these resources. This measure will ensure that the
District does not become too reliant upon an uncertain revenue stream
to support vital general government operations and services.
Reforming the District's tax system in order to provide balance and
equity has been a high priority for local elected leadership. The
District began this effort with the fiscal year 2000 Budget, which
included significant tax reductions and restructuring. The fiscal year
2001 Budget continues these efforts with a plan to enact an earned
income tax credit for low income working families valued at
approximately $3.9 million in taxes.
Madame Chairman, as you know, the fiscal year 2000 Budget for the
District of Columbia Public School System was the result of a
compromise intended to balance the funding requirements for children
throughout the system, including those attending public charter
schools. Actual attendance for both traditional and charter public
schools increased in the current year. The number of charter school
students is projected to increase from approximately 7,000 this year to
nearly 12,000 students for fiscal year 2001.
As you also know, the District has made significant progress in
eliminating the backlog of student assessments needed to determine
eligibility for special education services. Reducing the backlog has
resulted in a higher number of placements for children requiring
special education services in the current year. These two factors alone
resulted in a major shortfall in education funding for fiscal year
2000.
Fully funding schools is a critically important commitment for
fiscal year 2001. Mayor Williams and the Council made difficult choices
in a mutual effort to ensure that the budget before the Subcommittee
fully funds educational services for all students in fiscal year 2001.
Before concluding, Madame Chairman, it is important to raise the
question of the structural challenges to the District Government. The
District has benefited from the Revitalization Act, as well as the
economic expansion. It will also continue to benefit from the fact that
a heavy concentration of services and public sector employment in this
region can provide marginal insulation from the worst effects of an
economic turndown. However, persistent structural deficiencies will
continue to imperil this community's fiscal health until they are
adequately addressed.
A significant number of District residents, for example, remain
eligible and entitled to public assistance, despite the record length
of the national economic expansion. Those numbers, along with program
costs, will only grow in a turndown.
Another clear concern is the District's exceptionally narrow tax
base. Appropriate efforts to reduce the tax burden on residents and to
compete with regional rivals for business development opportunities are
beginning. These important initiatives must be balanced, however,
against the necessity for generating sufficient revenues to support
public services.
Economic development is one answer, and it is among the District's
highest priorities. Economic development is also a priority for the
Congress, as made clear from its support of the Infrastructure Fund and
the National Capital Revitalization Corporation. The Authority believes
that a strong, growing economy in the District is essential, not only
to the fiscal health of the city, but to the economic prosperity of the
whole Washington region.
Many of the District's structural deficiencies are the result of
its unique relationship with the national government and with
surrounding jurisdictions. As the Authority begins to work with the
Congress to enact the fiscal year 2001 Budget, the transition to local
governance also continues.
Before it phases out its activities, the Authority plans to develop
and to share with local elected leaders, the public and the Congress
recommendations for structural reform.
As noted earlier, the role of the Authority has evolved, and its
membership has also changed. In closing, it is appropriate that
individual contributions by those who have participated in this process
be recognized. There have been many. Among them is my predecessor,
Andrew F. Brimmer, and his colleagues who volunteered their time and
energy when confidence in local governmental institutions was at its
lowest ebb. My colleagues on the current Authority Board, Constance B.
Newman, Robert P. Watkins, Eugene Kinlow, and Darius Mans, have been
unswervingly committed, hard working, and helpful to this community and
its elected and appointed leadership. We greatly regret that
reassignment at the World Bank has made it necessary for Dr. Mans to
resign from the Authority effective July 1, 2000. He has made
extraordinary contributions to our work and will be greatly missed.
Your personal interest, Madame Chairman, in securing the District's
financial health has been an important factor in the vastly improved
evaluation of the District's creditworthiness.
In partnership with Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, and the
Council, the Authority has worked very hard to fulfill a commitment to
ensure a timely return to local governance. There is plentiful evidence
of a sense of renewal, including the rebounding residential real estate
market and downtown construction activity. The best evidence, however,
is the heightened attention to educating this city's children.
The Authority appreciates the cooperation and support provided by
the Appropriations Committee since the fiscal year 2000 budget was
enacted. Approval of the fiscal year 2001 Budget and Financial Plan
will also aid in maintaining financial stability, further improvement
in the delivery of public services, and the return of normal
governance. We look forward to working with the Congress in the weeks
ahead to secure passage of this budget.
In conclusion, Madame Chair, much progress has been made in
Washington. The fiscal health of the District has improved. Delivery of
primary services is also improved. However, there is much work still to
be done before the citizens receive modern, efficient government. The
Authority's work during the next, and I add, our last year of activity,
will be to support the Mayor and the Council in making further progress
in the District. Chief among the issues that must still be addressed is
the effort to expand the District's economic foundation. Without a
broad economic base on which to build, this city cannot sustain its
recovery, and will begin to suffer financial peril. I strongly urge you
and your colleagues in the Senate, and the House of Representatives to
assist the City's elected leadership with the necessary resources and
support to continue the revitalization of this great City.
This concludes my testimony, Madame Chairman. I will be happy to
respond to any questions.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Senator Hutchison. I was very interested in your six
points. The one point I am going to ask you to look at in
addition to the points you have raised is: Particularly, I
think, in the next year you could be very helpful on the
financial management policies, which you mentioned is an area
that needs attention----
Dr. Rivlin. Yes.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. And the debt policy.
Dr. Rivlin. Debt policy, yes.
Senator Hutchison. I see no cloud on the horizon for the
District except the debt situation, and so that is something I
would highlight.
Mayor Williams.
DEBT POLICY
Mayor Williams. I am not sure that we are--and I could get
for you, Senator, the exact figures. I know that as part of
last year's budget, we restructured a lot of debt to take the
top off this huge debt mountain. And you are right, to reduce
some short-term costs, we have got longer term burden.
TOBACCO FUNDS
But I think there is a clear consensus between the Mayor
and the Council, and I believe the board as well, that we
should take our tobacco funds, the stream of the tobacco
payments, securitize these tobacco payments, and in the first
instance use the securitized funds. In other words, we are
paying for this by the stream of tobacco money, not revenue
from District taxpayers--take this chunk of money, to use a
technical phrase, and pay down a huge amount of District debt.
And I have not heard anyone talking about it.
I certainly am not contemplating using that increased
capacity to borrow more, but using that reduced debt service to
make a balance between investments in our future and programs
for our people. So I think that is very good fiscal discipline.
Senator Hutchison. Well, the only concern I have about the
proposal as I understand it, to securitize the tobacco
payments, is that you are planning to do it 100 percent.
I would be skeptical of securitizing 100 percent. I think
some States and some cities will do maybe 25 percent
anticipation of that revenue stream, but 100 percent, I think
could get you out on a limb.
So I hope, as you are going down the road, you might look
at something less than 100 percent and just be cautious,
because a number of States are already beginning to see a
lowering of the estimates on that over the long term, because
tobacco smoking is going down.
Dr. Rivlin. Excuse me. Is that not a reason for the
securitization though? It is a take-the-money-now, rather than
take the chance that the tobacco companies will continue making
profits.
Senator Hutchison. Are you talking about taking the money
now, or are you talking about borrowing against the anticipated
revenue?
Dr. Rivlin. No. I am----
Mayor Williams. Well, the company would take the risk. I
mean, we essentially would get a reduced or present value
amount; and whoever has done the securitization, it is up to
them to work with the tobacco companies and get this stream of
payments.
Dr. Rivlin. It is shifting the risk off the District of
Columbia.
Ms. Cropp. One of the reasons that New York, for example,
only did about 25 percent was because the amount of tobacco
dollars that they would receive was much greater than what the
District would receive. In fact, it would probably flood the
market and would not have enabled them to get that much money
back, because it would just be too much out there at one time.
But in doing this, it would really reduce the risk for the
District of Columbia. If, in fact, we did not then use the
tobacco dollars to pay down the debt, it would then cost us
more, because then it would not be tax-free. And doing it this
way, you get some tax benefits from it, from dealing with it
this way.
Now, whether or not we pay down the debt, even if we
securitize, is a decision that we would make, but it is more
beneficial for us to make it, because it would cost us less
money because of the tax credits that we would get.
But this reduces the risk for us. When we looked into this
issue, for example, many financial advisers have felt that the
securitization was the best approach to go.
And one of the reasons was that by not securitizing, what
we would in essence be doing is putting all of our dollars into
tobacco. And very few people at this point would take all of
their investment money and put every penny of their investment
money into tobacco.
By securitizing it, it gives us an opportunity to put the
money into a more diversified portfolio, whatever we decide
that it is going to be.
And in addition to that, by getting the money up front, we
tend to get the present value of the dollars that would be
available to us; and then taking the present value of it,
investing so that, in future years, it would still be more.
So after looking at it, it really took an awful lot to look
at this issue and try to decide which approach would be better,
but I think that the tobacco companies, as we sit here right
now, are trying to figure out approaches and ways to keep
cities and States from getting these dollars.
They do not want to give the dollars out, and whether it is
more off-shore or whatever, they may try to keep us from
getting it. And by us doing the securitization, it seems to me
that it is less risk for us. It is better for us to get in here
early than for other people to come in later.
Senator Hutchison. I would like to see more on this to
determine the risk factor and what you would be giving up. And
I will ask to perhaps meet with the chief financial officer on
that issue as well.
I am going to call on Senator Kyl. I have a number of
questions, but I plan to stay for those, so why do I not call
on you? And then I will follow up.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I have
three issues really.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
First of all, Dr. Rivlin, one of the six items you
mentioned was the need for a strong working relationship
between the traditional and charter schools; and I noted in the
Mayor's testimony the commitment of the $77 million for charter
schools, which I applaud. I think that is very important for
both the traditional and the charter schools.
But to what do you refer when you recommend a more close
working relationship? Why is that important? What are you
talking about?
Dr. Rivlin. Well, I think, over the last couple of years, a
rather adversarial relationship has developed between the
charter schools and the D.C. public schools.
It has been partly a tone question, but it has been very
real and very worrisome and I think the fault was on both
sides, that the public school system, not surprisingly, saw the
charters as a threat. And the charters believed that the public
school system was trying to keep them from flourishing.
I believe that there is a strong mutual interest in both
systems flourishing, and that there can be, not only a good
friendly relationship without taking potshots at each other,
but actual cooperation in the use of some kinds of facilities
or special kinds of things that can be dealt with on a mutual
basis.
Senator Kyl. Good. I agree with you. And I think that is so
important. In Arizona, we have about a third of the charter
schools in the country. We have really led in that. And where
there has been cooperation, it has been mutually beneficial.
For example, one of our largest school districts, public
school districts, was losing a lot of students to charter
schools. The superintendent began visiting those charter
schools to try to figure out what they were doing right and
what he was doing wrong.
And there were some things which he could adapt to the more
traditional schools, which he did, and began publicly
advertising for students to come back to the traditional
schools, and many of them did.
And the competition, though friendly, aided both. I hope
that that kind of relationship and synergy continues to exist.
I applaud the Mayor for making that kind of commitment.
BRIANNA BLACKMOND
Mayor, I think everyone in this room and the City was
outraged and just disappointed and distressed at the death of
young Brianna Blackmond. I noted that last year, we
appropriated $5 million to the District for a program for
adoptive incentives for foster children. I am pleased to see
the Administration included another $5 million in the program
for this year.
$5 MILLION FOR ADOPTIONS
You have taken a special interest in this, I understand,
not only in this case but in foster care generally. I wonder if
you could tell the Committee how the $5 million has been spent
and how you would anticipate working that program this year.
Mayor Williams. I can get you the exact details as a follow
up, Senator, but in general what we are trying to do is reduce
the number of children in foster care in the District by
increasing the number of adoptions, as well as increase the
number of children who are cared for within our borders as
opposed to outside of the City, because both numbers are very,
very high.
And we have got a situation right now where we have 1,000
youth in foster care who are essentially teenagers, and as they
graduate to youths--a kind of perverse term--from foster care,
unless something is done, they will not have a home.
So our first order of business was to leverage these
dollars to remove as many barriers as possible to expedite,
however possible, within the government the process of
adoption, so that families knew that this was a priority. They
knew that there was going to be the outreach. They knew that
there was going to be the assistance from the government so
that they were able to adopt these children.
ADOPTIONS
I am pleased to report--I do not have the exact figure
before me. But I am pleased to report that because of these
efforts, for example, working with the Council's Office to
remove some of the regulatory thicket is just one example that
the number of adoptions actually is beginning to go up. And we
hope to accelerate that.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan
February 24, 2000.
The Honorable Anthony Williams,
Mayor,
District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: Enclosed for your review and approval is a
proposal for the use of federal adoption incentive funds for the
District of Columbia that has been developed at your request by the
Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children.
BACKGROUND
As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the
Congress authorized a federal payment for incentives for adoption of
children in the District of Columbia. As outlined in the conference
report:
--The Act authorizes a one-time federal payment of $5 million to
create incentives to promote adoption.
--Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001.
--A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council
and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and
Senate.
--The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by
individuals in adopting (requires legislation).
--The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such
children (requires legislation).
At its December meeting, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children established a subcommittee composed of
Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer, Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee
and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal
funds.
The Committee has gathered ideas on adoption needs and resources
from others in the community; reviewed ideas for adoption incentives
from other Jurisdictions, and researched the feasibility and costs of
proposals that surfaced. A draft plan was shared with the full Advisory
Committee in early January and comments and suggestions for change were
solicited. The Committee reviewed all written and verbal comments and
revised the plan accordingly.
PROVOSAL SUMMARY
As a result of this work, the Committee is proposing that the
federal adoption funds be focused on the overarching goal of providing
loving and permanent homes for the District's children in the District
of Columbia. The overall plan for the incentive funds is targeted
toward five measurable outcomes:
Outcome # 1.--Increase the number of families in the District of
Columbia who are willing and able to adopt children currently in the
District's foster care system.
Outcome # 2.--Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of
children with special physical or emotional needs.
Outcome # 3.--Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care
whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome # 4.--Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in
foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome # 5.--Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency
for children specified by the federal government under the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (ASFA).
The proposal which follows includes four interrelated initiatives
that together total $5 million to be spent between now and September
30, 2001. The majority of funds would be contracted out to private
organizations to conduct the work. The four initiatives include:
--Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling groups
and other hard to place children.
--Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
--Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption
Services Capacity.
--Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and
adoptive families.
A fuller description of each of the proposed initiatives and
estimated costs based on two years of implementation is presented in
the attached proposal.
plan for management and oversight of the adoption incentive plan
The Committee proposes that overall management of the initiative
will be the responsibility of the Deputy Mayor for Children's Services
but that day to day coordination and implementation of the adoption
incentive initiatives be assigned to the Child and Family Services
Administration which is the agency responsible under District law for
the work associated with providing permanent homes for children who are
in the custody of the District of Columbia because of parental abuse or
neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one or more contracts
with private organizations to carry cut the work. CFSA would be
accountable to the Deputy Mayor for Children and Families far
reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability an each initiative.
General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be provided
by a standing subcommittee of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children. Regular reports would be made to the
Committee on progress in meeting measurable objectives. In addition,
the plan includes a provision for a small amount of funds to be set-
aside for an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed
adoption incentive initiative. A contract would be let with an
independent external evaluator to design and conduct necessary data
collection and evaluative studies under the direction of the Mayor's
Committee and/or the Deputy Mayor for Children's Services.
NEXT STEPS
Under the terms of the authorizing legislation, the plan for the
use of these funds must be approved by the Mayor and the District
Council and then approved by the Appropriations Committees of the House
and the Senate. We are hopeful that you will approve the proposed plan
and take the lead in forwarding it to the District Council for their
approval. Members of the Mayor's Advisory Committee would be glad to
assist your staff in making any necessary presentations on the
proposals in order to secure Council approval.
Once District Council approval is obtained, the Advisory Committee
would again be willing to work with you and your staff in presenting
the plans to the Congressional Appropriations Committees in hopes that
their quick approval can be obtained.
On behalf of the Mayor's Committee, we hope that the work necessary
to translate this proposal to reality can occur expeditiously. There
are far too many waiting children in the District of Columbia. We stand
ready to assist you in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Mae Best,
Phyllis Langston,
Gwendolyn Menefee,
Judith Meltzer,
Toni Oliver,
Elizabeth Siegel,
Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan.
PROPOSAL FOR USE OF THE FEDERAL ADOPTION INCENTIVE FUNDS
BACKGROUND
As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the
Congress authorized a federal payment for incentives for the adoption
of children in the District of Columbia. The Act authorizes a one-time
federal payment for $5 million to create incentives to promote
adoption. As outlined in the conference report, a program for the use
of these funds must be established by the Mayor and the District
Council and approved by the Appropriations Committees of the House and
the Senate. The funds under this authorization must be used by Sept.
30, 2001.
In authorizing this fund, the Congress was responding to the large
numbers of children in foster care in the District of Columbia with a
permanency goal of adoption. As of December 31, 1999, approximately
one-third of the District's 3,000 children in foster care were not
expected to return home and had a permanency goal of adoption. While
many of these children are likely to be adopted by their foster
parents, there are hundreds of children for whom families need to be
identified and supported to pursue adoption. The District of Columbia
has demonstrated its commitment to improving the lives of children
through adoption and has increased the numbers of adoption of children
in foster care by 191 percent from 1995 to 1999. A record number of 250
adoptions were finalized in 1999; this is a good start but much more
remains to be accomplished.
In designing a plan for the use of the federal adoption incentive
funds, a subcommittee of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent
Homes for Children sought input from many in the community and
researched innovative ideas from the region and around the country. The
goal was to design a series of initiatives that would pilot-test new
approaches to address issues that have been barriers to adoption and to
focus these funds in a way that will achieve measurable outcomes.
The overarching goal of the attached proposal is to provide loving
and permanent homes for children in the District of Columbia. The Plan
is designed to achieve the following five measurable outcomes:
Outcome # 1.--Increase the number of families in the District of
Columbia who are willing and able to adopt children currently in the
District's foster care system.
Outcome # 2.--Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of
children with special physical or emotional needs.
Outcome # 3.--Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care
whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome # 4.--Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in
foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome # 5.--Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency
for children specified by the federal government under the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (ASFA).
The proposal includes four interrelated initiatives:
--Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling groups
and other hard to place children.
--Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
--Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption
Services Capacity.
--Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and
adoptive families.
Each of the proposed initiatives' and estimated costs based on two
years of implementation is presented below.
PROPOSED PLAN
Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and
other hard to place children.
Problem addressed.--Many parents who would be willing and are
capable of becoming adopted parents are discouraged from doing so
because of their inability to meet certain requirements related to
physical space, conditions in their home, or the need for
accommodations or special equipment for children with handicaps or
large sibling groups. Access to a funding source for some of these
needs would provide a significant incentive toward adoption.
Proposal.--A flexible fund would be established which could be
accessed by families interested in adoption in order to provide needed
funding and/or resources for a range of activities/items necessary to
become an adoptive parent. The kinds of things eligible for
reimbursement/payment through this fund would include:
--home renovations to accommodate wheelchairs or other special needs
of children;
--assistance in lead paint abatement when the presence of lead paint
is an obstacle to approval of the adoptive home;
--assistance in paying the cost of FBI finger-printing necessary for
approval as an adoptive parent;
--equipment to care for disabled children (e.g., beds, durable
medical equipment (and specialized items not covered by other
public programs);
--assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs related to
mental health care for children with special needs. Funds would
be administered only to families with demonstrated financial
need according to a sliding scale;
--purchase of a wheelchair equipped van to enable adoptive parent(s)
to accept children with physical handicaps;
--assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase of
homes to allow families to adopt large sibling groups.
Consideration will be given to purchase of homes for sibling
groups of five or more;
--assistance with miscellaneous expenses in accordance with a plan
approved by the agency to promote the ability and willingness
of parents to adopt children with special needs or large
sibling groups;
--other approved expenses to promote adoption and avoid disruptions
for which no other funding source exists.
Families would be eligible for funds from this account if they have
applied and are approved to be adoptive parents and have adoptions
finalized after January 2000. Funds from the flexible fund account will
be authorized only for things not available without cost in the
community and not routinely covered by the existing adoption subsidy
program. Funds will be used primarily for one-time expenditures for
things that are a clear barrier to adoption. The funds would be placed
in an interest-bearing account.
Estimated Cost.--$1.7 million ($850,000 per year for 2 years).
Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
Problem.--One of the major barriers to adoption of school age and
teenage children is the lack of resources for adoptive parents to
support education and training of a transition to independence.
Proposal.--A scholarship fund would be established which could be
accessed by adoptive families for post high school education and
training for their adopted children upon presentation of documentation
of acceptance at a Junior College, university or post-secondary
occupational or training school, adoptive families would be eligible to
receive a scholarship of up to $8,000 per year for a high school
graduate going to college and up to $3,000 per year for high school
graduates entering post-secondary training. This fund could be
established by placing an earmarked amount per child in an interest
earning account at the time of the child's adoption. The scholarship
fund would be administered through a private non-profit organization.
Estimated Cost.--The fund would be established initially with $1.5
million in an interest bearing account. Cost assumptions are based on
granting up to 130 scholarships for two years. Interest generated by
the fund and additional fundraising would occur to stabilize the fund
for the future.
Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services
Capacity.
Problem.--One barrier to adoption is the fear of prospective
adoptive parents that they will not be supported when and if problems
arise. Experience around the country has shown that the development of
adequate post-adoption support resources is a significant incentive to
adoption.
