    [Senate Hearing 107-402]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-402

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2944/S. 1543

      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,
                          2002, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                     Child and Family Services Receivership
                              District of Columbia

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     senate
                                     ______

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    70-715                          WASHINGTON : 2002
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \1\

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
                                         MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                     Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

                          MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
    TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio)    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
                                             officio)
                               Professional Staff

                        Mary Beth Nethercutt (Majority)
                           Charles Kieffer (Minority)
                            Kate Eltrich (Minority)

        \1\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--January 25, 2001 to
    June 6, 2001.

        Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
    majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
    President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
    that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
    President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
    the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
    leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
    his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
    2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
    changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
    the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
    again on June 6, 2001.
                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \2\

                    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
    ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    HARRY REID, Nevada                   MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CONRAD BURNS, Montana
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
                         Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
                     Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
                   Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
                Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

                     MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex    TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio)
        officio)
                               Professional Staff

                           Charles Kieffer (Majority)
                            Kate Eltrich (Majority)

        \2\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--July 10, 2001.

        Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
    majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
    President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
    that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
    President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
    the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
    leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
    his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
    2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
    changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
    the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
    again on June 6, 2001.
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            Thursday, March 15, 2001

    Child and Family Services Receivership...........................     1

                            Wednesday, May 16, 2001

    District of Columbia: D.C. Superior Court........................    77

                             Tuesday, July 10, 2001

    District of Columbia: Courts.....................................   129

                            Wednesday, July 11, 2001

    District of Columbia.............................................   173

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:37 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

                     CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES RECEIVERSHIP

                    opening statement of senator mike dewine

        Senator DeWine. Our hearing will come to order. This is the
    first for me as chairman, and the first for Senator Landrieu as
    the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, so we are delighted to
    be here.
        Let me remind all of our witnesses that the full text of
    your statements will, in fact, be made part of the record. We
    ask you to limit your initial comments to 5 minutes apiece, but
    your whole testimony will be submitted for the record, and let
    me just thank each one of you. It is a rarity we had your
    testimony early. It is not a rarity for you, but it is a rarity
    in Congress to get everyone's testimony before the hearing
    starts, and we appreciate it very, very much.
        Without objection, the record will remain open until 5 p.m.
    on Wednesday, March 21, for the submission of any additional
    testimony or responses to questions members have for your
    witnesses.

                           d.c. child welfare system

        We are here today because the District of Columbia child
    welfare system is at a crossroads. It is at a crossroads. It is
    at a crossroads both in terms of responsibility and
    accountability. We are here today to begin to determine if this
    system, a system which, for over a decade has been wrought with
    dysfunction, chaos, tragedy, is finally committed to turning
    itself around.
        We are here to examine what strides, if any, the District
    has made in correcting its laundry list of deficiencies, and
    finally, we are here today to analyze from a budgetary point of
    view what the District's needs are in terms of resources, and
    how those investments can play a part in helping the District
    create a child welfare system that puts the safety and health
    of children first, above all else.
        The simple fact is that every child in foster care, whether
    it is a child here in the District of Columbia, or in
    Cincinnati, or in New Orleans, or anywhere in America deserves
    to live in a safe, stable, loving, and permanent home, with
    loving and caring adults. All children deserve no less.
        Unfortunately, many, too many of our children in this
    country are not getting what they deserve. Tonight, more than
    half a million children in this country will go to bed in homes
    that are not their own homes. Many of these children are at
    risk.
        I first learned this sad fact back in the early 1970's,
    when I was an assistant county prosecuting attorney in Green
    County, Ohio. One of our duties was to represent Green County
    Children's Services in cases where children were going to be
    removed from their parents' custody. I witnessed then that too
    many of these cases drag on endlessly, leaving children trapped
    in temporary foster care placements which often entail multiple
    moves from foster home to foster home to foster home for years
    and years.

                                at-risk children

        At-risk children here in the District of Columbia are no
    exception. In fact, it would appear that these children may be
    at even more risk because of the systemic dysfunction in the
    District's child welfare bureaucracy. Let me explain. Over 10
    years ago, the District's child welfare system was considered
    among the worst in the Nation. In 1989, the American Civil
    Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against the city,
    LaShawn A. v. Barry, arguing that the District was failing to
    protect neglected and abused children.
        In 1991, the case went to trial, where the court ultimately
    found that the District was liable. Following this decision,
    the parties involved in the case developed a remedial action
    plan. The court used this plan as the basis for its modified
    final order, which required the District by law to correct the
    vast deficiencies in its child welfare system.

                                  receivership

        By 1995, however, little had changed, prompting U.S.
    District Judge Thomas Hogan to install a receiver to oversee
    the system and appoint the Center for the Study of Social
    Policy to monitor the District's performance. Today, the
    receivership is still in place, though the city is preparing to
    regain control.
        In order to get that control back, the District must meet
    the terms of the consent order, which was entered by the court
    this past October. The question now is this: Is the District
    ready and able to take control back?