Proposal.--Funds would be used to establish a private Adoptive
Family Resource Support Center in the District of Columbia to provide
ongoing information, education and support to adoptive families. Some
of the activities to be carried out by the resource center will
include: operation of a hotline for questions, information and
referral; development and dissemination of and information and referral
directory of services and supports in the metropolitan area; creation
and operation of a resource lending library for adoptive parents and
children; conduct of training programs developed in concert with
adoptive parents to meet their needs; development and assistance to
adoptive parent support groups, etc., and therapeutic services related
to adoption. The Support Center would also have funds to provide
scholarships for adoptive children and families to participate in
training provided by national or regional support groups or
associations.
The Committee proposes that an RFP be developed outlining the
Adoption Resource and Support activities that are desired and that an
organization be funded to develop those activities for the District,
either by creating a single resource center or by developing and
coordinating programming that could be made available through or in
cooperation with the neighborhood family support centers proposed in
the Mayor's Safe Passages initiative.
As an adjunct to the Support Center(s), it is also proposed that a
small portion of the funds be allocated to CFSA to enhance their post-
adoption services capacity and to enable their staff to link families
with the Resource Center and other adoptive support opportunities
family conferences, training, etc.).
Estimated Cost.--$900,000 million (Resource Center $775,000 for 2
years and $125,000 for CFSA post-adoption support activities for
families).
Enhancement of Recruitment and Support of Foster and Adoptive Families
Problem.--The majority of adoptive families begin as foster
parents. Expanding the pool of adoptive families means expanding the
recruitment and support of foster parents as well as doing more
community and neighborhood recruitment of adoptive families. CFSA has
been hampered in its efforts to expand its recruitment and support
activities by a lack of funds to support the start that is doing
recruitment and to enable CFSA to use foster and adoptive parents as
team members in the recruitment process.
Proposal.--Funds would be used to contract with community
organizations and providers to assist in adoptive home recruitment.
Part of the incentive plan also involves providing funds to support
critical staff enhancements and activities within the Adoptions Unit of
CFSA. Funds would be made available to provide for additional capacity
both within CFSA and in other organizations to expand after hour's
recruitment activities and to make it possible for foster and adoptive
parents to serve as co-leaders in training. As part of the enhanced
recruitment effort, incentive funds would be used to pay for:
--adoptive parents to serve as co-leaders in pre-service training;
--food for parents attending training sessions;
--child care for adoptive parents attending training sessions;
--inviting furnishings and decorations for the rooms where adoptive
parent training is held;
--additional supplies for adoptive home recruitment including a video
recorder and cameras, printing of brochures, displays for
literature and banners for use at recruitment events and an
equipped mobile van which can be taken to a wide range of
community events to promote becoming foster and adoptive
parents;
--the preparation of Life Books for all adoptive children;
--transportation funds for visitation between prospective adoptive
families and children when interstate adoptions are planned;
--expenses associated with participation in adoption exchanges.
Estimated Cost.--$700,000 ($350,000 per year).
MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN
Overall management of the Adoption Incentive Plan would rest with
the Deputy Mayor for Children's Services. Day to day coordination and
implementation of the adoption incentive initiatives will be assigned
to the Child and Family Services Administration which is the agency
District law for the work associated with providing permanent homes for
children who are in the custody of the District of Columbia because of
parental abuse or neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one
or more contracts with private organizations to carry out the work.
CFSA would be accountable to the Deputy Mayor for Children and Families
for reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability on each initiative.
General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be
provided by a standing subcommittee of the Mayor's Advisory Committee
on Permanent Homes for Children. Regular reports would be made to the
Committee on progress in meeting measurable objectives.
In addition, the plan includes a provision for a small amount of
funds ($200,000) to be set-aside for an external evaluation of the
effectiveness of the proposed adoption incentive initiatives. A
contract would be let with an independent external evaluator to design
and conduct necessary data collection and evaluative studies under the
direction of the Mayor's Committee and/or the Deputy Mayor for
Children's Services.
Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Mayor must prepare and submit a
budget that identifies the amount of the savings of debt service
arising from the repayment of indebtedness to the District of Columbia
in connection with the sale of the District's rights in and to the
Settlement Agreement to the District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement
Financing Corporation.
The requirement for a competitive bid for the selection of the
Corporation's underwriter and bond counsel will have a positive fiscal
impact as it will require that the Corporation's underwriter and bond
counsel are chosen on the basis of lowest evaluated price.
TITLE XXXVIII.--ADOPTION VOUCHER PROGRAM AND FUND
SEC. 3801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Adoption Voucher Fund Act of 2000''.
SEC. 3802. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.
(a) The long term needs of District of Columbia children who are in
foster care am not being served. Although the Adoption and Safe
Families Amendment Act of 2000 shortens the time in which children may
remain in foster care, many of these children require additional
assistance in order to be adopted.
(b) The financial costs associated with maintaining the 3,000 foster
children are high. In addition to the monthly payments to foster
parents, the Child and Family Services Agency must supervise and staff
each case, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia must pay
attorneys and judges to review each case, and the Office of Corporation
Counsel must staff and review each case.
(c) Even more critical are the tragic human costs associated with
allowing children to languish in foster care. The most recent study on
the fate of foster children who ``age out'' of the child welfare system
without finding a permanent home found that 12 to 18 months after they
left foster care, just half were employed, one-third were receiving
public assistance, one-fifth of the girls had given birth, and more
than one-quarter of the boys had been incarcerated.
(d) Many of the children in foster care have foster parents desirous
of adopting them but are unable to do so because of the costs
associated with adoption.
(e) Providing these foster parents with a one-time financial
assistance package in the form of vouchers would facilitate adoptions.
Financial assistance would consist of vouchers to cover the costs of
the necessary homestudies, compilation of information on the foster
children's backgrounds and special needs, and attorneys' fees.
(f) The Congress has appropriated, in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2000 a $5 million payment, to remain available
until September 30, 2001, to the District of Columbia to create
incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District's foster
care system.
SEC. 3803. DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this title, the term:
(1) ``Attorneys' fees'' means the legal costs and expenses
which are directly related to the adoption of a foster child or
foster children.
(2) ``Foster care'' means 24 hour substitute care for
children placed away from their parents or guardians for whom
the Child and Family Services Agency has placement care and
responsibility.
(3) ``Foster child'' and ``foster children'' mean a child, or
children, who comes under the jurisdiction of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2320 of
Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code or whose parents'
rights have been relinquished pursuant to section 6 of An Act
to regulate the placing of children in family homes, and other
purposes.
(4) ``Foster parent'' means an individual with whom a foster
child is legally placed,
(5) ``Homestudy'' means the ``investigation, report and
recommendation'' required by section 307 of Title 16 of the
District of Columbia Code.
(6) ``Related sibling group'' means a group of siblings with
at least one parent in common, residing together in the home of
a foster parent.
SEC. 3804. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM; PURPOSE.
There is established the Adoption Incentive Program (``Program'').
The purpose of the Program is to provide foster parents with access to
a one-time financial assistance package to assist them with the
expenses associated with attorneys' fees and the homestudy relating to
the adoption of a foster child, subject to the availability of funds in
the Adoption Voucher Fund.
SEC. 3805. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADOPTION VOUCHER FUND.
(a) There is established the Adoption Voucher Fund (``Fund''). The
Fund shall be comprised of $2 million of the $5 million appropriated in
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, approved November
29, 1999 (Public Law No. 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501), and additional funds
in their entirety which Congress may appropriate from time to time for
the purpose of providing incentives for foster parents to adopt
District children.
(b) Monies in the Fund shall be used only for the payment of
homestudies and attorneys' fees, as well as any administrative costs
directly associated with the implementation of this title. The Fund
shall be the sole source of payments under the Program.
SEC. 3806. BENEFITS.
(a) A foster parent may receive the following:
(1) A voucher for the payment of $1,500 for a homestudy for
each foster child or related sibling group; and
(2) A voucher for the payment of $5,000 for attorneys' fees
for each foster child or related sibling group; provided that,
the voucher may only be applied to attorney's fees charged at
an hourly rate of not more than $125 per hour and related
expenses billed at actual cost.
(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to create an entitlement
to financial assistance for the adoption of a foster child, or foster
children, if no funds remain available in the Adoption Voucher Fund.
(c) Vouchers issued pursuant to this section shall be in addition to,
and may not limit the amount of money available to a foster parent
under section 3 of An act to provide for the care of dependent children
in the District of Columbia and to create a board of childrens'
guardians.
SEC. 3807, ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND THE
ADOPTION VOUCHER FUND.
(a) The Child and Family Services Agency (``CFSA'') shall administer
the Program and the Fund. CFSA shall:
(1) Within 180 days of the effective date of this legislation
identify children whose permanency plans are adoption, for as
long as funds are available from the Fund;
(2) Obtain a document signed by the foster parents stating
their intent to adopt within 180 days of identifying the
children pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(3) Upon obtaining the signed document required by paragraph
(2) of this subsection, immediately provide a voucher for
attorneys' fees and a voucher for the homestudy to the foster
parent.
(b) Vouchers issued pursuant to this section shall contain a
statement describing the benefits to the adopting foster parents under
the program, as well as the terms and conditions for the use of the
vouchers.
(c) Adopting foster parents shall present the vouchers to their
attorney and licensed agency hired to perform the homestudy.
(d) An attorney hired by a foster parent shall submit a voucher for
attorneys' fees with his or her first bill to CFSA, which shall set up
an account with a $5,000 balance. Thereafter, the attorney shall submit
his or her bills quarterly to CFSA. CFSA shall pay the attorney within
30 days with funds from the account.
(e) The licensed agency hired to perform the homestudy shall submit
its bill and the voucher for the homestudy to CFSA after the homestudy
is complete for payment within 30 days.
SEC. 3808. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
The Adoption Voucher Fund, which is subject to the availability of
appropriations, shall be comprised of $2 million of the $5 million
appropriated in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 as a Federal payment available until September 30, 2001, for
incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District's foster
care system in accordance with legislation enacted by the Council. The
remaining $3 million will fund the proposed Mayor's Advisory Committee
on Permanent Homes for Children for use of the Federal Adoption
Incentives Funds. Furthermore, the proposed Budget Request Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 contains a request for $5,000,000 for the same purpose
to be available until September 20, 2002.
Timelines for Adoption Incentive Plan Expenditures
initiative # 1: creation of a flexible fund to support adoption of
sibling groups and other hard to place children ($1.5 million)
By August 15, 2000
Identify private non-profit organization to operate flexible fund.
Develop guidelines for eligible individuals.
Develop parameters for allowable expenditures from fund.
Develop protocols for accessing individual payments for families
from flexible fund.
By September 1, 2000
Grant $1.5 million to designated organization administering
flexible fund for expenditure between September 1, 2000 and September
30, 2001.
initiative # 2: establishment of a scholarship fund to support
transition to independence for adopted teens ($1.6 million)
By September 15, 2000
Identify organization to administer scholarship fund.
Grant $1.6 million to organization administering scholarship fund
to be placed in interest bearing account and subsequently allocated to
interest bearing individual scholarship accounts for identified
children.
Establish eligibility guidelines for receipt of scholarship.
By September 30, 2000
Establish interest-bearing account for scholarship funds.
Announce and publicize scholarship fund availability for all
prospective adoptive parents and parents in process and filing for
adoption as of January 1, 2000.
By October 1, 2000
Begin establishing individual scholarship accounts for identified
children.
initiative # 3: creation of an adoption resource center and post-
adoption services capacity ($1 million)
Adoption Support Center ($775,000)
By August 1, 2000
Develop and issue RFP for District of Columbia Adoption Resource
Center (2 year grant @ $375,00 for Year 1 and $400,000 for Year 2 =
$775,000) with proposals due by September 1, 2000.
Between September 1, 2000 and September 20, 2000
Review proposals and select contractor for Post Adoption Resource
Center.
By September 30, 2000
Sign contract with provider for one year with renewable second
year. All funds to be contracted by September 30, 2001.
Post-Adoption Services ($225,000)
By August 1, 2000
CFSA to develop specific budget plan for use of $225,000 to enhance
Post-Adoption Services.
By October 1, 2000
Allocate additional funds to CFSA budget for use in accordance with
plan developed by CFSA and approved by the Deputy Mayor for Children,
Youth and Families.
initiative # 4: enhancement of adoptive home recruitment and support of
foster and adoptive families ($900,000)
By August 1, 2000
CFSA to develop specific budget plan for use of $750,000 in
additional funds to enhance neighborhood based adoptive home
recruitment and support. Funds could be used for additional staff for
evening and weekend recruitment; contracted neighborhood based
recruiters and trainers to implement Family to Family program; stipends
for foster parents to serve as co-leaders in preservices training;
child care for parents involved in training; additional supplies
(brochures, videos, a mobile van, etc.). For recruitment and training;
preparation of life books for all adoptive children; contracted home
studies; transportation expenses for visitation between children and
adoptive parents and expenses associated with participation in adoption
exchanges.
By October 1, 2000
Allocate additional funds to CFSA budget for use in accordance with
plan developed by CFSA and approved by the Deputy Mayor for Children,
Youth and Families.
By September 1, 2000
Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families to hire one staff
person to provide full-time staff assistance to Mayor's Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children and to coordinate and oversee all
activities funded through the Adoption Incentive Plan ($150,000
allocated for salary, benefits and administrative costs).
IDEAS FOR EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL $5 MILLION IN ADOPTION/PERMANENCY
INCENTIVE FUNDS
Initiative # 1.--Provide funds for planning, design and initial
implementation of an innovative supported community providing permanent
homes for children in large sibling groups who are separated from their
families because of abuse and neglect. ($2 million)
Building on the experiences of models of children's villages that
have been established in other parts of the country, the District wants
to invest in the development of a similar model for the District which
would provide safe, loving and permanent homes for very large sibling
groups who are currently in out of home care because of abuse and
neglect and who have been unable to be reunited with their birth
families. For many of these children in large sibling groups, the
current system has been unsuccessful in permanently placing them with
relatives or in adoptive homes that can accommodate all siblings
together. Many of these children are isolated from their sibling with
the younger children living in foster families and the older ones in
group homes or other congregate care facilities.
The concept is to seed the construction or renovation of single
family homes in a designated safe community that can reunite these
children with their siblings and place them in the permanent care of
relatives (who would be willing and able to care for them if adequate
housing and supports were available) or with trained two parent
families who would commit to raising these sibling groups as part of a
permanent family until they are grown and self-sufficient. Caregivers
would be well trained and supported, both financially and with ongoing
supervision and services. Funds available through this initiative would
be matched with private Foundation and other District funds to
establish a village of approximately 10 families living in a close-knit
neighborhood of single family homes. Services and supports to the
families and children would be provided within the context of the
neighborhood and community in which the homes are located. Planning for
this work would begin by October 1, 2000 with the expectation that the
community could be operational by December 31, 2001.
Initiative # 2.--Establishment of Scholarship Fund for post-high
school education, vocational or life skills training for all children
who will exit the foster care system with a goal of independent living.
($1 million)
Funds would be used to expand the scholarship program currently
being developed as an incentive for all children being adopted through
the foster care system to allow a similar scholarship for each child
who leaves the foster care system at age 18 or 21 with a goal of
independent living. The scholarship fund would be administered through
a non-profit organization and would provide a grant of between $3,000-
$8,000 per year/per child for additional education or training in order
to help them make a successful transition to adulthood as they leave
the foster care system.
Initiative # 3.--Improve the capacity of the legal system to move
children toward permanency through Adoption ($1.5 million)
Additional attorneys are urgently needed within the District's
Office of Corporation Counsel to adequately implement the Federal
Adoption and Safe Families Act and to assure that timely and effective
legal action is taken to move children toward permanency through
adoption and/or legal guardianship. These funds would enable the Office
of Corporation Counsel to immediately hire ____ and ____ additional
attorneys and ____ paralegals who would be devoted exclusively to the
child abuse and neglect caseload.
Initiative # 4.--Expand the capacity of the District's Safe Shores
Children's Advocacy Center to end the fragmentation in the current
response of the Metropolitan Police Department, the Child and Family
Services Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Office of
Corporation Counsel to children who have experienced child abuse and
neglect. ($500,000)
These funds would be used to leverage other federal and private
contributions to support the development of an integrated response that
would end the current bifurcation of abuse and neglect in the District
of Columbia.
Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. I think that that is an
area where a performance-based audit should be possible. And
because everyone is committed to the object or to the goal, I
think it would be very useful for us to track that and to see
how well we have done as a result of the application of these
funds, because it could call for greater support in the future
if, in fact, the efforts work.
DEBT ISSUE
And finally, Ms. Cropp, I think along with everyone else, I
have continued to watch the debt issue that the Chairman has
already talked to you about.
D.C. GENERAL
D.C. General is, of course, the District's sole general
hospital and is run by the D.C. Health and Hospital Public
Benefit Corporation. GAO is, as you know, investigating whether
the District violated Federal law by making a $2.2-million-a-
month loan to PBC.
LOANS TO PBC
My information is that PBC has not returned any of the
$65.7 million in District cash that it borrowed in two and a
half years. Can you tell us what the District is doing to get
repayment on those loans made to the PBC?
Ms. Cropp. No, I cannot at this time, but I can submit that
information for the record. I am not certain. No, I cannot at
this time.
CONSULT FOR OVERSIGHT OF PBC
Senator Kyl. I noted that this spring the District
recommended using $60,000 of reserve funds to hire an
independent consultant to assist the Council in its oversight
of PBC regarding the provision of medical services to uninsured
District residents. Do you know anything about that
recommendation?
Ms. Cropp. I do. Actually, there is a collaborative that is
being formed with signatories being the Chair of the Council,
the Mayor, the Chair of the Financial Authority and the Chair
of the PBC board. It is an outgrowth of the Health Commission
that the Mayor and the Council had formed to look at healthcare
issues in the District of Columbia.
FINANCIAL STATUS OF PBC
One of the things that came out of it was that we were very
unclear as to the financial status of the PBC. We had great
concern about the numbers that were there.
Rather than rely totally on the figures that came out of
the PBC, we wanted to get an independent view of the financial
structure, the clinical structure and other areas of concern
from the Public Benefit Corporation.
We were going to get an outside group to look at it,
Cambio. They have done Georgetown Hospital. They also did
Greater Southeast Hospital.
Senator Kyl. If I could just interrupt. I mean, you do not
need the $60,000 consultant to know that you are not getting
money repaid.
Ms. Cropp. Part of the problem was that we could not get
figures that we could embrace totally. And we needed to have an
outside review to get the information.
Senator Kyl. You know how much you are owed, though. I
mean, you understand how much money you are owed----
Ms. Cropp. Yes.
Senator Kyl [continuing]. How much you loaned. What is it
that----
Ms. Cropp. But we still do not know all of the figures--we
still do not know everything that is within the hospital. We do
not know what all of the revenue is that comes into the
hospital. We are not certain of what----
Senator Kyl. So if I could just interrupt again, is the
purpose for this, then, to better understand how you can
recover the money?
Ms. Cropp. How to recover the money, and also how to make
sure that the hospital is functioning appropriately,
financially and also clinically.
We want to go beyond just that financial aspect. We want to
make sure that the hospital is--perhaps there are some things
that the hospital is doing that they may not have to do in the
future.
For example, the hospital does do about 75 percent of the
trauma in the City. The rest of the hospitals cannot absorb
that. But perhaps in the area of pediatrics, perhaps other
hospitals can absorb that, and we can look at restructuring
some of the things that the hospital does currently.
So we want to take a broad picture of the healthcare
delivery that the hospital is providing and take into
consideration its financial status, its clinical structure and
other areas to make sure that it is really functioning
appropriately.
Senator Kyl. I think that is a very important thing to do
and would hope that you could share those results with the
Committee.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Do you need a little more
time, before----
Senator Kyl. Thank you, but no.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Kyl.
I will call on my ranking member, Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison. I
apologize for being late. We had a meeting in my office about
the restoration of some air service to a city in Illinois, and
you can understand why I felt I had to be there for that.
But I wanted to be here, especially today to first thank
the panel which is assembled, Dr. Rivlin, whom I worked with
years ago when I was a member of the House Budget Committee;
and Ms. Cropp--though we do not know one another personally I
find you on cable TV every night when I get back home so I know
that you are actively involved in the government of the
District of Columbia--and especially to Mayor Williams, whom I
have known since he first went to work for the Department of
Agriculture.
And I was acquainted with your professional background and
have been extremely impressed by your leadership in the
District of Columbia. You have restored hope and faith on
Capitol Hill among many of us that our Capitol City, our
Nation's Capitol can be a source of great pride for many years
to come. And I salute you for that. It is a very daunting
challenge. And I think you have risen to it. And I want to
continue to help you to do just that.
I note here and my staff has told me that your overall
budget is in the range of $5.3 billion, but the Federal
contribution is in the range of some $400 million, if I am not
mistaken, roughly, the direct part, which gives us at least
some perspective in terms of the tail on the dog that is the
subject of this hearing.
My personal philosophy has been that you are a government
entitled to rule your jurisdiction, because you were elected to
that post. I believe in that democratic process.
I have resisted efforts throughout my Congressional career
when would-be mayors on Capitol Hill wanted to second-guess the
leadership of the District of Columbia.
And many times, I thought that that leadership was just
dead wrong. I still felt they were entitled to make their
mistakes. That is what democracy is all about. And I continue
to feel that way.
TAX CUT
I think that we can be helpful and should be helpful to the
District of Columbia because of its importance to all of us who
call it a second home, and to the nation.
Having said that, when I step back and take a look at the
District of Columbia, there is one thing that continues to
trouble me and I am afraid is getting worse, and that is the
situation where your proposed D.C. tax cut is growing in size.
Am I correct in the information that I have that the D.C.
tax cut this year will amount to some $125 million?
Mayor Williams. That is roughly correct, Senator.
Senator Durbin. So if I understand that, it basically means
that about 30 percent of all the money that we are talking
about appropriating to you is going to be given away to the
residents of the District of Columbia in a tax cut?
Mayor Williams. I am not sure of the exact percentage, but
I think the consensus of leadership is that we need a balance
between program investment, investment in human services
capital, and some investment in tax reform and parity, that all
of them have to come, you know, in combination, that there is a
level and, with respect to our local home rule, we battled it
out and, we came to the agreement we came to. It may be a pig,
but it is our pig.
Senator Durbin. It is your decision to make.
Mayor Williams. Right.
Senator Durbin. And you have, with your City Council, have
made that decision.
I will tell you that it is difficult for me to sit here and
to look at these numbers that are going to grow to over $200
million in the next couple of years and realize that half the
money we are sending to the District of Columbia you will turn
around and give away to the residents.
Now, that might be a great idea--in fact, it is a great
political idea for those who are in public office.
But those of us who have observed the District of Columbia
find it difficult to understand how the City Council can ignore
the shortcomings in your educational system, the shortcomings
when it comes to public safety, the shortcomings when it comes
to public health, and decide that, instead, this money is not
necessary. It is to be given away to residents.
I will tell you the people I have spoken to who live in the
District of Columbia, who would much rather have safer streets
and better schools and clean up of a lot of the areas that are
blighted in this District than to receive $50 or $100 in a tax
cut.
It is a wonderful political exercise with some who believe
that that is the key, is to keep giving money back to the
people.
MEETING BASIC OBLIGATIONS
But if the District is not meeting its most basic
obligations in terms of protecting the people of the District
and providing a good education for their kids, I think it is
indefensible.
And as that number grows, as your tax cut grows, I think
your call on the Federal Government for more and more money
becomes less convincing. You obviously do not need it. If you
can give it away, you do not need it.
And this year, 30 percent of what you are asking for in
direct payments from the Federal Government you clearly do not
need, because you are going to turn around and give it back in
terms of tax cuts.
I asked in the course of last year's appropriation bill for
a report card from the District to see how you are doing. We
had the Casey Foundation evaluation about kids in the District.
And I really believe that you, Mayor, are on the right track.
I see what you are doing in terms of setting performance
goals and having people stand up and say, ``I am going to try
to put so many more people in drug rehab. We are going to try
to do so much in health clinics.'' All of these things make a
lot of sense to me.
And I would like to have, if you can, your analysis of the
progress you are making and the obstacles you are running into
in providing those basic services to address the needs of
children in the District of Columbia.
Mayor Williams. Well, thank you, Senator. But I think any
person would say that they might like to try to bring our city
to, you know, what is--I will put it this way, for our city to
realize its full promise and potential and to successfully work
its way through this recovery, to me it really is a balance
between bringing our government to its right size, investing in
our equipment, our plan, and our people. And in sharing that,
we have got a robust, prosperous economy.
Certainly, there are always questions of balance and there
are questions of degree, but I think that there is a role in
there. And I think that American citizens have an interest in
seeing that the businesses and the taxpayers in the City are on
some kind of parity with taxpayers everywhere else because we
are our Nation's Capital, and right now we are really at, for a
lot of different reasons, historically and otherwise, somewhat
of a disadvantage.
And so anything we can do to right that balance, I think,
is going in the right track. Again, we may have our differences
in degree or magnitude.
Speaking of children, our emphasis on children flows from
our neighborhood summary, where I say this over and over again
and people groan, but we had 3,000 people at the convention
center. These were all regular citizens. They were not bused
in. They were not my political cronies. They were just regular
folks.
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CITY
We had folks from every quadrant of the City, every ward of
the City, old folks, young folks, black folks, white folks;
everybody was there. And these folks sat there. They spent over
7 hours of their time on a Saturday in developing a vision,
strategic plan for the City.
Their top two priorities--because we used a lot of
electronic gadgetry, their top two priorities were restore,
refurbish our neighborhoods, support our children and families.
Those were the top two goals.
So a lot of this budget flow and emphasis on children flows
out of that. And I give you two areas where we want to really
put a special emphasis on children.
Number one is I am going to be calling together a group of
citizens and work with the Council and the Authority and ask
the group of citizens--a small number so it is manageable, work
with a consultant, work with staff, work with our inspector
general, and go into our delivery system, if you want to call
it that to be kind, for our children, and tell me what we are
doing wrong, where we need to improve, where we need to fix
things, where we need to refurbish, blow up, rehabilitate the
process, because right now in many, many ways, particularly as
it relates not just to youth services in general but to
juvenile justice, we are not doing the job.
Senator Durbin. May I ask a specific question?
Mayor Williams. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Last year I compared the District of
Columbia to states in terms of performance for children, and
some said, ``That is not fair. Compare the District of Columbia
to cities, not to States, because of the unique governance
here.''
DISTRICT COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES
And so, we took a look at that particular issue, the top 50
cities in the United States, and compared the District of
Columbia's statistics when it comes to children and poverty.
And, Mayor, when it comes down to the health, in particular
health services for children and for pregnant women, the
District of Columbia ranked dead last again.
In a city where the City Council has decided, ``There is
too much money; we are going to give it back,'' you have a
situation where the District of Columbia ranks 50th out of 50
cities on the percent of total births to mothers receiving late
or no prenatal care.
And you and I both know that is a recipe for disaster.
Mothers without prenatal care are kids who are going to give
birth to children with a world of problems, expensive problems,
for a lifetime. This is in a city that has decided ``We are
going to give away a tax cut, 30 percent of the money we get
from the federal government,'' and you rank dead last in the 50
cities.
Would this be a radical idea? Could you go to the D.C. City
Council and perhaps bring that to their attention, and maybe
suggest to them that a few more prenatal clinics and a few less
dollars being given away in tax cuts might be in the best
interest of residents who come 3,000 strong and tell you that
strong families is one of the top two priorities in their mind?
Ms. Cropp. Senator, I would like to also have an
opportunity to make some comments.
Senator Durbin. Sure, of course.
Ms. Cropp. Let me beg to differ somewhat with your
suggestion that the dollars that the Federal Government is
giving to the District of Columbia that the City is using to
deal with the tax cut.
We are using local revenue, not Federal dollars, first of
all. Although the Federal dollars are a part of the
revitalization plan that came about because of the change in
the Federal payment that would go to the District of Columbia.
The Council--and I would like to share with you our
legislative agenda, and perhaps also there is a need for us to
get together and talk a little off line about some of the
things that the Council has done.
We have worked extremely hard to provide better health
care, and expanded to look at approaches where we could improve
education----
Senator Durbin. May I ask you a question?
Ms. Cropp [continuing]. For our citizens in the District of
Columbia.
BIRTHS
Senator Durbin. Do you disagree with the conclusions that
the District of Columbia is in the worst shape of the top 50
cities in America when it comes to births to mothers without
prenatal care, ranks 49th out of 50 in low-birth weight babies,
ranks 49th out of 50 in percent of pre-term babies? Do you say
this is a crisis?
Ms. Cropp. I may not be able to argue with that, but there
are other things that we have to do. We have to look at the
whole picture. And part of looking at the whole picture is
looking at approaches and ways to help our economy and revenue
to grow in the future, because the Federal Government is not
going to continue to give us dollars.
TAX RATE
We are going to have to figure out other approaches. Let me
just share this one statistic with you, for example. The
District's lowest tax rate of 6 percent for our lowest income
people, those individuals who make $0 to $10,000, is higher
than the wealthiest people pay in the State of Virginia, right
next door. The people who make under $10,000 pay more taxes
than the wealthiest of people pay in Virginia.
We, in the District, because of where we are and how we are
surrounded by much wealthier States who do not have the
problems of an urban city--when you were saying earlier about
not comparing the District to States, why? Because like any
other urban city in this country, we have a population that is
older, that is sicker, and that is poorer.
In addition to that, we are further penalized by the fact
that we do not have the wealthier suburban areas to help offset
the costs of the District.
Senator Durbin. Let me----
Ms. Cropp. Sixty-two percent of the people who work for the
District of Columbia government--62 percent who work for the
government, live outside of the District of Columbia.
So we have to come up with better approaches and different
ways to help our economy grow. Tax parity is one when our
surrounding jurisdictions are bringing in--when their taxes are
so much lower. At the same time, we are challenged, and I think
we are meeting that challenge, to meet the needs of our people
who need more.
Senator Durbin. We disagree, and we are bound to disagree
because I have made my point on this last year. And I did not
realize the Chairman had not asked questions. And I want to
just wrap this up.
PRENATAL CARE
But let me give you this analogy: If you know that the
failure of the District of Columbia to have appropriate
prenatal care for mothers results in the birth of low-birth
weight children who are bound to have additional medical
expenses and problems for a lifetime--and we can certainly
document everything I have just said to be true in the District
of Columbia--and you insist, instead, on focusing on giving tax
cuts with money instead of building prenatal centers for these
mothers for their health care, the only analogy I can think of
is someone who has just bought new draperies for their home,
and enjoys it very much, did not have enough money to fix the
roof, and the water is coming in.
Those children will cost you, the District, the taxpayers,
and America, a fortune because we did not make the investment
in their lives early enough.
And the District of Columbia, for all the progress it has
made, still has in many areas, deficiencies which require some
enlightened thinking.
And I think the City Council is just off base when it takes
30 percent of the Federal funds and gives it away, saying, ``We
cannot think of a thing we can do in the District of Columbia
with $125 million except to give it back.''
Well, anybody who is a family of a victim of a drive-by
shooting can think of something that could have been done in
terms of police protection.
People who are worried about the test scores of kids coming
out of D.C. schools can think of something.
And the mothers of these children who are holding these
babies who have a lifetime of problems ahead of them, can think
of something.
Ms. Cropp. And the Council has, and I think our budget
reflects that we have.
Senator Durbin. Well, unfortunately, the progress is too
slow as far as I am concerned.
Ms. Cropp. Well, I will agree with that. We have found a
point of agreement. It is much slower than what I think it
ought to be.
Senator Durbin. I would ask the Chairman, Senator
Hutchison, for unanimous consent that the remaining questions I
have be submitted for the record.
Senator Hutchison. Without objection.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. I have several questions, but I just
want to make one other point. I think Chairman Cropp was very
good in representing the Council views and looking at the place
where you sit, and the competition around the District of
Columbia for residence.
TAX REVENUES GOING UP
I have looked at the projections with the tax cuts that
were put in place last year. The projections are that the
revenue will go up because you are encouraging people to stay
in the District and move back into the District. And so, in
fact, the tax revenues are going up, not down.
I think they have responded quite correctly to looking at
where they sit and doing the best that they can to make this
city a place that people want to live.
I do not disagree with your points on the things that have
not been done. I think we should all work for improving
prenatal health care, but I do not think it is the tax cut that
is keeping us from doing that.
I think you are bringing people in. So we have, you know,
two ways of looking at this. But in that instance, I think they
are on the right track, and let us just work together to try to
improve the situation that you mentioned.
MARIJUANA POSSESSION LAW
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Earlier in the year,
the Council considered strengthening the City's marijuana
possession laws. The U.S. Attorney has expressed concern that
the District's lax laws on the point are fostering new criminal
gangs in the District that have been selling this drug.
I want to ask you if the City is still considering
strengthening its marijuana possession laws, or how are you
addressing the issue that has been addressed by the U.S.
Attorney?
Ms. Cropp. If I may get that information back to you,
Senator--we are looking at all of our laws and trying to
strengthen them. I do not want to put something on the record
that is not totally accurate. If I can get that information as
to what we are doing specifically with the marijuana laws, I
would get it back to you.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Is it something that is being
considered by the Council ongoing, the strengthening of those
laws?
Ms. Cropp. Yes, it is, and the Council will--I have just
been informed that we will take action on it before recess. So,
before July, you will get information on that.
[The information follows:]
REPORT ON DISTRICT'S MARIJUANA POSSESSION LAWS
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of Bill 13-240 is to deter marijuana trafficking and
the violence surrounding marijuana trafficking by amending the District
of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to include
marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance. This bill will make
the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to distribute
marijuana a five-year felony, except that the first conviction for the
manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute \1/2\
pound or less of marijuana will remain a misdemeanor if the person has
not previously been convicted of manufacturing, distributing or
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance or an
attempt to do so.
In addition, this change will permit pretrial detention under D.C.
Code Sec. 23-1322 of persons charged with the manufacture, distribution
or possession with intent to distribute marijuana because these
offenses will fall within the definition of ``dangerous crime'' under
D.C. Code Sec. 23-1331; the bill will subject persons convicted of the
manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to distribute
marijuana while armed to increased penalties under D.C. Code Sec. 22-
3202 because these offenses will fall within the definition of
``dangerous crime'' under D.C. Code Sec. 22-3201; and it will subject
persons to enhanced penalties upon conviction of such offenses as
distribution of marijuana to a minor under D.C. Code Sec. 33-546 and
distribution or possession with intent to distribute marijuana within a
drug free zone, that is, within 1,000 feet of educational institutions,
day care centers, recreational facilities and libraries under D.C. Code
Sec. 33-547.1.
It also brings the District of Columbia into conformity with laws
in all fifty states which make distribution of at least some, if not
all, quantities of marijuana a felony. As a result, the bill will
reduce the probability that people from other jurisdictions will enter
the District of Columbia to sell marijuana.
Chronology of actions taken by the Council of the District of Columbia
May 4, 1999--Bill 13-240, the ``Distribution of Marijuana Amendment
Act of 1999,'' was introduced by Councilmembers Brazil and Jarvis and
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
January 13, 2000--The Judiciary Committee held a roundtable on Bill
13-240. (Testimonies from public witnesses available on request).
May 10, 2000--The Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on Bill
13-240. (Testimonies from public witnesses available on request).
May 25, 2000--The Judiciary Committee held a mark-up and discussion
of Bill 13-240. Committee print of Bill 13-240 attached.
A BILL 13-240
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To amend the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act
of 1981 to include marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance in
order to make the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent
to distribute marijuana a five-year felony, except for the first
conviction for the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent
to distribute \1/2\ pound or less of marijuana which will remain a
misdemeanor if the person has not previously been convicted of the
manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance or an attempt to do so; and to amend section 1(g)
of An Act To control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of pistols
and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia by amending the
definition of dangerous crime to include offenses punishable by
imprisonment for less than one year.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
act may be cited as the ``Distribution of Marijuana Amendment Act of
2000''.
Sec. 2. The District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of
1981, effective August 5, 1981, (D.C. Law 4-29; D.C. Code Sec. 33-501
et seq.), is amended as follows:
(a) Section 208(a) (D.C. Code Sec. 33-518(a)) is amended as
follows:
(1) Paragraph (4)(H) is amended by striking the word
``and'' at the end.
(2) Paragraph (5)(BB) is amended by striking the
period and inserting the phrase ``; and'' in its place.
(3) A new paragraph (6) is added to read as follows:
``(6) Cannabis.''.
(b) Section 212(2) (D.C. Code Sec. 33-522(2)) is repealed.
(c) Section 231(a)(2)(B) (D.C. Code Sec. 33-541(a)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking the phrase ``both'', and inserting the
phrase ``both; except that upon conviction of manufacturing,
distributing or possessing with intent to distribute \1/2\
pound or less of marijuana, a person who has not previously
been convicted of manufacturing, distributing or possessing
with intent to distribute a controlled substance or attempting
to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to
distribute a controlled substance may be imprisoned for not
more than 180 days or fined not more than $5,000 or both.'' in
its place.
Sec. 3. Section 1(g) of An Act To control the possession, sale,
transfer, and use of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the
District of Columbia, to provide penalties, to prescribe rules of
evidence, and for other purposes, approved July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 650;
D.C. Code Sec. 22-3201(g)), is amended by striking the phrase ``, if
the offense is punishable by imprisonment for less than 1 year''.
Sec. 4. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee
report as the final impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87
Stat. 813; D.C. Code Sec. 1-233(c)(3)).
Sec. 5. Effective date.
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the
event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council of the District of
Columbia to override the veto), approval by the Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority as provided in
Sec. 203(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat.
116); D.C. Code Sec. 47.392.3(a)), a 60-day period of Congressional
review as provided in section 602(c)(2) of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code
Sec. 1-233(c)(2)), and publication in the District of Columbia
Register.
COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. In the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bill, we included $5 million for the Mayor, in
consultation with the Council, to provide offsets against local
taxes for commercial revitalization programs in enterprise
zones and low and moderate income areas of the District.
The purpose of this was to try to get property renovated,
cleaned up, and perhaps bring new investment in that would
create a safer environment. Could you give me a progress report
on whether you have been able to use any of this incentive for
the purpose that I have stated?
Mayor Williams. I can get you in writing, Senator, the
detailed follow up as I did--I know, based on our conversation
we had earlier this year, as a matter of fact, when I visited
the International Convention of Shopping Centers with a member
of the Council. Now for the second year in a row, there is a
growing and strong interest now in investing in our city.
As I suggested to you earlier, we have talked to major
retailers who we are actively negotiating with to come to our
city, provide jobs for our residents, shopping opportunities
for our citizens.
And part of our incentive package is exactly this $5
million. I can get you detailed information on that. So it is
working, and it is part of our arsenal that we are using to
negotiate with these investors. We hope to, as a matter of
fact, have some major announcements--I would like them to be
last week, but very soon.
Senator Hutchison. Have you continued into the next budget
year an added amount for this purpose, or have you continued to
build on the $5 million?
Mayor Williams. I know that we have continued a robust
effort to include incentives for investments and incentives for
employing our residents, you know, industrial revenue bond
financing, the whole package, again, of tools in these
enterprise zones that we want to use for investors because I
think you were exactly right on the money. It is a real
incentive we can offer.
Senator Hutchison. I would like a report just to see that.
[The information follows:]
District of Columbia--Commercial Revitalization Program
OVERVIEW OF POLICY AND PROGRAM GOALS
A primary goal of the Mayor's economic development strategy is to
stimulate increased commerce, capital investment and employment growth
within District of Columbia neighborhoods by reducing the total tax
burden borne by our domestic enterprises. To help implement this
policy, the Mayor established the DC Commercial Revitalization Program
(CRP), which offers temporary tax relief to developers, manufacturers,
building owners, tenants and other taxpayers (Taxpayers) that acquire,
construct, rehabilitate, lease, and operate commercial facilities
situated within designated areas of the District.
Eligible Taxpayers may qualify for forgiveness of transfer taxes,
the abatement of real property and sales tax liability, and the award
of employment tax credits in connection with the development of retail
facilities in priority development areas, including the DC Enterprise
Zone and other designated low and moderate income neighborhoods
characterized by a dearth of retail goods and services and related
employment opportunities. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
business guilds, alliances and other collaboratives that sponsor
commercial development in under served communities by contributing
supplemental tax payments or special assessments also may be eligible
for CRP assistance.
PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION
Section 168(a) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
2000 authorizes the transfer from the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority) to the
District of Columbia the sum of $5,000,000 to help neutralize the
fiscal impact of tax concessions allocated to stimulate increased
business activity in selected neighborhoods. CRP funds are derived from
interest earnings on investments held by the Authority on behalf of the
District government. CRP is administered by the Office of the Deputy
Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMED). Program funds are
used in conjunction with other economic development tools employed by
DMED to leverage public and private dollars invested in priority
development areas. Available District and federal resources include
Community Development Block Grants, Economic Development Administration
grants, Brownfields loans, grants and credits, enterprise zone tax
incentives, private activity bonds and tax increment bonds. It is
anticipated that CRP funds also will be used in conjunction with credit
and financial support provided from funds held in the Revenue Bond
Program Fee Account authorized under DC Code Section 47-340 et seq.
PRIORITIES
Projects situated at or in close proximity to sites that will house
the District's ``Government Centers'' offices receive priority
consideration for CRP assistance. These planned Centers are located
within the DC Enterprise Zone and other low and moderate income
neighborhoods traditionally under served by commercial developers and
retailers. By providing inducements for retail businesses to co-locate
with these government service operations, the District intends to
capitalize on the momentum already generated by recently completed
Metro Rail Stations at these retail and transportation hubs. Priority
retail services include, by way of illustration only:
--Self-service retail establishments (independently owned or part of
a corporation that operates a chain of retail establishments
under the same trade name) that meet the requirements of the DC
Supermarket Tax Exemption Act of 2000;
--Restaurants that provide on-site table service and eating
facilities; movie theaters and playhouses;
--Manufacturing facilities; wholesale and discount clothing and dry
goods stores;
--Boutiques, bookstores, coffee shops and other stores featuring
specialty items;
--Communications software development facilities and other technology
research and development incubators, tourism and entertainment
facilities.
DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING PLAN
Each CRP Project plans shall include description of the Taxpayer(s)
to whom the benefit is to be awarded; the nature and amount of
assistance to be provided; and the public purpose benefits that will
result from the project. The plan also shall describe zoning,
environmental, historic preservation and site control issues, if any,
proposed land uses, site development and construction plans, and
project renderings (see Exhibit A).
Each eligible project must meet three or more of the following
public purpose objectives:
1. Increase the availability of consumer goods, services or
business activities that have not generally been available to residents
within the proposed project area;
2. Enhance the value and appearance of commercial facilities;
3. Expand the District's real property or sales tax base;
4. Increase the employment of residents within the project's
service area; and
5. Expand economic opportunities for District-certified businesses.
For projects involving the acquisition of an existing facility, the
Taxpayer must incur within a 24 month period substantial rehabilitation
expenditures of not less than 15 percent of the dollar value of the CRP
award.
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
A prospective CRP-assisted project must meet reasonable standards
of commercial viability as determined by the Office of the Deputy Mayor
for Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the
District's financial advisors. This determination generally will be
based on the results of a 10 year pro forma income and expense schedule
and feasibility study conducted by recognized experts which shall
include a description of nature and terms of equity, loans, grants,
contracts and federal credits to be committed to the project. With
respect to proposed projects not eligible for tax relief under any
existing District law, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer will
conduct a fiscal impact analysis to determine the amount of tax relief
(and available CRP funds), if any, that reasonably should be allocated
to support the proposed project.
pending commercial revitalization projects
(projected commitment dates \1\)
Proposed sites and projects currently under review include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commitment dates subject to completion of land assembly,
negotiation of final business terms, and approval by the DC Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and Congress of
``Supermarket Tax Exemption Act of 2000'' DC Act 13-365, which was
adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia on June 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Heights Grocery and Retail Development (1st Quarter Fiscal
Year 2001)
Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property taxes
in connection with acquiring, constructing, redeveloping and operating
a full-service supermarket, abutting retail stores and entertainment
facility.
Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with
supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the
reconstruction of building facades and the provision of supplemental
municipal services within the project area.
Georgia Avenue Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (3rd Quarter
Fiscal Year 2001)
Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property tax
liability incurred in connection with the acquisition, construction,
rehabilitation and redevelopment of 50,000 square foot or larger
commercial facility owned and operated by national retailer within the
designated Neighborhood Strategy Area.
Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with
supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the
reconstruction of building facades and the provision of supplemental
municipal services within the project area.
Brentwood/Rhode Island Avenue Shopping Center (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year
2001)
Real property tax abatement in connection with development of
commercial parking facility to accommodate new shopping center.
Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with
supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the
reconstruction of building facades and the provision of supplemental
municipal services within the project area.
Camp Sims Grocery and Retail Development (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2001)
Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property tax
liability in connection with the acquisition, construction,
redevelopment and operation of a full service supermarket, multi-screen
movie theater, and retail stores.
Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with
supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the
reconstruction of building facades and the provision of supplemental
municipal services within the project area.
Exhibit A
Commercial Revitalization Program
project submission and review checklist
Requests for CRP benefits shall not receive final approval unless
the project meets all applicable regulatory requirements and the
benefited taxpayers completes, executes and delivers to the District
certain agreements and certificates regarding its planned contracting,
employment and human rights practices. Taxpayers must contact the
appropriate agency representatives. Documents that must be submitted as
part of the assistance request are listed below.
--List of Principals and Officers
--Name, Address of Registered Agent
--Most Recent Annual Report
--3 Yrs Federal/State Tax Returns
--Certificate of Good Standing
--Description of Pending Litigation
--Site Plans, Location Maps, Project Renderings
--Feasibility-Fiscal Impact Study
--Funding Sources and Uses
--List of District-owned Properties
--Tax Certification Affidavit
--Non-Discrimination Certificate
--Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement
--Assurance of Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance
--First Source Employment Agreement
--MOU Certification Affidavit
Mayor Williams. Right.
Senator Hutchison. That was seed money.
Mayor Williams. Right.
Reserve funds
Senator Hutchison. And if you are now taking it on to a new
level, I think that is very good.
Dr. Rivlin, in last year's appropriations bill, we had
language governing the reserve fund and the conditions on the
use of the reserve fund. It stated that the funds would only be
spent according to criteria established by the chief financial
officer and approved by the Mayor, the Council, and the Control
Board. Have those financial criteria for spending from the
reserve fund been established?
Dr. Rivlin. Yes, they were established, and they were, in
fact, stated I believe in last year's Budget Support Act. But I
think in attempting to implement those criteria, we ran into
the difference in conception that the District had of the uses
of the reserve fund and that you had as a more restrictive
definition, so that not all of the uses which fell within our
set of criteria were--did you think were entirely appropriate.
So if you remember, we went back and forth on that.
Senator Hutchison. We did, and I think we came to the right
conclusion, and I think we worked it out in the right way.
EXPENDITURES OF RESERVE FUND
But my question was if there are a set of financial
policies for the expenditures of the reserve fund that have
been put forward by the chief financial officer and approved by
the Mayor, the Council, and the Control Board, not the criteria
that were in the law, but a set of procedures on financial
policy.
Dr. Rivlin. Well, we had a set of criteria which we agreed
on, but we were operating, at that time, on a different
conception of the reserve fund. We thought it had to be
appropriated every year and, therefore, that we had to have a
new $150 million every year.
And, therefore, it seemed reasonable to us that over the
year, as the year progressed, we had not had dire emergencies
on which to spend this, that it could be spent for other useful
purposes which did not obligate the District to continuing
expenditures. That did seem appropriate, consistent with our
reading of the law that the funds could not carry over but had
to be reappropriated the next year.
And as you know, we have had discussions this year with you
about a different conception of the reserve fund, where the
funds would carry over; and that changes the game essentially.
It means that much stricter criteria are appropriate for a true
rainy day fund that carries over from one year to the next.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say that I think we
have gotten through this year by communicating and talking
about what our views were. I would hope that we can work
together on some language in this year's bill that would be
more clear on the use of the emergency fund.
Interest bearing fund
I do think it needs to be a real fund, interest bearing,
set aside, and then provide more flexibility in a contingency
fund because I think that was a point you made, Dr. Rivlin,
that there are certain expenditures that come up, but there is
no authorization for spending the money on the contingency that
is necessary. So I want to provide clear parameters on the
reserve fund, make it a real fund that everyone can see.
Contingency expenditures
And then, more flexibility in the surplus area so that
there can be contingency expenditures because I think it is
important that you have flexibility because you do have
unanticipated matters. I also think it is important that you
have the ability to spend surplus first, contingency second,
and reserve as a last resort.
I think if we can work together to clarify these, I think
it will give you the flexibility you need to respond to the
things that arise that were not anticipated, and also give the
comfort level that there is a good, solid emergency fund that
is not touched except in a very extreme circumstance.
And so I think we will be looking to work with you as we go
down the road; and also, I think, have in place financial
policies because as we look to the control board going out, I
think it is important that we have financial policies that
everyone agrees are the right ones as we make that transition,
so that there is something we can look at and measure each year
against. And that is the financial policies that would be put
in place.
I really have a goal for making the District one of the
best-run cities in America. I think the rating can go up
significantly, and I think we are on the right track to do
that.
Control board
I just want to make sure that we have policies in place as
the control board goes out, that the Mayor, and the Council,
with the advice of the control board and the chief financial
officer, agree to; and that you agree that these are the right
policies for the City. Then there will be a measurement so that
you will know if you are getting off the mark. And there will
be a way for you to, I think, go forward to your own management
needs without the control board in place.
Additional committee questions
So, we will be working on those things together, I hope, in
the next few months. I appreciate where we are. I think if we
are going to the goal line, we are on the 10-yard line right
now. I just want to put it over and have everything in very
solid shape as we look next year for two people sitting at this
table instead of three.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the District for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Council of the District of Columbia
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Kyl
REPAYMENT ON LOANS
Question. With respect to District of Columbia funds that have been
advanced or ``loaned'' to the Health and Hospitals Public Benefit
Corporation (PBC), what provisions have been made to recover these
funds from the PBC.
Answer. I must report that there is virtually no likelihood these
funds will be recovered. Past practice was to advance the PBC cash
against the anticipated receipt of accounts receivable for services
rendered. However, these accounts receivable were never collected in
the amounts necessary to cover cash amounts advanced by the District.
For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 a total of $41.3 million in
cash advanced to PBC will be written off as uncollectable in the
District's fiscal year 2000 Comprehensive Audited Financial Report
(CAFR). We expect to write off approximately $67.3 million in fiscal
year 2000 cash advances which will also be reported in the fiscal year
2000 CAFR.
I have ended the practice of making such cash advances and have
notified the Mayor, the City Council and the PBC Board that all funds
provided by the District to the PBC must come through the
appropriations process. We are also taking other steps to improve the
financial management of the PBC including the consolidation and
management of all bank accounts.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of the Mayor
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. What percentage of the District's Fiscal Year 2001 budget
is devoted to new spending programs? Please provide the Subcommittee
with a written analysis of these new programs and the corresponding
costs.
Answer. Approximately 6 percent of the fiscal year 2001 budget is
devoted to spending programs.
Appropriation title New programs
Governmental Direction and Support...................... $28,496,866
Economic Development and Regulation..................... 25,146,178
Public Safety and Justice............................... 20,578,746
Public Education........................................ 170,618,697
Human Support Services.................................. 30,870,050
Public Works............................................ 10,876,049
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 286,586,586
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a written analysis
of these new programs and the corresponding costs.
Answer. The information pertains to the operating budget and does
not include new capital projects.
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (DX0):
Advisory Neighborhood Commission support............ $50,000
Establishment of the Office of Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions....................................... 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 125,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of the Mayor (AA0): The agency is targeted to
receive funds pending certification. The Chief
Financial Officer will make these funds available
upon certification for the District of Columbia..... 621,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Citywide Call Center (CW0): This creates an independent
entity to manage citizen and customer inquires of
the District government. This will allow the
District to address the majority of residents' needs
through one main number and telephone contact. If
citizen's concerns are not addressed at first call,
then staff can assure the transfer of calls to the
correct agency. In fiscal year 2001, the Citywide
Call Center is funded by other District agencies
through the intra-District funding process.......... 1,958,785
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of the City Administrator (AE0):
Funding for the Operational Improvements Division
(OID), Risk Management, and Neighborhood Services. 2,772,143
Increases in federal grant programs and grant
management support................................ 7,628,821
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 10,400,964
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of Personnel (BE0): An increase for the Employee
Assistance Program contract......................... 368,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Human Resources Development (HD0): The agency has been
targeted to receive $1,042,000, and 9 FTEs to
improve the professional and technological skills of
D.C. Government employees by offering Customer
Service Training, Advanced Computer Training and
other development course work through the Skills
Development Institute. The Chief Financial Officer
will make these funds available upon certification
for the District of Columbia........................ 1,042,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of the Chief Technology Officer (TO0):
The transfer of the SHARE services from the Office
of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 3,612,162
This will facilitate centralization of technology
support, enhance performance, service delivery,
and management throughout the District. OCTO will:
(1) implement a District-wide e Government system,
a process whereby District agencies can take
advantage of the tremendous opportunities which e-
commerce makes possible; (2) implement a full
internet program providing information access to
the public via the Internet; (3) coordinate
District wide web-based activities; and (4) define
and implement technologies for revenue
enhancement, productivity improvement, and cost
re-
duction........................................... 4,426,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 7,680,162
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of Property Management (AM0): The agency has been
targeted to receive an additional $2,500,000, and 7
FIFEs from funds pending certification. These
additional funds are for costs to support the
Omnibus Real Property Asset Management to allow OPM
to perform routine maintenance and other legally
required tasks on surplus District owned properties
before their disposal. This will also fund the
marketing of the available properties to facilitate
their sale. The Chief Financial Officer will make
these funds available upon certification for the
District of Columbia................................ 2,500,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of the Inspector General (AD0):
Expansion of a Medicaid Fraud Unit. The Mayor has
authorized the OIG to submit an application for a
federal grant that would provide seventy-five
percent of the operating cost for this initiative.
Such an application has been completed and
submitted. The goals of the Medicaid Fraud Unit
will be to prosecute Medicaid fraud, recover
monies lost due to false claims, and investigate
patient abuse. This request represents the
required twenty-five percent local matching amount 1,371,955
Support of 21 FTEs needed to enhance the agency's
audit, inspection, and investigative functions.
This request will give the OIG a new level of
audit, investigative, and inspections and
evaluations coverage throughout the District
government. This additional coverage will meet
demands that have been placed on the OIG by
District leadership. District managers are now
faced with risk/management challenges relating to
the Mayor's strategic initiatives such as making
government work, economic development, and
building healthy neighborhoods. In addition,
Congress has passed legislation requiring the OIG
to audit the District of Columbia Highway Trust
Fund. This responsibility was previously with the
General Accounting Office......................... 1,349,000
An increase in other services and charges for costs
associated with the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR)..................................... 1,190,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,800,955
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Governmental Direction and Support.. 28,496,866
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Business Services and Economic Development (EB0):
11 planners and eight revitalization and zoning
planners: The Neighborhood Action initiative will
develop annual strategic plans for each
neighborhood cluster that will guide the
development of a citywide strategic plan and the
allocation of public resources. The revitalization
planners will manage complex revitalization
studies in many areas throughout the District to
promote development and investment in under-served
and underutilized neighborhoods and areas. Zoning
planners will work on zoning cases to strengthen
land use management and provide analysis to
support decisions made by the Zoning Commission
and the Board of Zoning Adjustment................ 548,000
Supports the following initiatives: (1) providing
technical assistance in the operation of the
District's contract compliance system; (2)
enforcement of the ``Equal Opportunity for Local,
Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Act
of 1998''; (3) enforcement of the ``Blanket Order
Blitz Increased Opportunity for Local, Small and
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Emergency
Amendment Act of 1999''; (4) supporting the Penn-
Branch Mall Business Resource Center; and (5)
promoting and marketing the agency's initiatives.. 203,200
D.C. Marketing Center. This initiative expands
funding for the D.C. Marketing Center and supports
the agency's internal marketing efforts.
Internally, the agency plans to produce and mail
marketing materials, develop internet-based
strategies for marketing the District and
responding rapidly to inquiries and a media
campaign to advertise the opportunities for
business development in the District.............. 560,000
Heritage Tourism to foster heritage tourism in the
District and links it with the economic
development of the District and its neighborhoods.
Heritage tourism is travel directed toward
experiencing the arts, heritage, and special
character of a place.............................. 150,000
Transfer of the Historic Preservation Review Board
from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, including nine FTEs...................... 768,081
Transfer of the Industrial Revenue Bond program from
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which
includes seven FTEs. The Industrial Revenue Bond
Program supports the implementation of the EZ bond
initiative, the public school infrastructure
development act, the maintenance of a
clearinghouse on local and federal tax incentive,
and several other initiatives..................... 1,096,426
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,325,707
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of Zoning (BJ0):
Funding of the introductory phase of a zoning
database system to provide agency information and
access to zoning documents........................ 145,000
Funding for the development, distribution and
maintenance of Phase II of the electronic zoning
maps that will result in the agency processing 20
percent more applications; establishing a web site
for zoning information; conducting community
outreach seminars................................. 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 370,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0):
The agency has been targeted to receive five FTEs
and program support from funds pending
certification, for the Land Disposition and Asset
Management Unit, the Homestead Housing Preservation
Program, and the Main Street Program. The Chief
Financial Officer will make these funds available
upon certification for the District of Columbia..... 3,296,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Employment Services (CF0):
Increases and new federal grants from the US
Department of Labor for:
(a) Metro Tech Project: Partnership with VA, MD,
and D.C. to help relieve the identified
distress of high tech labor shortage in the
D.C. metropolitan area. The consortium will
develop joint policies, collaborative
mechanisms, and common objectives to address
the needs of displaced workers.
(b) Youth Opportunity Initiative Grant: A system
that established high standards for student
achievements and prepares all youth for
advanced education, training, and high quality
careers. Six focus groups comprised of
employers, youth, educators, service
providers, and other community members will
review issues of self-sufficiency, supportive
services, and personal development.
(c) Adult Training (Title II) and Youth Training
(Title III): The grants support programs that
prepare youth and adults facing serious
barriers to employment for participation in
the labor force by providing job training and
other services that will result in increased
employment and earnings, increase educational
and occupational skills, and decreased welfare
dependency.
(d) Dislocated Workers Program (EDWA), the Adult
Training Programs (Title 11), Youth Training
(Title IIB & IIC, Dislocated Workers Program
(EDWA), new Metro Tech Project, and new Youth
Opportunity Initiative Grant.................. 15,920,000
The agency is targeted to receive additional funding
for the First Source Hiring program. The Chief
Financial Officer will make these funds available
upon certification for the District of Columbia... 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 16,120,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (CR0): 24
FTEs were added to the local budget to support the
agency's programs for Neighborhood Stabilization and
Nuisance Abatement Program.......................... 818,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of Banking and Financial Institutions (BI0):
To accommodate an increase in workload and the
hiring of 6 FTEs to support the agency's
initiative to strengthen and enforce the
District's Banking Laws........................... 316,471
The Local budget of authority funding, including 5
FTEs were transferred to Other Funds resulting in
no Local budget authority for the Office of
Banking and Financial Institu-
tions............................................. 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,216,471
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Economic Development and Regulation. 25,146,178
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Metropolitan Police Department (FA0):
The agency will receive funding for the Photo Red
Light contract and the implementation of a Cadet
Program........................................... 2,900,000
The agency will implement a Cadet Program to expand
the pool of local recruits for MPD................ 1,400,000
During fiscal year 2001, the MPD will receive the
Universal Hiring Grant--Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS), a federal grant, which
funds 200 additional MPD officers and requires the
District to provide a local match................. 5,000,000
The District will implement an E-911 service fee to
partially offset the cost of providing E-911
service in the District........................... 3,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 13,200,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FB0):
During fiscal year 2001, the agency will reinstate
Fire Battalion Chief Aides (33 FTEs).............. 1,163,000
Additionally, the agency will add a fifth person (88
FTEs) on ladder truck companies................... 3,200,000
The agency is funded for additional debt service
costs associated with the large number of
replacement fire apparatus procured and delivered
in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. The
agency has been targeted to receive an additional
$1,293,000 from funds pending certification for
these obligations. These additional funds are for
the Administrative Division. The Chief Financial
Officer will make these funds available upon
certification for the District of Columbia........ 1,293,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 5,656,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
District of Columbia National Guard (FK0): Beginning in
fiscal year 2001, the agency budget reflects an
increase from the transfer of 13 FTEs and
corresponding funding from the Department of Defense
to federal funds within the District's budget for
Facility Operations Maintenance Assistance (FOMA)
positions........................................... 506,275
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (FX0): Beginning in
fiscal year 2001, the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner is reflected as an independent agency. This
agency was formerly part of the Department of
Health. There are no programmatic changes, only an
organizational location change...................... 1,216,471
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Public Safety and Justice............. 20,578,746
========================================================
____________________________________________________
District of Columbia Public Schools (GA0):
The proposed federal grant budget increases over the
fiscal year 2000 approved budget for:
(a) Class Size Reduction........................ 5,623,076
(b) Impact Aid.................................. 397,529
(c) 21st Century Community Learning Centers..... 1,788,094
(d) Refugee Children School Impact.............. 249,849
(e) Advanced Placement Fee Payment Program...... 181,275
(f) Teachers and Personnel Grants............... 238,022
(g) Emotionally Disturbed....................... 835,476
(h) Development and Implementation grants....... 142,889
(i) Training for All Teachers grants............ 157,867
(j) Other grants and unspecified grants......... 5,662,870
(k) Increase in projected Medicaid
reimbursements for transportation of special
education students............................................
Uniform Per Pupil funding formula increase.......... 27,872,449
Award from Bell Atlantic to wire schools for
internet ser-
vices............................................. 1,389,531
Food services transfer federal grant from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture......................... 31,014,553
The agency is targeted to receive additional funds
for Special Education non-public tuition payments.
The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds
available upon certification for the District of
Columbia.......................................... 12,079,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 87,632,480
========================================================
____________________________________________________
State Education Office (GD0): Fiscal year 2001 is the
first year of operation of the State Education
Office (SEO). Its operating budget accommodates
start-up costs and one-time expenditures. A plan,
which will be developed in fiscal year 2001 by the
State Education Officer, will guide the transfer of
those state functions and other duties designated
from transfer to the SEO............................ 1,679,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Public Charter Schools (GC0): The increase consists of
accommodation of the fiscal year 2000 audited
enrollment numbers and forecasted enrollment for the
expansion of existing public charter schools (PCS)
and projected enrollment for newly established PCS.
The two chartering authorities have granted
provisional approval for eight (8) new charters in
fiscal year 2001 (school year 2000-2001)............ 77,115,217
========================================================
____________________________________________________
University of the District of Columbia (GF0):
Expansion of The Saturday Academy, a pre-college
program designed to increase the number of
minority students enrolling in college in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology
disciplines....................................... 442,000
A programmatic increase for the Excel-Adult
Education Program is a collaboration between the
Excel Automotive Training Program and the
University's School of Engineering, to provide a
mechanism for the upward transition of Excel
participants into accredited college level course
work and degree programs.......................... 1,069,000
A programmatic increase targeted towards: funds for
additional faculty, equipment, and educational
resource materials for the Teacher Education and
Speech and Language Pathology programs; and a
feasibility study on the establishment of a
University satellite facility in the East of the
River section of the District of Columbia......... 1,129,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 2,640,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
District of Columbia Public Library (CE0):
Minor repairs for 8 of the 26 library branches; meet
costs associated with the Homework Helpers
program; and expansion of the Reach Out And Read
(ROAR) program.................................... 555,496
Purchase more books for branch libraries. The
proposed fiscal year 2001 budget would expand the
ROAR program, which currently provides literacy-
building services to young children in family
childcare homes, to include additional childcare
facilities, schools, homeless shelters, and other
social services providers......................... 476,504
The agency is targeted to receive additional from
funds pending certification for the Humanities
Council at the Libraries and to purchase more
books for branch libraries. The Chief Financial
Officer will make these funds available upon
certification for the District of Columbia........ 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,432,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Commission on the Arts and Humanities (BX0): The agency
is targeted to receive additional funds pending
certification for the Arts in Education Program for
Youth. The Chief Financial Officer will make these
funds available upon certification for the District
of Columbia......................................... 120,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Public Education System............... 170,618,697
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Health (HC0):
The agency is targeted to receive the funding for
additional health inspectors and Storm Water
Permit compliance from funds pending
certification. The Chief Financial Officer will
make these funds available upon certification for
the District of Columbia:
(a) Additional Health inspectors in
Environmental Health Administration to conduct
environmental, food, health, and safety
inspections................................... 1,000,000
(b) Storm Water Permit. This allows the agency
to comply with federal law and enforce the
storm water permit certified on January 6,
2000. Non-compliance with this activity would
be in violation of the Clean Water Act.
Violation of this act, according to the agency
will result in fines of up to $50,000 a day... 1,000,000
Acceleration of the program to determine the Total
Daily Maximum Load (TDML) for various pollutants
within the District's rivers. Two field
biologists, two laboratory chemists, and equipment
necessary to perform this function will be hired.
DOH will complete this analysis for D.C. water
bodies by fiscal year 2005 rather than fiscal year
2011 based on the current schedule................ 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 2,900,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Parks and Recreation (HA0):
To expand the hours of operation, provide more
programs to a diverse population, and enhance and
improve the maintenance of parks and facilities... 2,335,050
The agency is targeted to receive 23 FTEs from funds
pending certification, to expand the hours of
operation at its recreation facilities. The Chief
Financial Officer will make these funds available
upon certification for the District of Columbia... 1,511,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,846,050
========================================================
____________________________________________________
D.C. Office on Agina (BY0):
Increase to provide Stipends for Senior Citizens
Employment Program. This program will provide
senior citizens a stipend to serve in part-time
positions throughout the District. It is also
assumes that the seniors would be placed in the
Offices of the Mayor, City Administrator, Superior
Court, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, and any other office where their talent,
skills, and interests are used in a meaningful way 100,000
Home Care Services for Senior Citizens to help
senior citizens stay in their homes with
assistance from homemakers, visiting nurses, and
aides, to include support for 60 residents with
Alzheimer's disease who continue to live alone.... 350,000
Comprehensive Wellness program for Senior Citizens
to prevent chronic debilitating diseases that
affect the aging population. It is anticipated
that 500 seniors will benefit from this program
further. The program will require 10 FTEs in the
areas of wellness, nutrition, counseling, physical
fitness and other major wellness programs......... 300,000
The agency is targeted to receive funds pending
certification to fund the Caregiver Support
Institute to link seniors with information and
education. The Chief Financial Officer will make
these funds available upon certification for the
District of Columbia.............................. 574,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,224,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Public Benefit Corporation Subsidy (JC0): The proposed
budget includes an increase to fund the D.C. Public
Schools Health Program to be derived from <$874,000>
in savings from efficiencies in operations. This
program provides nursing services at selected D.C.
Public School sites for students in need of medical
ser-
vices............................................... 1,100,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office of Human Rights (HM0): To hire additional human
rights investigators. In fiscal year 2001,
significant improvements will be made in the
Mediation Program to further reduce pending
litigation caseload providing more speedy relief to
victims of illegal discrimination. The agency will
continue its partnership with the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to
further enhance the operation of the office.
Additionally, the agency will enter into a new
partnership with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to better
address and combat illegal housing discrimination... 300,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Office on Latino Affairs (BZ0):
For the Latino Community Education Program.......... 1,000,000
For the Latin America Youth Center.................. 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds
available upon certification for the District of
Columbia.......................................... 1,500,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Brownfield Remediation (BR0): A federal payment is
earmarked for the assessment and remediation of
Poplar Point in Southeast Washington, D.C. The
District of Columbia Brownfields Program (D.C.BFP)
will administer Brownfield Remediation within the
Department of Health (DOH). D.C.BFP activities
include collecting environmental, tax, and title
information on potential sites to develop a
marketable database of Brownfield sites............. 10,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Children and Youth Investment Fund (JY0): The entire
amount will be transferred to the Children and Youth
Investment Trust Corporation, which will then
disburse funds to community-based organizations that
provide services to children, youth, and their
families. The budget does not include any funds for
personal services or administrative overhead, and it
includes no FTEs. The Chief Financial Officer will
make these funds available upon certification for
the District of Columbia............................ 10,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Human Support Services................ 30,870,050
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Public Works (KA0):
Neighborhood Cleaning Program. This program will
allow the Department of Public Works to increase
street and alley cleaning and to provide new
equipment. Much of the equipment at the Department
is at the end of its useful life, which results in
constant repairs and consequent scheduling
problems. The agency states that through this
program (1) Alternative Side of the Street
sweeping schedules will be met on a routine basis
and (2) Alley cleaning would become more frequent
and predictable. The agency predicts that although
the total cost of the District's street and alley
cleaning program would rise, unit costs would
decrease dramatically due to increased
efficiencies and productivity. The agency also
states that with more frequent and comprehensive
service provided, alleys would be cleaned three
times more often.................................. 1,409,049
Anti-graffiti Program. This program will provide the
District with a viable graffiti program. Graffiti
has become an increasingly visible problem. Not
only is graffiti unsightly, but it reduces
property values, discourages economic development
and often is a precursor to crime and further
neighborhood decline.............................. 600,000
Solid Waste Transfer Site Selection Advisory Panel.
This is will allow the panel to complete its work
in the selection of a new trash transfer site that
will be environmentally safe for the surrounding
community......................................... 100,000
Tree Trimming. This program will enhance the city's
capacity to maintain its trees. This funding will
allow for the trimming of 5,000 additional trees.. 1,000,000
The agency is targeted to receive funds pending
certification for the Neighborhood Cleaning
program. The purpose of this program will provide
for significant additional improvements in
neighborhood cleanliness. The Chief Financial
Officer will make these funds available upon
certification for the District of Columbia........ 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 4,609,049
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Department of Motor Vehicles (KV0):
The local budget to supports the agency initiative
to reduce wait time for adjudication and
registration and to expand access to services at
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). In fiscal
year 2001, DMV is proposing a realignment to
improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations
within the agency and improve service to District
residents......................................... 1,176,000
The agency is targeted to receive funds pending
certification to further reduce wait time at the
two inspection stations. The Chief Financial
Officer will make these funds available upon
certification for the District of Columbia........ 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 2,176,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
D.C. Taxicab Commission (TC0): The agency is targeted to
receive funds pending certification for establishing
a revolving fund to provide loans to taxicab drivers
for security installation. The Chief Financial
Officer will make these funds available upon
certification for the District of Columbia.......... 1,550,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author (KE0):
An increase to fund the opening of the Green Line in
Southeast D.C. along with restoration of several
bus lines within the District..................... 1,441,000
An increase for the implementation of Metrorail's
late night closing at 2 a.m. on the weekends...... 1,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 2,541,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total Public Works........................ 10,876,049.
Question. How many uniformed police officers does the District of
Columbia employ?
Answer. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has a fiscal year
2001 authorized strength of 3,800 officers. On June 8, 2000, the MPD's
on-board strength is 3,590 police officers.
Question. Of this number, how many are assigned to patrolling the
District's streets and neighborhoods?
Answer. Of that number there are 2,481 officers involved in
District Operations as well as 669 involved in citywide anti-crime
measures. In addition there are 190 police recruits in the Academy
(attached is the complete staffing level assignment).
Question. Has the District taken steps to establish a business
improvement district in the area of the proposed new Metro station at
the intersections of New York and Florida Avenues, Northeast?
Answer. Businesses in the area of the proposed new Metro station
intend to create a Business Improvement District (BID) by the
completion of the project in 2004. When businesses submit a BID
proposal, the District will promulgate legislation to establish the
BID.
Question. Please explain to the Subcommittee the source of private
funds that will constitute a one-third financial Contribution towards
the total anticipated costs of this project.
Answer. The District is awaiting receipt of its consultant's
economic impact study before negotiating the final terms (including the
amount and structure) of the private contribution to the project. The
District expects to complete these negotiations by Friday, June 30,
2000.
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a detailed total
project cost breakdown for the proposed New York Avenue Metro station.
Answer. The total for the proposed New York Avenue Metro station is
$84,000,000. The cost breakdown is as follows:
Preliminary Engineering.......................................$3,000,000
Real Estate................................................... 4,000,000
Utilities..................................................... 1,250,000
Systemwide....................................................19,000,000
Fare Collection Equipment..................................... 2,750,000
Design/Construction...........................................37,000,000
WMATA Proj. Management........................................ 7,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................74,500,000
Insurance (8 percent)......................................... 4,800,000
Contingency (7 percent)....................................... 4,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Expenditures......................................84,000,000
Question. The Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act for the District
of Columbia, Public Law 106-113, contained $5,000,000 in Federal
funding for the District to develop a program for adoption incentives
for foster children. Please provide a complete accounting on the use of
these funds. Please provide a detailed project description for the
adoption incentives program developed by the District with the funds
Congress appropriated.
Answer. The Mayor submitted a plan (attached) to the City Council
that targeted four areas of adoption incentives. The Mayor's plan
would:
(1) Create a flexible fund to support adoptions of siblings and
other hard to place children that would include home renovations to
accommodate wheelchair access and other special needs
(2) Create an adoption resource center and post-adoption services
to provide ongoing support and education for new foster parents.
(3) Provide funds to enhance the current Children and Family
Services Administration recruitment efforts.
(4) Establish a scholarship fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens for high school as well as post-
secondary education.
The Council has chosen to split the money and spend $3 million on
provisions in the Mayor's plan and $2 million on a voucher program to
pay lawyers and conduct home studies.
Question. The District's fiscal year 2000 approved budget included
$7,000,000 in management reform productivity savings, and the fiscal
year 2001 budget includes a projected $37,000,000 in productivity
savings for fiscal year 2001. Please provide a complete accounting,
including project and program descriptions, and the associated savings
of each for the $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 savings.
Answer. We have already saved approximately $1.0 million as a
result of an audit of unused telephone lines and unnecessary service
options this year. We project achieving additional productivity savings
by recouping Medicaid reimbursements that the D.C. Public Schools
Special Education division has historically failed to pursue and
through better management of disability claims throughout District
government agencies. Further savings will come from cell phone account
management, energy savings and one-time revenue from vehicles
identified for disposition in the District-wide Fleet Management
initiative launched in June 2000.
Question. The District's s fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act
included an appropriation of $18,000,000 in Control Board interest
funds for the District to use for managed competition. Please provide
the Subcommittee with a detailed accounting of how these funds have
been spent.
Answer. The appropriation totaling $18,000,000 has not been
expended to date. The funds will cover retirement incentive payments to
those District employees who elect to retire under this retirement
incentive program by July 14, 2000.
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a detailed breakdown
of any and all severance payments, by position, paid to District
employees pursuant to Section 157 of the Fiscal Year 2000 D.C.
Appropriations Act.
Answer. The breakdown of severance payments paid to District
employees pursuant to Section 157 will be available after July 14,
2000. The breakdown will be provided to the Subcommittee soon
thereafter.
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the
managed competition plan agreed to by the Mayor and District Council
pursuant to Section 157.
Answer. The managed competition plan is currently being negotiated
with collective bargaining unit representatives. This plan will be
submitted to the Subcommittee upon its execution.
Question. The District's budget proposal for fiscal year 2001
itemizes $10,000,000 in operational improvement savings. Please provide
the Subcommittee with a list of any and all programs you have
identified for operational improvement savings, along with the amounts
of operational improvement savings anticipated for each. Please provide
a complete projected accounting of the $37,000,000 anticipated
management reform productivity savings for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The Williams Administration is committed to making the
District government more efficient. To that end, we have taken steps to
ensure that savings targets projected for fiscal year 2001 are both
realized and recurring. The Office of the City Administrator is
developing a plan to track and secure the $47 million in productivity
savings projected for fiscal year 2001 so savings will begin to be
captured at the outset of the fiscal year. The largest source of these
savings will be a workforce reduction of up to 1,000 employees through
the elimination of long-standing funded vacancies and attrition through
regular and early retirement during fiscal year 2000. While there will
be expenses associated with achieving these workforce reductions during
fiscal year 2000, the projected fiscal year 2001 savings are up to $37
million. Additional areas targeted for savings include better
management of disability claims; additional Medicaid reimbursements the
District has historically failed to pursue; eliminating unused
telephone lines and extra service options on active lines; and
cellphone account management.
______
District of Columbia, June 6, 2000.
Hon. Linda Cropp,
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cropp: I request that Title XXXVIII of the Fiscal
Year 2001 Budget Support Act of 2000 (Bill 13-679) be amended to
reflect the recommendations made by the Mayor's Advisory Council on
Permanent Homes for Children. Congress, through the Appropriations Act
of 2000, authorized a federal payment for incentives for the adoption
of children in the District of Columbia. The Act provides for a one-
time payment of $5 million to support this objective. The
recommendations, which I support were made by the Mayor's Advisory
Council on Permanent Homes for Children in consultation with numerous
adoption advocacy groups throughout the District. The amendment being
moved by Council Member Allen this morning at the Legislative Meeting
reflects these recommendations. A copy of the recommendations is
enclosed.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
______
February 24, 2000.
Hon. Anthony Williams,
Mayor of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: Enclosed for your review and approval is a
proposal for the use of federal adoption incentive funds for the
District of Columbia that has been developed at your request by the
Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children.
BACKGROUND
As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the
Congress authorized a federal payment for incentives for adoption of
children in the District of Columbia. As outlined in the conference
report:
--The Act authorizes a one-time federal payment of $5 million to
create incentives to promote adoption.
--Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001.
--A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council
and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and
Senate.
--The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by
individuals in adopting (requires legislation).
--The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such
children (requires legislation).
At its December meeting, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children established a subcommittee composed of
Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer, Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee
and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal
funds.
The Committee has gathered ideas on adoption needs and resources
from others in the community; reviewed ideas for adoption incentives
from other jurisdictions, and researched the feasibility and costs of
proposals that surfaced. A draft plan was shared with the full Advisory
Committee in early January and comments and suggestions for change were
solicited. The Committee reviewed all written and verbal comments and
revised the plan accordingly.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
As a result of this work, the Committee is proposing that the
federal adoption funds be focused on the overarching goal of providing
loving and permanent homes for the District's children in the District
of Columbia. The overall plan for the incentive funds is targeted
toward five measurable outcomes:
Outcome 1.--Increase the number of families in the District of
Columbia who are willing and able to adopt children currently in the
District's foster care system.
Outcome 2.--Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of children
with special physical or emotional needs.
Outcome 3.--Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care
whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome 4.--Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in
foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.
Outcome 5.--Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency for
children specified by the federal government under the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (ASFA).
The proposal which follows includes four interrelated initiatives
that together total $5 million to be spent between now and September
30, 2001. The majority of funds would be contracted out to private
organizations to conduct the work. The four initiatives include:
1. Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling
groups and other hard to place children.
2. Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption
Services Capacity.
4. Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and
adoptive familities.
A fuller description of each of the proposed initiatives and
estimated costs based on two years of implementation is presented in
the attached proposal.
plan for management and oversight of the adoption incentive plan
The Committee proposes that overall management of the initiative
will be the responsibility of the Deputy Mayor for Children's Services
but that day to day coordination and implementation of the adoption
incentive initiatives be assigned to the Child and Family Services
Administration which is the agency responsible under District law for
the work associated with providing permanent homes for children who are
in the custody of the District of Columbia because of parental abuse or
neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one or more contracts
with private organizations to carry out the work. CFSA would be
accountable to the Deputy Mayor for Children and Families for
reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability on each initiative.
General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be provided
by a standing subcommittee of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children. Regular reports would be made to the
Committee on progress in meeting measurable objectives. In addition,
the plan includes a provision for a small amount of funds to be set-
aside for an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed
adoption incentive initiatives. A contract would be let with an
independent external evaluator to design and conduct necessary data
collection and evaluative studies under the direction of the Mayor's
Committee and/or the Deputy Mayor for Children's Services.
NEXT STEPS
Under the terms of the authorizing legislation, the plan for the
use of these funds must be approved by the Mayor and the District
Council and then approved by the Appropriations Committees of the House
and the Senate. We are hopeful that you will approve the proposed plan
and take the lead in forwarding it to the District Council for their
approval. Members of the Mayor's Advisory Committee would be glad to
assist your staff in making any necessary presentations on the
proposals in order to secure Council approval.
Once District Council approval is obtained, the Advisory Committee
would again be willing to work with you and your staff in presenting
the plans to the Congressional Appropriations Committees in hopes that
their quick approval can be obtained.
On behalf of the Mayor's Committee, we hope that the work necessary
to translate this proposal to reality can occur expeditiously. There
are far too many waiting children in the District of Columbia. We stand
ready to assist you in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Mae Best,
Phyllis Langston,
Gwendolyn Menefeee,
Judith Meltzer,
Toni Oliver,
Elizabeth Siegel,
Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan.
______
PROPOSAL TO THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PERMANENT HOMES FOR
CHILDREN ON A PLAN FOR USE OF THE FEDERAL ADOPTION INCENTIVES FUNDS
BACKGROUND
As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the
Congress authorized a federal payment for incentives for adoption of
children in the District of Columbia. As outlined in the conference
report:
--The Act authorizes a federal payment for $5 million to create
incentives to promote adoption.
--Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001.
--A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council
and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and
Senate.
--The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by
individuals in adopting (requires legislation).
--The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such
children (requires legislation).
At its December meeting, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on
Permanent Homes for Children established a subcommittee composed of
Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer, Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee
and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal
funds.
The Committee has met three times in the last month to brainstorm
ideas, review ideas for adoption incentives from other jurisdictions
and gather information on adoption needs and resources from others in
the community.
After considerable work and refinement, the Committee is proposing
that the program for use of the funds include four initiatives that
together total $5 million to be spent between now and September 30,
2001. The four initiatives include:
1. Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling
groups and other hard to place children.
2. Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption
Services Capacity
4. Enhancement of CFSA Recruitment and Support of District Foster
and Adoptive Families
Each of the proposed initiatives and estimated costs based on two
years of implementation is presented below.
proposed plan
1. Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups
and other hard to place children
Problem addressed.--Many parents who would be willing and are
capable of becoming adopted parents are discouraged from doing so
because of their inability to meet certain requirements related to
physical space, conditions in their home, or the need for
accommodations or special equipment for children with handicaps or
large sibling groups. Access to a funding source for some of these
needs would provide a significant incentive toward adoption.
Proposal.--A flexible fund would be established which could be
accessed by families interested in adoption in order to provide needed
funding and/or resources for a range of activities/items necessary to
become an adoptive parent. The kinds of things eligible for
reimbursement/payment through this fund would include:
--home renovations to accommodate wheelchairs or other special needs
of children;
--assistance in lead paint abatement when the presence of lead paint
is an obstacle to approval of the adoptive home;
--assistance in paying the cost of FBI fingerprinting necessary for
approval as an adoptive parent;
--equipment to care for disabled children (e.g., beds, durable
medical, equipment (and specialized items not covered by other
public programs);
--assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs related to
mental health care for children with special needs. Funds would
be administered only to families with demonstrated financial
need according to a sliding scale;
--purchase of a wheelchair equipped van to enable adoptive parent(s)
to accept children with physical handicaps;
--assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase of
homes to allow families to adopt large sibling groups.
Consideration will be given to purchase of homes for sibling
groups of five or more;
--assistance with miscellaneous expenses in accordance with a plan
approved by the agency to promote the ability and willingness
of parents to adopt children with special needs or large
sibling groups;
--other approved expenses to promote adoption for which no other
funding source exists.
Estimated Cost.--$1.5 million ($750,000 per year for 2 years).
2. Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens
Problem.--One of the major barriers to adoption of school age and
teenage children is the lack of resources for adoptive parents to
support education and training of children as a transition to
independence.
Proposal.--A scholarship fund would be established which could be
accessed by adoptive families for post high school education and
training for their adopted children. Upon presentation of documentation
of acceptance at a Junior College, university or postsecondary
occupational or training school, adoptive families would be eligible to
receive a scholarship of up to $8,000 per year for a high school
graduate going to college and up to $3,000 per year for high school
graduates entering post-secondary training. This fund could be
established by placing an earmarked amount per child in an interest
earning account at the time of the child's adoption. The scholarship
fund would be administered through a private non-profit organization.
Estimated Cost.--The fund would be established initially with $1.6
million in an interest bearing account. Cost assumptions are based on
granting up to 130 scholarships per year for two years. Interest
generated by the fund and additional fund raising would occur to
stabilize the fund for the future.
3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption
Services Capacity
Problem.--One barrier to adoption is the fear of prospective
adoptive parents that they will not be supported when and if problems
arise. Experience around the country has shown that the development of
adequate post-adoption support resources is a significant incentive to
adoption.
Proposal.--Funds would be used to establish a private Adoptive
Family Resource Support Center in the District of Columbia to provide
ongoing information, education and support to adoptive families. Some
of the activities to be carried out by the resource center will
include: operation of a hot line for questions, information and
referral; development and dissemination of and information and referral
directory of services and supports in the metropolitan area; creation
and operation of a resource lending library for adoptive parents and
children; conduct of training programs developed in concert with
adoptive parents to meet their needs; development and assistance to
adoptive parent support groups, etc., and therapeutic services related
to adoption. The Support Center would also have funds to provide
scholarships for adoptive children and families to participate in
training provided by national or regional support groups or
associations.
The Committee proposes that an RFP be developed outlining the
Adoption Resource and Support activities that are desired and that an
organization be funded to develop those activities for the District,
either by creating a single resource center or by developing and
coordinating programming that could be made available through
neighborhood family support centers proposed in the Mayor's Safe
Passages initiative.
As an adjunct to the Support Center(s), it is also proposed that a
small portion of the funds be allocated to CFSA to enhance their post-
adoption services capacity and to enable their staff to link families
with the Resource Center and other adoptive support opportunities
(e.g., family conferences, training, etc.).
Estimated Cost.--$1 million (Resource Center $775,000 for 2 years
and $225,000 for CFSA post-adoption support activities for families).
4. Enhancement of CFSA Recruitment and Support of Foster and Adoptive
Families
Problem.--The majority of adoptive families begin as foster
parents. Expanding the pool of adoptive families means expanding the
recruitment and support of foster parents as well as doing more
community and neighborhood recruitment of adoptive families. CFSA has
been hampered in its efforts to expand its recruitment and support
activities by a lack of funds to support the staff who are doing
recruitment and to enable CFSA to use foster and adoptive parents as
team members in the recruitment process.
Proposal.--Part of the incentive plan involves providing funds to
support critical staff enhancements and activities within the Adoptions
Unit of CFSA. Funds would be made available to provide for additional
CFSA capacity to expand after hour's recruitment activities and to make
it possible for foster and adoptive parents to serve as co-leaders in
training. As part of the enhanced recruitment effort, incentive funds
would be used to pay for:
--adoptive parents to serve as co-leaders in pre-service training;
--food for parents attending training sessions;
--child care for adoptive parents attending training sessions;
--inviting furnishings and decorations for the rooms where adoptive
parent training is held;
--additional supplies for adoptive home recruitment including a video
recorder and cameras, printing of brochures, displays for
literature and banners for use at recruitment events and an
equipped mobile van which can be taken to a wide range of
community events to promote becoming foster and adoptive
parents;
--the preparation of Life Books for all adoptive children;
--transportation funds for visitation between prospective adoptive
families and children when interstate adoptions are planned;
--expenses associated with participation in adoption exchanges.
Estimated Cost.--$900,000 ($450,000 per year).
management and oversight of adoption incentive plan
The sub-committee proposes that oversight responsibility for the
Adoption Incentives Plan be placed in the Mayor's Office and that the
Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children play an ongoing role
in accountability, assessing the effectiveness of the proposed
initiatives once implemented. The Mayor's Office would assign
responsibility for day-to-day implementation of the programs to
appropriate District agencies, most likely CFSA, with requirements for
reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability.
Efforts would begin simultaneously to seek private and other
funding to sustain successful initiatives beyond the two years of this
federal funding opportunity.
NEXT STEPS AND PROPOSED TIME FRAMES
Presentation of Draft to Committee--January 6, 2000
Comments back to Committee--January 14, 2000
Revised Proposal to Mayor--January 21, 2000
Final Plan to Mayor's Committee on Permanent Homes for Children--
February 3, 2000
Mayor Transmits Plan to District Council for approval--February 14,
2000
Mayor and Council jointly transmit approved District Plan to
Congress for approval--February 28, 2000
Implementation Begins--April 1, 2000
______
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL 13-679, THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT
OF 2000
Sec. 1. Change the name of title XXXVIII to the ``Approval of
Adoption Incentives Plan of 2000.''
Sec. 2. Delete sections 3801 through 3808.
Sec. 3. Insert the following:
Sec. 3801. This title may be cited as the ``Approval of Adoption
Incentives Plan of 2000.''
Sec. 3802. The Council hereby approves the Proposal to the Mayor's
Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children on a Plan for Use of
the Federal Adoption Incentives Funds.
Sec. 3803. The Proposal includes four initiatives:
1. Creation of a flexible fund to support adoptions of
sibling groups and other hard to place children.
2. Establishment of a scholarship fund to support transition
to independence for adopted teens.
3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center and post-adoption
services capacity.
4. Enhancement of CFSA recruitment and support of District
foster and adoptive families.
AMENDMENT 2
in the council of the district of columbia
DATE: June 6, 2000
Amendment offered by Councilmember Sandra C. Allen
To: Bill No 13-679
Version:
Introduced....................................................
Committee Print...............................................
First Reading.................................................
Amended First Reading.........................................
Engrossed..................................................... X
Enrolled......................................................
Unidentified..................................................
Title XXXVIII Page 132
Line 17--Add Section 3803.1 This section may be cited as the
``Approval of Adoption Incentives Plan of 2000.''
Add section 3803.1 ``The Council hereby approves the proposal of
the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children plan for
use of $3 million of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
2000 to fund the Adoption Incentives Plan of 2000. At least half of
this $3 million shall be used to establish an Adoption Assistance Fund
to provide needed funding for a range of items including, but not
limited to, assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase
of homes to allow parents to adopt large sibling groups or special
needs children, assistance in lead paint abatement when the presence of
lead paint is an obstacle to approval of the adoptive home, and
assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs related to mental
health care for children with special needs. The remainder of these
funds shall be used to fund the following three initiatives:
1. Establishment of a scholarship fund to support transition to
independence for adopted teens.
2. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center and post-adoption
services capacity.
3. Enhancement of CFSA recruitment and support of District foster
and adoptive families.
Rationale: This amendment will allow $3 million of the $5 million
appropriated to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2000 to
fund the proposal of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes
for Children to use the Federal Adoption Incentives Funds. $2 million
will also be available to fund the ``Adoption Voucher Fund Act of 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. I would appreciate hearing your reaction to the Casey
Foundation findings and how your ``Safe Passages'' agenda and proposed
spending plan for children, youth, and families and health would help
to address the specific needs reflected in the report findings.
Answer. From the beginning of the Williams administration, children
have been a top priority. Mayor Williams' Safe Passages Initiative
represents the administration's primary vehicle for tackling the
negative outcomes that impact the quality of life, safety, health, and
wellbeing of children in the District. Safe Passages has five main
goals:
1. All children are ready to learn.
2. All children are succeeding in school.
3. All youth are developed into productive adults.
4. All children and their families are healthy.
5. Youth and youth violence is reduced, particularly in school
settings.
In the past year, we have experienced significant declines in the
areas of infant mortality and teen birth rates, the latter of which has
earned the District a federal bonus of $20 million for its efforts at
lowering births to teens. Still, much remains to be done to tackle many
of the seemingly intractable issues that beset children and youth in
the District.
The Williams administrative has implemented strategic initiatives
to support each of the Safe Passages goals. To support Goal 1, more
than 30 percent of our TANF funding is devoted to providing age-
appropriate child development opportunities for infants, toddlers and
school children. For Goal 2, the administration provided full funding
to DCPS schools in order to improve educational opportunities for
District schoolchildren. Goal 3, targets the positive development of
our young people, and the administration has launched its largest
Summer Youth Employment program to date, and expanded career
internships and year-round job opportunities for eligible students.
Goal 4 seeks to ensure that all children and their families are
healthy, and the administration has worked aggressively to expand
health coverage for children and expectant mothers. Goal 5, targeting
youth on youth violence, has led to the development of a Juvenile
Justice Commission to advise the Mayor on policy options and best
practices for continuing to decrease the rate of juvenile crime, while
exploring the most effective options for ensuring accountability with a
focus on prevention and rehabilitation.
Additionally, the Mayor developed the Children and Youth Investment
Trust Corporation, a public-private non-profit organization, designed
to provide financial support for community-based programs providing
out-of-school time programs for children and youth in the District.
First year funding for the Trust Corporation totaled $12 million.
Question. What has been accomplished in the last year to improve
the quality managers in District agencies, especially those serving
children?
Answer. The administration has implemented a government-wide
performance management system to set standards and monitor performance
among agency managers. All agency directors, senior agency staff, and
Executive Office of the Mayor Excepted Service personnel are required
to develop and adhere to individual performance plans that govern
performance and evaluation. Furthermore, the Management Support
Services (MSS) program has been implemented that transfers former non-
union career service managers into the MSS system thus making them `at
will' employees. The MSS program provides for salary enhancements to
former career service managers in exchange for their agreement to enter
into performance contracts with clearly defined goals and evaluation
standards. These efforts impact all government agencies, including
managers in the human service agencies.
Question. Child and family services (including foster care) and
mental health are in receivership and beyond your direct control. Are
you prepared to take on the management challenges of these agencies?
Answer. The operations of both the Child and Family Services Agency
(CFSA) and the Commission on Mental Health Services (CMHS) are in
federal court imposed receivership. The District of Columbia will be
prepared to assume control over the operations of both agencies during
the transition process back to our government. Pursuant to court order,
the first agency to transition back to our control is the Commission on
Mental Health Services. We are currently working collaboratively with
the Transitional Receiver, and other key stakeholders, on comprehensive
transition planning. A manager who will work closely with all impacted
agencies and members of my executive staff is coordinating the planning
and implementation. The transition planning includes a cross-agency
analysis and is based on an incremental approach to the transition
process. It is our expectation that this transition process will form
the template for a transition model that can be replicated, at least in
part, at the time CFSA transitions back to government control.
Question. How would you propose to improve management in District
schools?
Answer. As you know, in the District a disproportionate level of
funding goes to transportation and placement of special needs students
in private programs and transportation. The city has made some strides
in recent years, but we still face a budget that is far out of line
with reasonable costs and a program that leaves many parents and
students ill-served. We must do much better. A solid, thoughtful
approach to this requires people on the Board who can grapple with
these tough questions and look to other jurisdictions for best
practices. The Board of Education must develop precise goals and
performance standards for special education reform, and then hold the
Superintendent accountable for achieving them. Clearly, one of the
profound problems is that the administrative apparatus--contracting,
procurement, personnel, and financial management--to guide the program
is broken. I expect the Board will provide sufficient oversight of
these support systems, as well as proceed with immediate programmatic
improvements that will ensure that students are well-served. Over the
long term, we must continue ensuring that special needs students are
placed in appropriate environments while transitioning as many students
as is feasible to programs administered by DCPS and DC charter schools.
Question. Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, and Dr. Rivlin, what is
the status of the proposal to provide authority to the Mayor to appoint
school board members?
Answer. The referendum was held in late June and approved by the
voters.
Question. How can we align authority and responsibility for
District schools? Right now it is hard to say who is responsible. Is it
the Control Board? Is it the School Board? The Council? The Mayor? Who
takes credit or blame for progress or the lack of progress? Now that
Mrs. Ackerman is departing it is even more clear that we need some
continuity of responsibility. How are we going to get it?
Answer. One of the perpetual challenges for the school system has
been a diffuse accountability structure. I am confident that the new
Board of Education proposal will ameliorate the situation. Ultimate
responsibility for the school system remains with the Board of
Education, which will be transformed into a policymaking body removed
from the micromanagement that created havoc in the school governance
structure. The Council still had budgetary and oversight
responsibilities. The executive branch must also be a key partner,
offering assistance and encouragement to the Board and Superintendent.
Indeed, a number of executive agencies provide critical support to the
school system. I have instructed my whole cabinet to do whatever they
can to meet the needs of the school leadership.
Question. On April 8, the Washington Post reported that student
enrollment has declined from about 79,000 students in 1996 to 71,000
this year. During that period, the school budget has increased from
$600 million to $717 million. Next year, enrollment is projected to
drop to about 658,000 while school spending under the budget requested
by D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams will increase by $100 million. Can
you explain this decline in enrollment/increase in spending phenomenon?
Answer. For several years schools were underfunded. The budget
adopted for fiscal year 2001 provides no more funds than schools would
receive under the ``per pupil funding formula.'' In previous years the
Mayor and Council had underfunded schools, forcing DCPS leadership to
divert funds from priority areas such as academic programs to costs
associated with legal mandates for other programs, including special
education. I believe that the current funding level is in-line with
other urban jurisdictions, and I will be working with the Board of
Education and Superintendent to ensure that these funds result in
meaningful improvements for our children.
Question. Mayor Williams, if D.C. schools aren't equipped to
deliver the special education services to the students needing them,
when will they be? What will it take? Is the reported $30,000 per
student tuition the District of Columbia currently spends to educate
D.C. special education students in private or out of State educational
settings accurate? What's being done to reduce the costs of educating
these students outside the DCPS system?
Answer. On average, I believe that this estimate of $30,000 is
correct. The cost per student for special education varies considerably
depending on the child's Individualized Education Plan (IEP), so
sometimes this number is much more and sometimes much less.
DCPS has outlined a multi-part strategy to address this concern.
First, they are developing new programs, including a city-wide
inclusion program at Hardy and Taft Schools and new early childhood
programs at 20 other schools. Second, they have indicated that they are
better monitoring non-public schools and enforcing residency
verification to get non-eligible students off of the rolls. Finally,
they are aggressively seeking means to reduce transportation costs.
As I suggested, these are proposed strategies and I will be looking
for the Board of Education to track how these approaches are working. I
also know that our new Superintendent is committed to needed reform and
will be unveiling more aggressive strategies for reducing these costs,
this fall. His office proposed, just this week, a plan to offer parents
the option of transporting their children in exchange for a stipend, at
less than what it costs the District per student. This may only be an
option for certain parents, and its viability needs to be evaluated
further, but it will at least serve as a stopgap until more
sophisticated measures are developed shortly. I will be looking to our
Superintendent for leadership on this issue in the near and the long
term.
Question. Last year, Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp, you both
mentioned the criminal justice coordinating committee. What do you each
feel are the major accomplishments of this committee over the last
year?
Answer. I would list the major accomplishments as follows:
Development of CJCC team scorecards with goals and milestones in an
effort to increase accountability.
Creation of a process baselining program that defines activities
and identifies the drivers that contribute to police officer overtime
in court. From these information sources initiatives were developed to
reduce the identified tasks which most contribute to excessive officer
time in court. The following represent several core initiatives: 1.
Metropolitan Police Department/Office of Corporation Counsel Papering
Reform Project; 2. Diversion Analysis; 3. Court Scheduling/Case
Processing Reforms; 4. Data Analysis of Officer Involvement in Trial
Proceedings.
Creation of the Drug Team in early Spring, 2000 whose main priority
is offering drug treatment and drug testing to all persons within the
justice system who are in need. Key components include: 1. Pilot
program currently in three PSAs; 2. Developed baseline of eight
populations targeted (i.e. parolees, probationers, and pre-trial
defendants); 3. Development and supply of non-sanctions based treatment
slots; 4. Implementation of performance measures for each population;
5. Began actual drug testing in pilot area; 6. Secured and funded
outside research organization to evaluate efficacy.
Creation of the Geo-Mapping Project as a concerted effort to
support the PSA program in identifying hot-spots, parolee and
probationer residencies, poverty statistics, and other relevant public
safety and community initiatives. Highlights include: 1. Supplied the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) with resources to expand and
enhance existing GIS capabilities; 2. Catalogued all geocoded data
elements and sources; 3. Developed plan for centralizing all relevant
geocoded data within (MPD); 4. Procured and supplied to MPD a master
index of geocoded data; 5. Produced specs and supplied data for geomaps
to support the Drug Team initiative; 6. Implemented automated data
transfers from other agencies of geocoded database; 7. Established
structure, missions & goals for Information Technology Activities
Committee.
Creation of the Pre-Trial Services Sub-Committee in response to
inadequate supervision of detainees in halfway houses and work release
programs. Program goals focus on improving the management of pre-trial
offenders and minimizing risk to the community while protecting
defendants' rights. Areas of concentration include:
Halfway Houses:
1. Secured no cost technical assistance and contractor support
through the National Institute for Corrections;
2. Implemented immediate improvements in the response to
abscondances;
3. Decreased time period to secure arrest warrants for ``Walk-
aways'' from 7 days to less than 24 hours;
4. Conducted an operational audit using American Correctional
Association standards;
5. Reassessed halfway houses to determine continuity and
effectiveness of operational reforms;
6. Development of the District-wide Escape Monitoring System.
Pre-Trial Risk Assessment Instruments:
1. Developed tools for measuring risk to the community;
2. Developed tools for measuring risk of flight for each pretrial
defendant;
3. Collected risk assessment instruments from other jurisdictions;
4. Convened focus group to develop new assessment tool;
5. Target for full implementation of the Pre-Trial Risk Assessment
Tool, January 2001.
Alternative Sanctions:
1. Completed preliminary research on alternative sanctions through
best practices in other jurisdictions;
2. Formed focus group to investigate and present recommendations.
Fingerprinting & positive identification
1. Identified fingerprinting as a critical issue in the reform
effort;
2. Researched thirteen other jurisdictions to identify best
practices;
3. Outlined needed reforms;
4. Developed adult baseline of DC fingerprinting practices;
5. Developed comparative model for fingerprinting;
6. Recommended that adult fingerprinting be expanded to eight
additional charges;
7. Analyzed juveniles separately;
8. Concluded that major characteristics of DC's juvenile finger
printing and information management are in the line with other
jurisdictions.
Development and implementation of information technology activities
focusing on the ability to access and share information about offenders
and their cases. The following projects and initiatives represent a
first time success within the justice community in overcoming the
technology integration problems that have persisted within the District
for decades.
1. Established governance structure, documented a mission and goals
for ITAC and working groups;
2. Secured federal funding for integration project;
3. Hired information technical liaison officer;
4. Reviewed & approved web-enabled model for DC integrated justice
information system;
5. Established CJCC/ITAC internet site;
6. Identified and completed five fast track projects;
``JUSTIS System'' Program
Secured contractor support and developed and defined infrastructure
vision for the Justice Integration System (JUSTIS). JUSTIS is an
Internet-based ``middleware'' solution that allows local and federal
justice agencies to share data without having to modify their existing
legacy systems. Activities include(d):
1. Developed JUSTIS Access standards & procedures;
2. Secured technical oversight for the system;
3. Development of privacy and security standards;
4. Analyzed current practices over forty-five states RE: Tracking
Numbers and implemented best practices;
5. Criminal History Record Information System in development.
Assisted in the development of the Youth Violence Initiative to
reduce youth violence throughout the city while identifying and
attacking the drivers that predispose our youth to failure and
dangerous circumstances. This is a relatively new initiative still in
development. The CJCC has been asked to play primarily a support
function within this initiative. Activities include:
1. Supported the Youth Violence Intervention Team;
2. Numerous data collection activities and projects as directed
including the collection of raw data on all violent crimes in DC;
3. Support for the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Juvenile
Justice by providing staff resources for best practices information,
and current process baselining.
Question. Mayor Williams, in your March 6, 2000 ``State of the
District'' address, you stated that a major reason more officers are
not patrolling the streets is: ``Because every day, more than 500
police officers are stuck down at the courthouse, waiting for hours--
even days at a time--to testify in a hearing that may or may not be
held.'' Is this an issue the criminal justice coordinating committee
has addressed? With what outcome?
Answer. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council's ongoing (CJCC)
``Caseflow Management'' project has as one of its primary goals to
address persistent problems with police overtime and police time off
the streets. This project has involved both data analysis designed to
understand the factors driving the problem and uncover areas for
targeted solutions and the development of concrete recommendations to
reduce police overtime and time in court.
Analyses conducted included the following:
--Study of officer time spent in court. Analysis revealed that 90
percent of officer time is related to four proceedings: (1)
trial (48.6 percent); (2) papering (14.9 percent); (3) grand
jury (13.0 percent); and (4) witness conferences (12.3
percent); and
--Study of current diversion programs that can reduce caseloads; and
--Study of court statistics on time between milestone events (final
results to be completed in September 2000).
System Improvements:
--Developed new process flow for papering citation cases without
requiring an officer to appear for a papering interview;
--Secured buy-in for a pilot program in MPD's Central Regional
Operation Center for a more efficient papering process; and
--Currently assessing three technology options for automated
paperwork exchanges.
Other potential arenas for improvement include:
--Developed proposal for pilot community court in Ward 7 or 8;
--Completed best practices study of differentiated case management
(DCM) systems across the country.
Question. Mr. Mayor, several articles ran in the press last year
criticizing the docket and scheduling management of the District
Courts. The Congress provides funding for the District Courts. Do you
have any recommendations for the Congress to urge on the courts?
Answer. We will soon be in a position to make sound, data-guided
recommendations regarding case scheduling in District of Columbia
Superior Court. Superior Courts has been cooperative in working with
the CJCC in providing access to data that will help improve the court's
case management system. Recently, reports began to be produced
providing both historical and current data on case management. We now
have monthly reports that include: Caseloads by court calendar;
Statistics on the time between every major case processing event;
Average ``age'' of pending caseloads; and Rates of continuances,
dismissals, and other dispositions.
These reports will serve as invaluable management tools; careful
analysis will enable us to identify process bottlenecks and areas for
improvement.
Question. In your budget, you state that the District spends $8.9
million on overtime costs to pay Metropolitan Police (MPD) Officers to
testify in court. You argue that the U.S. Attorney's Office requires
officers to be present from 10:00 a.m. each day and to stay throughout
the day until they testify. You state that MPD estimates that overtime
would be cut in half if they were allowed to wear beepers and respond
when alerted. Is this an issue the criminal justice coordinating
committee has addressed? Is there something Congress could do to foster
greater efficiency and cost effectiveness in MPD court testimony?
Answer. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) proposed the use of
beepers as an innovative solution to the problem of police time in
court. Since that idea was proposed MPD looked into the issue and found
limitations to the solution. First, even if an off-duty officer were
allowed to wear a beeper and therefore not be present at court until he
or she was needed to testify, that individual would be entitled to
receive overtime pay for the entire time he or she was on-call. Second,
for officers who are on call, having to respond to beeper calls would
present significant operational problems and potentially conflict with
their enforcement duties. As stated in prior answers, MPD and the
Administration are looking at other opportunities to reduce officer
time in court.
Question. When Chief Ramsey came to Washington two years ago, he
found that over 75 percent of the telephones in the D.C. Police
Department were rotary? What progress in facilities and equipment have
you made over the last year and what does the District fiscal year 2001
budget provide? Training has been a problem in the police department. I
understand that recently only 200 of the 3,800 police were trained in
sobriety testing. Has that improved? What does the proposed District
budget provide for these training programs?
Answer. When Chief Ramsey arrived in Washington, DC in 1998, he
determined that over 75 percent of the MPDC telephones were rotary-
style. Presently, 100 percent of MPDC's telephones are touch-tone.
The Impaired Driver Support Unit of the Forensic Sciences Division
conducts field sobriety testing procedures. This testing has been
offered in two stages: the initial Standard Field Sobriety Testing
(SFST) training, which was conducted in Calendar Years 1999 and 2000
for 74 members; and the second stage, the Breath Test for Alcohol
Training (BTAT), which includes the use of the Intoxilizer breath-
testing equipment, that was conducted for 68 members during CY 1999 and
2000. Since 1995, a total of 605 members have been trained, including
317 members for SFST and 288 members for BTAT training. These figures
are further delineated as follows (as of August 9, 2000):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of SFST BTAT Total
Calendar Year Classes Trainees Trainees Trainees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 1 28 28 56
1996............................................................ 8 104 105 209
1997............................................................ 3 26 25 51
1998............................................................ 4 85 62 147
1999............................................................ 3 50 52 102
2000............................................................ 1 24 16 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Last year you reported that the criminal justice
coordinating committee was targeting six drug markets in the city,
starting last summer. Last year, Congress added $1 million in federal
funds earmarked for this project. What are the results of this special,
targeted effort?
Answer. Metropolitan Police Department, not the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee (CJCC), targeted six drug markets in the city as
part of its Capitol Communities program. The results of this effort are
summarized below:
--In Districts Five and Seven, significant advances were made. A
partnership between MPD and the community resulted in the
transfer of an abandoned building used for drug activity to the
community. The building was rehabilitated and transformed into
a community center. This success story was presented at a
national forum at the Policing for Prevention (PFP) Conference
in San Diego.
--In Districts One, Three, Four, and Six, the major strategy has been
focused law enforcement. This strategy has resulted in many
arrests, trash clean ups, towed abandoned cars, and boarded up
abandoned houses. Initially the Capital Community areas
included a two or three block area. Because of the success of
focused law enforcement, the drug problems have been displaced
or scattered. This displacement required an expansion of
focused law enforcement and the Capital Community areas and
surrounding blocks. The success of the Capital Community
initiatives resulted in many residents lobbying for their
communities to be next to receive exposure to the Partnerships
for Problem Solving (PPS) process.
Question. Based on reports we have received, it appears that since
July 1999, the number of slots available is up 21 percent. The number
of people screened is up 48 percent since July 1999. The number of
people on the waiting list down 15 percent since October 1999. There
was also a 16 percent increase in the discharges of healthy patients.
Those on waiting lists now only include methadone patients. What is the
current waiting time for city-assisted indigent drug treatment in the
District? How large is the backlog? What does your proposed budget do
to attack this problem?
Answer. The Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA)
has increased slots from 3,055 as of July 1999 to a current census
capacity of 3,154 (as of 8/21/00). However, by the close of fiscal year
2000, it is anticipated that APRA will increase capacity by an
additional 956 (over the current 3,154 slots), thus increasing the
total treatment capacity to 4,110 slots. This represents a cumulative
increase of 1,055 slots between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
This will constitute a 25.67 percent increase in slots between the two
years.
6,825 patients were screened by APRA in fiscal year 1999 (as of
July 1999). Between August 1999 and August 2000, the numbers of screens
have increased by 8,337 additional patients. Therefore, 1,512 more
patients have been screened in fiscal year 2000 as of July 2000 than
were screened in fiscal year 1999 as of July 1999. This represents an
18.14 percent increase in screenings since July 1999.
There were 481 patients on the waiting list in October 1999. There
are 255 patients on the waiting list as of August 21, 2000. This
represents a 46.9 percent decrease in the level of the waiting list
that is only for methadone treatment. There are no other waiting lists.
``Healthy patients'' is not a criterion in the discharge data
collected by APRA. The most comparable variable in the data collected
is ``completed treatment'' and ``transfer''. There were 2,729 patients
discharged in these categories in fiscal year 1999 and APRA projects
that 3,111 will be discharged in these categories in fiscal year 2000
(based on current trends). The increase in ``completed treatment'' and
``transfer'' discharge categories in fiscal year 2000 over fiscal year
1999 is anticipated to be 382 (12.28 percent) patients.
It is correct that those on the waiting list now include methadone
patients. There is a 6-month waiting time for comprehensive methadone
treatment slots. There is no waiting time for other modalities. There
are 255 persons waiting for methadone treatment. It is anticipated that
this waiting list will be eliminated with the opening of a 410-slot
methadone program scheduled for the end of August 2000.
Question. Please outline and explain your goals and accomplishments
for District drug treatment and prevention programs.
Answer.
TREATMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------
Service type 1999 2000 Projected
Accomplishments accomplishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Treatment Goals:
Intake Screenings................. 8,189 9,736
Inpatient Treatment............... 538 582
Medical Detoxification............ 2,370 3,204
Outpatient/Methadone.............. 1,417 1,910
Outpatient/Non-Methadone.......... 2,734 3,365
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accomplishments for fiscal year 1999:
Opened the 100-slot Umoja abstinence program.
Implemented the Interim methadone maintenance program to expand
methadone treatment capacity by 150 slots.
Increased the medical detoxification unit capacity by 15 beds.
Increased outpatient abstinence slots at the Adams Morgan
Abstinence Center (AMAC) by 100 slots.
Increased the New Risings Day Treatment program for women by 12
slots.
Increased outpatient abstinence capacity at the Shaw Abstinence
Program (SAP) by 60 slots.
Awarded a contract for 160 slots of outpatient treatment for
Latinos to the Andromeda Transcultural Center.
Increased slots for outpatient capacity for Latinos through sub-
grants with La Clinica Del Pueblo (25 slots), Latin American Youth
Center (50 slots) and Whitman-Walker Clinic/Office of Latino Services
(30 slots).
Awarded a contract to RAP, Inc. for eighty-seven 120-day
residential beds.
Increased capacity in the Supervised Living Program for women and
their children by 6 slots.
Awarded a contract to Deep Run, Inc. for 24 youth residential beds.
Developed and implemented, through an MOU with the DC Jail, a 120-
slot prerelease treatment readiness and discharge planning program.
Accomplishments for fiscal year 2000:
In the process of transferring residential treatment services to a
community-based system.
Enhanced and expanded medical detoxification services.
Improved the Central Intake Division to reduce waiting time for
assessment and referral, improve the intake process.
In the process of expanding community-based, residential treatment
services through public/private partnerships.
Implement a uniform contracts and grants monitoring system agency-
wide; and Other Drug (ATOD) first use.
Expanded methadone treatment by 410 slots.
Expanded dually diagnosed treatment by 150 slots.
Implemented provisional application and review process for
certifying all ATOD treatment providers.
In the process of implementing a Hepatitis A, B and C prevalence
study of the APRA patient population.
A comprehensive implementable Drug Strategy for the District of
Columbia is under development, the goal of which is to reduce the
number of addicted persons by 25,000, and the annual addiction related
cost to the city by $300,000,000.00 by 2005.
PREVENTION
Accomplishments for fiscal year 1999:
APRA provided Outreach services to 128,251 District residents
(73,060 Adults, 55,191 youth and 26,389 Latinos) and distributed
513,000 pieces of literature.
Completed and Distributed a Social Indicators of Substance Abuse in
the District of Columbia.
Awarded nine mini-grants to community-based, faith-based or grass
roots organizations to provide summer cultural and educational
prevention programs to more than 200 high-risk District of Columbia
youth.
Funded four one-year Science-based Prevention Demonstration
projects, which will reach 100 youth.
Receipt of the State Incentive Grant (SIG) from the Center from
Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). The city will receive $6 million
over a three-year period, 85 percent of which will be awarded to
community-based organizations to implement science-based prevention
efforts.
Established a primary prevention program for 50 Latino youth.
Provided Science-based prevention to the State Incentive Grant
(SIG) Advisory Board; CBOs and general Public; Prevention and Treatment
providers, and SIG Subgrant Applicants.
Provided training to 102 DCPS Nurse on how to use curriculum
(Learning to Live Drug Free--U.S. Department of Education). This is a
curriculum model for prevention on general substance abuse prevention
education, and will ensure substance abuse prevention education in all
DCPS.
Operated four alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) abuse
prevention centers in key wards of the city (Wards 1, 2, 7 and 8).
Provided Outreach Activities to include: (a) Support of the
SafeNight Program; (b) Participation in health fairs around the city;
and (c) Participation in the BET Teen Summit.
Established a Mentoring and Tutoring program for District youth in
Ward 8.
Established an APRA Youth Advisory Council.
Expanded Prevention programs in D.C. Public and Charter Schools.
Expanded the in-school program from 30 to 40 schools to include 10
Public Charter Schools.
Conducted an alternative program for truants from DCPS.
Established Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs in 14
DCPS.
Established a Senior Citizens Substance Abuse Prevention
Initiative.
Conducted a Ministerial Institute.
Conducted the 5th Annual Prevention Awareness Day.
Conducted First Annual Youth Festival.
PSAs were published in the Washington Post, City Paper, Latino
News. PSAs aired on various AM Radio stations in both English and
Spanish.
Established and supported collaboration with several community-
based and private nonprofit agencies and organizations.
Accomplishments for fiscal year 2000
Conduct tobacco compliance checks of 3300 District vendors.
Conduct Household Survey on Substance Abuse.
Institute an ATOD Prevention Public Awareness Campaign.
Establish a District of Columbia Substance Abuse Prevention
Epidemiology Work Group.
Establish an Evaluation Grant for prevention programs.
Establish a Community Volunteers Program.
Develop a Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS Prevention Curriculum with
AHA and DCPS for DCPS teachers, students and parents.
Establish a Faith-based ATOD Initiative.
Conduct Alcohol Awareness Campaign in DCPS and DC Charter School.
Conduct a Tobacco Prevention and Education Campaign in DCPS.
Develop a media campaign to educate vendors on D.C. Law 8-262 which
prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors.
Award twenty science-based prevention program grants (SIG).
Award a Demonstration ATOD Youth Prevention Grant for mentally
challenged.
Award a Demonstration ATOD Youth Prevention Grant for Asian/Pacific
Islanders.
Award five $50,000 mini-grants on ATOD prevention.
Conduct the Second Annual Youth Festival.
Conduct a Citywide Drug Summit.
Establish prevention programs in collaboration with the MPD.
Conduct a citywide Drug Summit on Prevention Best Practices.
Provide scholarships for youth to attend COG Prevention Program.
Contract out prevention centers located in Wards 1, 2, 7, and 8.
Establish a prevention center for Latino youth.
Safe Passages Initiatives.
Implement an alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATOD) community-
based prevention strategy aimed at reducing ATOD uses among District of
Columbia youth by establishing four prevention centers.
In collaboration with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs and other community partners will reduce the number of
retailers who sell tobacco products to minors in the District of
Columbia to 20 percent by September 30, 2000.
Implement an ATOD Prevention program in 40 D.C. Public and Charter
Schools to reach youth.
DC Consortium on School Health/Education and Community Awareness
Initiative.
Provide 2 trainings and professional development sessions for
school staff and families to enhance the ability to identify and
intervene for children at risk for behavioral health issues.
Strengthening Families Initiative.
Building and Sustaining Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative.
Question. Last year, Chairman Cropp, you and the Mayor mentioned
nuisance properties as a major problem area for drug control efforts.
What progress has been made over the last year? How many nuisance
properties have you identified? How many have been demolished, sealed
off, or otherwise cleaned up? How many have been condemned or
foreclosed so they can be put to better public use or sold for a higher
economic use?
Answer. Significant progress has been made over the last year in
addressing nuisance properties: As of August 17, 2000 196 properties
have been condemned. 1,250 have been cleaned and barricaded, a
significant increase over the previous year, 174 units have been
demolished and an additional 200 units are in the pipeline to be
demolished before December 2000. In addition, $248,000 in liens have
been collected and have imposed fines of over $953,000.
Question. Could you furnish a list of publicly- and privately-held
nuisance properties and indicate any action taken?
Answer. As you are aware, nuisance is the result of an activity or
combination of activities. The abatement of the nuisance activity
involves one or more agencies and often a combination of agencies e.g.
Police and Public Works, DCRA and Fire Department, etc. We are in the
process of installing a computerized database that will provide the
capability to catalogue and cross-reference the nuisance properties.
This effort is happening as we speak with some agencies having
completed and populated databases and other agencies are still in the
process of getting the system installed. The whole system is expected
to be operational within six months.
Question. Last year, Mr. Mayor, you reported last year that the
city received bids from a number of firms to convert 300 units of
abandoned housing because the real estate market is strong. One year
later, on how may of those 300 units has construction been started or
completed? How long does this process take? Are there ways you can
speed up making these units available for homeownership?
Answer. Through the Department of Housing and Community Development
Homestead program, 47 units have been completed, 127 units are under
construction, 161 units have been transferred with construction
expected to begin within 45 days, and 167 additional units will be sold
by Sept. 30, 2000.
Question. Mayor Williams, the consensus budget provides $21.3
million to convert over 1,000 units. You originally had $22.0 million.
Why was the $700 thousand cut? Where did it go?
Answer. The modest reduction in funding was the result of budget
negotiations in which additional funds were allocated to specific
projects and there was a small overall decrease in total capital
expenditures done in the name of fiscal conservatism.
Question. What progress has been made on straightening out the mess
with management of halfway houses? For correctional halfway houses and
group homes for the mentally retarded, what progress have you made in
the last year to get rid of under performing contractors? How many
contractors have been decertified? How have you assured that their
replacements are going to meet performance standards?
Answer.
DHS/MRDDA
The Department of Human Services/Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Administration (MRDDA) has not initiated any
actions to terminate any contracts within the last year. MRDDA has been
more aggressively monitoring providers of services and has recently
developed a plan of correction involving five group homes being
operated by one provider. Also, MRDDA has conducted several competency-
based trainings for providers of services to improve the delivery of
the service and is continuing to schedule ongoing training.
The District of Columbia has also passed the Procurement Practices
Human Care Agreement Amendment Act of 2000. This law amends the
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 and allows for
the District to obtain assurances during a pre-qualification process
that the vendor is qualified to deliver the service and is a
responsible bidder for the particular service.
Child and Family Services Agency
In the Child and Family Services Agency, the agency currently
utilizes only 2 providers for housing MR/DD children. The providers are
Ward and Ward Mental Health Services, operated by Dr. Ruth Ward, and
Community Multi-Systems, operated by Constance Reese. Ward and Ward
houses 12 children in 3 home-like settings with 4 children each.
These children are not ambulatory. There is another facility to
hour 4 ambulatory school-age children. Additionally, they have
apartments for 2 old MR/DD teens up to age 21, and 1 MR/DD teen mother.
CMS has four facilities, three of which house four adolescents
each. One of the four homes serves six females. Their program monitor,
Ms. Carolyn Gregory, monitors these programs at least monthly. Each
facility is visited monthly and unscheduled spot checks are frequent.
If there are particularly unusual incidents occurring or community
complaints, Ms. Gregory goes out more often. Unscheduled fire drills
are conducted monthly to ensure the safety of the residents. Physical
plant deficiencies are promptly documented and the facilities are given
deadlines to complete repairs. These providers have the lowest
incidence of physical plant deficiencies, among all of the agency's
providers.
Both CMS and Ward and Ward have excellent reputations for running
clean facilities. Staff conducts bed checks on the non-ambulatory
children to ensure that they are dry, that the beds are dry, and that
there are no signs of diaper rash or bed sores. Staff also checks
medications to ensure that they are being administered correctly and
that the records are accurate and match physician orders. Record
reviews are also done to ensure that any special needs the children
have are met.
CFSA's primary concern is with the insufficient number of MR/DD
homes to meet the growing need, especially for higher functioning
clients who still function at levels too low to comfortably fit into a
traditional group home with children of normal intelligence.
Youth Services Administration
YSA's Contract Monitoring /Quality Assurance Unit.--YSA's Contract
Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit is responsible for monitoring all
contractual and YSA operated group/shelter home facilities, which
currently numbers sixteen. This Unit's staff was recently expanded from
two to four, in February 2000.
Inspection Practices.--YSA's Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance
Unit conducts announced quarterly inspections of all YSA contracted
group/shelter homes. These quarterly inspections began in 1997. Each
announced quarterly inspections entails a health and safety review, and
a review of each group/shelter home's program components.
Health and Safety each quarter.--YSA monitoring each group/shelter
home facility to ensure it meets all fire, health and safety
requirements, per the American Public Health Association Standards,
Building Occupancy Codes, District of Columbia Manual of Regulations,
National Fire Prevention Association codes, OSHS Standards, and ACA
Standards.
In addition to announced inspections, at least one unannounced
inspection is conducted for each group/shelter home each quarter.
Unannounced inspection may be limited in focus to as one area of
operation, or up to and including all program components, and/or
facility area (fire, health, and safety). Unannounced inspections may
occur at any hour.
Inspection Findings.--Facilities that fail to meet all Health and
Safety and Program Component requirements are classified as Greenline,
Yellowlines or Redline. The YSA Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance
Unit provides the respective facility with a written notification of
its deficiencies and the resulting classification. The facility is
required to submit a Corrective Action Plan within a specified
timeframe.
Greenline requires immediate attention, and continued monitoring
every thirty days. A Corrective Action Plan is required in writing
within 72 hours of classification notice.
Yellowline requires monitoring very 90 days. A Corrective Action
Plan is required in within 14 days of classification notice.
Redline requires monitoring very 90 days. A Corrective Action Plan
is required in writing within 30 days of classification notice.
Failure to comply with the policies and provision outlined for each
classification may, upon review, result in an elevation of that status.
Failure to comply with the Greenline status policies and provision may
result in the termination of the contract.
Re-Inspections.--A re-inspection is scheduled at the completion of
an announced quarterly inspection, and upon receipt of a Corrective
Action Plan, or for a facility that has received classification. A re-
inspection is generally unannounced, but may be a schedule event. The
focus of the re-inspection is correction of deficient areas. Once the
deficient areas are corrected the facility continues to be monitored on
a monthly basic until quarterly inspection.
Meetings.--YSA's Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit
conducts monthly meeting with the Group/Shelter Home Administrators.
Relevant issues are discussed, including unusual incidents, changes in
YSA policies and procedures, upcoming inspections and training and
technical assistance.
YSA's Administrator and Deputy Administrator meet on a quarterly
basis with the owners of the group/shelter homes. Relevant issues, such
as changes in YSA policies and procedures, are discussed.
Training and Technical Assistance.--YSA's Contract Monitoring/
Quality Assurance Unit provides training and technical assistance to
call contracted group/shelter home staff. Multiple are scheduled to
allow all group/shelter home staff to attend while ensuring adequate
coverage at each facility. Training covers a variety of issues,
including health and safety issues, YSA policies, and adolescent
development and parenting issues.
Problem Facilities Closed.--On April 16, 1999 Lamont Shelter, by
the Bureau of Rehabilitation, was due to structural deficiencies. After
receiving a ``Notice to Cure Performance Deficiencies . . .'' the
Bureau of Rehabilitation corrected the stated deficiencies. YSA and the
office of the Fire Marshall conducted new inspection and YSA agreed to
release the Bureau of Rehabilitation from the Notice of Cure on May 26,
1999. The facility was reopened.
Question. Do you believe this plan (budget document submitted to
Congress) addresses the concerns raised by GAO and will enable you to
comply with the law (two levels of performance, titles of officials)?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Proposed Operating Budget and
Financial Plan represents an important advance in implementing a
performance management system that will hold agency directors
accountable, drive lasting change in District agencies and provide the
level of service and quality of life that District residents demand and
deserve. Each budget chapter of agencies that are under the authority
of the Mayor includes performance goals and measures drawn from agency
directors' performance contracts. Senior managers accountable for
achieving each objective are identified by title as required by the
Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-373).
However, the performance goals do not include two levels of
performance. As noted in our response to the GAO report, the District
advocates eliminating the requirement for two levels of performance for
each goal or objective. I outlined the District's position on this
issue in a June 26 letter to Senators Voinovich, Durbin and Hutchison
and Representatives Istook, Davis, Moran and Holmes-Norton and my staff
have prepared a proposed amendment to effect this change.
In directing agencies to set performance measures, I emphasized
establishing ambitious yet attainable targets. If the existing agency
performance targets are labeled superior performance, we invite
agencies to pull back from their ambitious targets and to only seek to
achieve acceptable performance levels; performance less than the
commitments the agencies and I have made to the District's residents.
Furthermore, the requirement is inconsistent with performance
reporting requirements for Federal agencies established under the
Results Act. Finally, in researching the origins of the provision, U.S.
Senate staff discovered that the requirement is an artifact of a
proposed personnel law that required two levels of performance for
senior managers in District government. The personnel proposals were
never enacted but the requirement remained for agency level reporting.
For all of these reasons, I advocate eliminating the requirement for
two levels of performance.
Question. Is the current statutory deadline problematic? How would
a legislative change to reconcile the submission date requirement help
facilitate your intent to treat the annual budget as the plan required
under Public Law 103-373?
Answer. Any plan of performance commitments is only meaningful when
linked to the budget process. While performance management and
budgeting have not been linked in the past, the Williams Administration
began to link them with the preparation of the fiscal year 2000 budget
in January 1999. Modifying the submission timeframes will help
strengthen this linkage in future budget and performance plan
submissions.
The congressional performance plan submission date of March 1 only
precedes the March 15 deadline for submission of the Mayor's budget to
the Council of the District of Columbia by two weeks. We would like to
request that an initial District performance plan be due to Congress
concurrent with the budget submission to Council and a final District
performance plan be due to Congress with the submission of the
District's Proposed Operating Budget and Financial Plan no later than
June 15. This is consistent with the requirement for Federal agencies
to submit an initial performance plan with their budget request and a
revised performance plan subsequent to the transmittal of the
President's budget to Congress.
Question. Are you satisfied with this report as a first effort?
Will this report form an adequate basis for comparison in future years?
Are you fully committed to this process? Have you been working with the
General Accounting Office to improve this report in future years? Does
this match your concepts of performance management?
Answer. The District's first annual performance report is a
significant step forward in establishing the District's performance
management system, but we have substantial work remaining. GAO's
assessment was limited to the extent to which the District of Columbia
1999 Yearend Management Report addressed objectives established by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (``the Authority''). Many of the areas of ``non-compliance''
GAO noted were driven by what the Authority's fiscal year 1999
performance plan contained and lacked: objectives not adopted by the
Williams' administration, single levels of performance targets, no
reference to District government activities subject to court orders.
The District of Columbia 1999 Year-end Management Report addresses
the performance objectives set by the Williams Administration in its
first year and agencies' success in meeting those objectives. In
setting the objectives for the District, I asked agency directors with
developing both short-term action agendas and long-term strategic
plans. While many directors drew on initiatives within their agency's
section of the Authority's Plan, they were free to develop wholly new
strategic plans and most did. Moreover, our emphasis was on identifying
and reporting against fewer, more meaningful performance measures that
truly reflected our strategic direction, rather than dozens and dozens
of performance measures established in a prior administration, many of
which did little to gauge how well our government was performing.
Future year-end reports will present results by the Williams
administration against plans and objectives established by the Williams
administration, allowing for long-term comparisons of results to
indicate progress on our initiatives. In addition, we have incorporated
several of the GAO's recommendations in the fiscal year 2001
Performance Plan and the working outline for the fiscal year 2000
Performance Report due to Congress in March 2001. As noted above, the
fiscal year 2001 Operating Budget and Financial Plan already
incorporates the titles of the senior managers accountable for
individual objectives in agency strategic plans, and future year-end
reports will continue to include that information. GAO also worked with
attorneys in the District's Office of the Corporation Counsel to
identify 12 major civil actions concerning the activities of the
District government during fiscal year 1999 that fulfill the
requirement to report on the status of civil actions. The District will
report on the status of those lawsuits and court orders in the fiscal
year 2000 Performance Report and future year-end reports. Finally, we
will enhance our reporting format by displaying both historical
performance data and targets for those objectives that continue over
several years. The presentation of major objectives, the identification
of the senior managers accountable for achieving those objectives and
the display of performance data over time are all in line with my
approach to performance management.
--Define the goals and inform the public what they are;
--Give agency leadership the resources and support needed to meet the
goals;
--Establish a system to hold them accountable at the end of the day.
Question. Last year, you mentioned your weekly meeting with your
agencies--you called it your ``supply line meeting''. What are some
examples of the ``barriers'' you mentioned that your ``supply line
meeting'' participants have identified and removed over the last year?
Answer. Among the supply line issues that agency directors and
senior managers have identified as the highest priorities to address
are personnel reforms and the District's entire acquisition process. We
have made great progress in implementing long-standing personnel
reforms including the performance management systems for agency
directors, the launch of the Management Supervisory Service and the
institution of a performance management program for managers,
supervisors and excepted service personnel. During fiscal year 2001, we
will begin to expand the use of the performance management program
beyond senior and middle management and will include its implementation
with unionized personnel among the issues to be discussed in ongoing
collective bargaining negotiations.
Procurement is still a major problem, but we are making advances.
We have begun to implement a purchase card to handle micro-purchases in
the District government, and we expect virtually all of the major
District agencies to be using the purchase cards by October 1, 2000.
This should take much of the small purchase volume out of the system
and allow procurement staff to focus on larger acquisitions. Moreover,
the District recently engaged a procurement expert from the Internal
Revenue Service to review the entire acquisition process, and his
report offered both short-term solutions that we can use to jump start
the process and long-term strategies. We recognize that serious
problems remain in procurement, but we are committed to acting sooner,
rather than later.
Question. You also mentioned giving incentives to managers. What
progress have you made in this area over the last year?
Answer. As we focus on holding managers accountable for their
performance, our strategy is to recognize and reward excellent
performance, while taking appropriate action in other instances where
managers are not able to do their jobs. Incentives for agency directors
will be tied to their performance against the commitments outlined in
their agency strategic plan and their performance contract with the
Mayor. My deputy mayors and I have completed mid-year evaluations of
each agency director with a performance contract to assess how each
director is meeting his or her performance objectives. Directors were
to identify new priorities that have arisen during the year and to
establish action plans to ensure that initiatives that are off-track
are completed by year-end. At year-end, we will evaluate directors on
how well they met their objectives and will reward exceptional
performance and will address poor performance accordingly.
The Management Supervisory Service (MSS), authorized by Council in
1998, also provides performance incentives to senior and middle
managers. Letters inviting approximately 1,100 non-unionized managers
and supervisors to become members of this new at-will, merit-based
senior service went out the second week in August. The Office of
Personnel will have official figures on MSS enrollment available by
September, but preliminary data indicates nearly 90 percent of managers
and supervisors invited to enroll in MSS have done so.
Question. You touted the supply line meeting as the forum in which
you could assure that the District would not lose available federal
grant monies. Has the supply line meeting improved the Districts
grantsmanship over the last year?
Answer. The Office of Grants Management and Development and the
Office of Budget and Planning have developed a reporting system for
agencies to track each Federal Grant award, the appropriated amount in
the current fiscal year, expenditures and obligations to-date, and any
potential lapses during the current year. Agency reports through July
2000 have just been received and OBP and OGMD staff are analyzing the
data. Agencies with potential lapses are to provide revised spending
plans through the end of the fiscal year illustrating what portion of
available funds they will and will not be able to spend.
Question. Your budget includes $13 million for a ``Management
Supervisory Service''. How is this $13 million going to be used? Will
it be used for bonuses under a pay for performance or gainsharing
program?
Answer. The $13 million budgeted to implement the Management
Supervisor Service will not be used for bonus pay or as part of a
gainsharing program.
The MSS program is designed to create a new cadre of managers that
ultimately increases accountability in the government workforce. The
$13 million will be used to offer salary increases to approximately
1,100 supervisory and management employees. In exchange for accepting
the salary increase of approximately 10 percent, managers and
supervisors who join the MSS program will forfeit their civil service
protections and serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
Question. Please give an update on your Partnerships for Problem
Solving (PPS) Initiative pilot program which you expanded from 6 to 14
of the 83 Police Service Areas (PSAs) in the city. What are some of the
specific problems targeted by some of these pilot PSAs and some of the
accomplishments over the last year? What is your assessment of the PPS
Initiative?
Answer. Partnerships for Problem Solving (PPS) is MPD's initiative
to train police, community volunteers and other agency representatives
citywide to advance neighborhood partnerships that address local crime
and disorder problems. The program employs a five-step problem-solving
model, which ensures that democratic and inclusive strategies and
tactics are planned and carried out by participating partners.
--Currently 34 PSAs, including Capital Community PSAs (described in
7A) are engaged in the PPS process.
--An estimated 1,825 community volunteers and other agency
representatives have received PPS training on various topics.
In PSA 110 accomplishments include the following: law enforcement
partners canvassed neighborhoods door-to-door to ascertain public
housing residents' needs; neighborhood watch signs have been erected;
security patrols are more frequent and visible; community clean-ups
have taken place; and a panel of high-ranking public officials convened
to address legislation that will impact drug activity in the area.
In PSA 301 accomplishments include the following: establishment of
a strong partnership among the community, police, and City Councilman
Jim Graham; Drug Free Zone signs were erected; new trash containers
were placed in the area; and pedestrian crosswalks were newly painted.
In PSA 206 accomplishments include the following: increased
inspection of bars to ensure compliance with all D.C. codes; additional
rodent abatement measures; improved parking enforcement; and
development of a consortium of D.C. universities that are working on
the issue of underage drinking and its impact on students.
Question. Policing for Prevention is a related community policing
initiative we have heard about from the MPD, including a program to
enter a partnership with the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency to improve case management of people in the community on
probation and to prevent recidivism. What is your assessment of
Policing for Prevention?
Answer. The Administration is excited and optimistic about the
potential of Policing for Prevention Program, which includes MPD
partnerships with Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
(CSOSA) designed to reduce crime among repeat offenders, thereby
increasing public safety. A total of 12 PSA teams have received
training during the pilot period; an additional 18 PSAs will enter
partnerships this fall. Key elements of the partnerships include the
following:
--Law enforcement is enhanced by information sharing at regular
meetings and joint police/parole officer visits to high-risk
offenders;
--Needed resources, such as drug testing, including employment
services and life skills training, are targeted and directed to
high-risk offenders; and
--Neighborhood partnerships and problem-solving efforts are bolstered
by collaborative outreach efforts to residents, other city
agencies, or community stakeholders to develop networks to
solve crime and disorder problem's.
Question. Some health care advocates said they were disappointed
the council and mayor did not boost spending on health programs for
low-income residents. Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, what is your
reaction to this concern?
Answer. Expanding and enhancing the city's network of community-
based health care providers. These ``medical homes'' will emphasize
primary care services but will also include access to the diagnostic,
specialty care and inpatient services our residents need to return to
good health, should they become ill. These facilities will serve both
insured and uninsured individuals in environments that are welcoming to
individuals of varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
Extending Medicaid coverage to adults without dependent children
with incomes up to 50 percent of the federal poverty level. This is
part of a phased plan which will ultimately extend Medicaid to District
residents up to 200 percent of poverty.
Extending health insurance coverage for uninsured immigrant
children who do not qualify for Medicaid and providing free or
discounted prescriptions to individuals without drug coverage benefits
who can not afford to purchase necessary medicines.
Providing senior wellness services to aid older adults, especially
low income individuals, to lead healthy and independent lives.
Most importantly, nearly a third of the funds under the Mayor's
plan would support tobacco control and health promotion efforts. The
programs envisioned under these efforts will focus on youth, the poor
and ethnic communities who comprise a large portion of the city's
tobacco users.
These efforts, together with other health initiatives being
implemented in the District, form the basis of the Mayor's health care
reform plans and will result in major improvements in the health status
of our residents.
______
Questions Submitted to the Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the
criteria established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by the
Mayor, District Council and Control Board pursuant to Section 148 of
Public Law 106-113, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2000.
Answer. The Chief Financial Officer adhered to the criteria
established in Section 148, paragraphs (B) and (C), of Public Law 106-
113, and established no additional criteria pursuant to this Section of
the Act. In July 1999, before Public Law 106-113 was enacted, the
District Council, the Mayor, and the Financial Authority approved the
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Support Act (D.C. Act 13-111) which contained
criteria for using the Reserve Fund. On September 29, 1999, the Chief
Financial Officer (``CFO'') distributed a memorandum (attached) to all
agency chief financial officers that listed the Budget Support Act
criteria. Again referring to those criteria, on January 24, 2000, the
CFO distributed instructions to agency directors and agency CFOs along
with a template for requesting reserve funds. (attached). On February
14, 2000, the CFO reported to the Mayor on those requests (attached).
Question. In response to recent reports that the District has
failed to claim $40,000,000 to $80,000,000 in Medicaid reimbursements
over the past four years, please answer the following questions:
Answer. If the District were collecting the Medicaid reimbursements
to which it is entitled, how much would that reduce the District
taxpayers' responsibility for special education costs?
What is the District doing to remedy this serious mismanagement
problem?
Answer. Reported estimates that, $80 million in additional Medicaid
reimbursements is potentially available to the District of Columbia
Public Schools (``DCPS'') for medically necessary special education
costs are based upon overly optimistic assumptions. In fiscal year
1999, DCPS collected $4.6 million in Medicaid reimbursements for
medical services provided to special education students. The fiscal
year 2001 budget for the public schools assumes additional Medicaid
reimbursements of $12 million. The highest gross estimate of the health
services that are potentially reimbursable by the District Medicaid
Program ranges up to $40 million.
This upper limit estimate is based upon unverified assumptions. The
amount assumes that 65 percent of the special education private tuition
and related transportation costs are covered services under the
Medicaid Program. These and similar estimates assume that eligible
collateral therapies are provided three days a week with the result
that transportation costs are recoverable for 60 percent of the time.
These estimates also reflect optimistic assumptions with respect to
student attendance,
A District interagency task force (District Medical Assistance
Administration (Medicaid), DCPS and the City Administrator) is working
to improve the DCPS capacity to obtain appropriate reimbursement from
the Medicaid program for covered services with the aim of achieving the
fiscal year 2001 budget goals. The objective is to maximize the
Medicaid reimbursement given current rates and current information.
A longer-term objective to maximize Medicaid reimbursements
requires the periodic cost analysis required to revise payment rates
that must be approved by the federal Department of Health and Human
Services (``DHHS''). Future claims will be based on those rates. Under
appropriate circumstances, claims already submitted based on obsolete
rates will be recycled via the standard cost settlement process. At
present transportation costs are reported at the route level. The need
to maximize student level reporting will ensure that all claims
submitted to Medicaid are valid. Similarly, non-public treatment
providers must provide/maintain adequate claims or claims history
information in order to substantiate a reimbursable claim submitted to
the Medicaid Program,
The current rate for transporting special education students is $13
per trip, but the actual cost is approximately $50-$60 per trip.
Setting rates for residential and nonresidential treatment for the
students is especially complex because vendors provide a wide range of
services. The services and costs must be classified so that the average
rates for a class of services adequately compensate providers for
services rendered as set by federal guidelines.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Hutchison. Did you have anything further?
With that then, unless you had any further comments, the
meeting will be recessed.
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much.
Dr. Rivlin. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, the hearing
was concluded, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statement received by the subcommittee
is made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2001
District of Columbia Appropriations Act.]
Prepared Statement of Paul Strauss
Chairman Hutchison, Senator Kyl, and Senator Durbin: Thank you for
the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am Paul Strauss,
Shadow Senator for the District of Columbia, and I would like to set
out my reasons for fully supporting the proposed fiscal year 2001
budget submitted jointly by Mayor Williams, the District of Columbia
Council, and the Financial Control Board.
Before I begin, though, I would like to describe briefly for the
record exactly what a ``Shadow Senator'' is. The position of Shadow
United States Senator is not unique to the District of Columbia. From
the earliest days of our existence as a country, areas desiring
statehood elected Shadow Senators--12 in all--prior to their admission
as States. All but one of the twelve were eventually seated as full
Senators when statehood was achieved. My role as the District's elected
U.S. Senator is to be an advocate on issues of importance to the
citizens of the District of Columbia that are before the Senate. It is
in that role that I provide testimony in support of the District's
proposed budget.
Let me point out some aspects of this budget that are of special
interest to my constituents. First, the proposed budget includes
funding initiatives to begin implementing the City-Wide Strategic Plan
for unity of purpose and democracy. That Plan includes strong pursuit
of voting rights for citizens of the District, to ensure that our needs
are represented and served as well as those of all other Americans. The
Plan incorporates citizens' desires about neighborhood action planning.
It provides improved access to public information about government
programs and services. Finally, the Plan will improve the capacity of
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to represent citizen interests.
This proposed budget also includes investment in government
management tools and technology that will enhance oversight ability and
bring more badly-needed accountability to many programs. For example,
there is a proposed increase in funding for the Office of Inspector
General, which will allow substantially expanded audit and evaluation
activities. And there is proposed new investment in the City
Administrator's office to enhance the Office's ability to direct and
coordinate agency activities.
In addition, the proposed budget includes increased funding for key
human services programs, such as mental retardation and developmental
disabilities services, addiction prevention and recovery services, and
HIV/AIDS programs.
There are significant proposed increases in program budgets that
address crime victims' rights, law enforcement needs, violence against
women. Local funding will be used to establish new risk management
programs.
Higher education also sees an increase in this proposed budget,
with funding for the University of the District of Columbia to expand
speech-language pathology and teacher education programs, adult
education, and the Saturday Academy. The last program cited is designed
to increase the number of minority students enrolling in college in
science, math, engineering, and other technical fields.
Good public libraries are a key resource for well-educated
citizens. They are essential in communities where people are gaining
knowledge and skills for new jobs but where citizens do not have the
resources to invest in books, computers and other materials
individually. This proposed budget expands funding for District
libraries, so that computer literacy programs can continue and
traditional literacy programs can be expanded. The libraries will also
stay open during more accessible periods.
There are many other examples I can cite of proposed budget
increases that will benefit District citizens. But there is another
more important point to be made, too.
The budget before you is the product of cooperation between the
Mayor's office, the City Council, and the Financial Control Board. It
is another step forward in the District's progress toward a budget set
and administered solely by government officials elected by District
citizens. This budget has been agreed upon by every organization
participating in this process. It is a product of difficult decisions
and equitable compromises--a budget that balances economic development,
progress toward tax parity with other jurisdictions, and providing
much-needed social services. With this in mind, I urge the Congress not
to make any significant changes or impose any controversial riders to
this proposed budget. It is the budget proposed by the city, for the
city. As it is, this budget provides the city with adequate funds for
education, health care, public works, and all the fundamentals of urban
life that are so essential to my constituents. With that in mind, I
hope that this committee approves this budget as it stands, with the
intention of doing everything in its power to shepherd this bill
through the Congress intact.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia,
District of Columbia........................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Statement of................................................. 12
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, questions
submitted by................................................... 70
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas:
Opening statement of......................................... 1
Questions submitted by.......................................54, 84
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona, question submitted by.. 53
Rivlin, Dr. Alice, Member, Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, District of Columbia.......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Statement of................................................. 18
Strauss, Paul.................................................... 87
Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan, letter from........ 27
Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, Office of the Mayor, District
of Colum-
bia............................................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Statement of................................................. 3
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Council of the District of Columbia
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 53
Births........................................................... 41
Budget:
Agreement with the Mayor..................................... 16
Fiscal year 2001............................................. 13
Council's review of...................................... 16
Request, Council reports on.................................. 13
CFO, certification by............................................ 15
D.C. general..................................................... 36
Debt:
Issue........................................................ 36
Per capita................................................... 2
Policy....................................................... 2
District compared to other cities................................ 40
Education spending............................................... 2
Exodus from city slowing......................................... 15
Federal funds, percent of........................................ 1
Loans, repayment on.............................................. 53
Management reform savings, $37 million........................... 14
Marijuana possession law......................................... 43
Operational improvement savings.................................. 15
PBC:
Consult for oversight of..................................... 36
Financial status of.......................................... 36
Loans to..................................................... 36
Prenatal care.................................................... 42
Public works, more funding for................................... 15
Reserve.......................................................... 2
Carryover, the freed-up appropriated funds from the.......... 17
Funds........................................................ 2
$150 million................................................. 14
Tiers of spending............................................ 14
Schools, full funding for........................................ 15
Tax:
Cut.......................................................... 2
Rate......................................................... 41
Revenues going up............................................ 43
Unanticipated needs.............................................. 3
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
Accomplishing, six items need.................................... 19
Additional committee questions................................... 84
Adoptions........................................................ 27
Charter schools.................................................. 25
Contingency expenditures......................................... 52
Control:
Board........................................................ 53
Period, end of............................................... 18
Economic development............................................. 20
Financial management policies.................................... 23
Interest bearing fund............................................ 52
Public Benefit Corporation....................................... 20
Reserve fund..................................................... 51
Expenditures of.............................................. 52
School problems--special education, truancy, working relationship
with charter schools........................................... 20
School system reform............................................. 19
Tobacco funds.................................................... 24
University of the District....................................... 20
Office of the Mayor
Additional committee questions................................... 54
Adoptions, $5 million for........................................ 26
Appropriation bill, riders on.................................... 9
Basic obligations, meeting....................................... 39
Brianna Blackmond................................................ 26
Budgets, four consecutive........................................ 4
Charter schools.................................................. 5
City, strategic plan for......................................... 40
Commercial revitalization program................................ 45
Debt policy...................................................... 24
Democracy........................................................ 12
DMV, improvements at............................................. 8
Economic development............................................. 7
Education........................................................ 9
Fire department.................................................. 7
Government:
Efficiency................................................... 11
Right size................................................... 7
Gun buyback program.............................................. 7
Health care...................................................... 8, 11
Management supervisory service................................... 8
Neighborhood:
Action....................................................... 4
Development.................................................. 11
Pell Grant Program............................................... 6
Public works, equipment for...................................... 8
Risk management.................................................. 8
Safe neighborhoods............................................... 6, 11
School funding................................................... 4
Tax cut.......................................................... 38
Technology improvements.......................................... 8
Tuition assistance............................................... 5, 10
Youth:
Initiatives.................................................. 10
Violence..................................................... 5
-