                                   gao report

        A recent GAO report provides us with the most current
    snapshot of the system, which, from all appearances, remains
    below national averages, and far from meeting the goals
    outlined in the consent order. Just listen to a few examples,
    and they do, regrettably, paint a very disturbing picture.
        In 1991, the average stay for children in the District's
    foster care system was 4.8 years. According to the GAO report,
    the average stay for children is 3.7 years. This certainly
    represents progress. It also represents an average foster care
    stay in the District that is twice as long as the national
    average.
        Over 10 years ago, the District continuously failed to
    initiate investigations into reports of neglect or abuse within
    24 hours and complete these investigations within 2 weeks. Now,
    the GAO found that for the recent time period, October 1999 to
    July of the year 2000, still 37 percent, over one-third of
    investigations were still not initiated within 24 hours, while
    52 percent, over one-half of investigations were not completed
    within 30 days.
        Ten years ago, the District consistently failed to ensure
    that children in its custody received timely judicial
    administrative reviews regarding the continued necessity and
    appropriateness of placement. According to the GAO report, the
    District made some progress between 1998 and July 1999 in
    reducing the number of cases with no review at all. However,
    the GAO also found the city made no progress in reducing the
    number of cases with untimely reviews. Moreover, of the cases
    with untimely reviews in July 1999, about half--yes, about 50
    percent--had not been reviewed in more than 1 year.
        Ten years ago, the District's automated information system
    was wholly inadequate for keeping track of the number and
    location of children in the District's custody and their needs.
    Today, the District has a new, automated information system,
    FACES. However, according to the GAO, that system, now a year
    old, cannot produce all the reports required by the modified
    final order. The GAO also found that staff do not fully use the
    system. While District officials estimated that, as of
    September 2000, about half of all case plans had been entered
    into FACES, a superior court judge has indicated that this
    estimate may well overstate the accurate rate of data entry.
        Ten years ago, the cases handled by social workers
    consistently exceeded reasonable professional standards,
    preventing the District from carrying out its responsibilities
    under both Federal and District law. District social workers
    today in 6 of 10 child welfare programs are carrying actual
    case loads that exceed the limit put in place by the court's
    modified final order. Let me repeat that. District social
    workers today in 6 of 10 child welfare programs are carrying
    actual case loads that exceed the limits put in place by the
    court's final order.
        For example, the GAO reports that social workers in the
    District's traditional foster care programs have been carrying
    case loads that range from 13 to 55, as high as 55. That
    compares with the modified final order that sets a limit at 16.
        Now, though some may argue that the District's child
    welfare system is at least in better shape than it was 10 years
    ago, I am not convinced necessarily that it is anywhere close
    to where it should be. A couple of very disturbing recent
    events involving the District's handling of child protective
    matters have fueled everyone's concern. First, there is the
    tragic, well-known case involving 2-year-old Brianna Blackman.

                         adoption and safe families act

        In Brianna's case, she had been placed in foster care for 4
    months due to her mother's consistent neglect and reports of
    abuse. However, a D.C. Superior Court judge ordered Brianna and
    her sister back to their mother on December 23, 1999, despite
    the fact that Brianna's mother, who is mentally retarded, did
    not want Brianna and her sister back. Rather, she only wanted
    her older children returned, because with her limited capacity
    she found them easier to care for.
        Two weeks after being united with her mother, Brianna died
    of severe head injuries. She had been bludgeoned with a belt.
    As stated in the law that I sponsored, and that went into
    effect in November 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
    which incidentally was in effect for at least 2 years before
    Brianna's death, according to that law, when determining
    reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify children with their
    families, the law now states the health and safety of the child
    shall be the paramount concern. The health and safety of the
    child shall be the paramount concern. That is the language in
    the law that went into effect in November of 1997.
        In Brianna's case, from the facts we know, it does not
    appear that this tiny little girl's security, this tiny little
    girl's life was a high priority for the District, nor even a
    priority at all.
        In passing the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which has
    helped increase adoptions, by the way, nation-wide by 30
    percent, it was my hope that children like Brianna would be
    protected, but as Brianna's case tragically demonstrates, the
    District still has a long way to go before that goal is
    reached. As the facts of this case continue to come out, it
    appears that virtually ever agency in the District that
    interacted with this family made a mistake.
        The guardian ad litem assigned to protect Brianna did not
    visit her or the home where she was living. The social worker
    assigned to Brianna did not file her report with the judge in
    time, and had this been done, the judge would have known that
    the social worker did not recommend sending Brianna back to her
    mother.
        The social worker also did not closely inspect the home
    where Brianna would be living, or find out that Brianna's
    mother was illegally living in subsidized housing. Had this
    been done, it would have been clear that Brianna's mother had
    no legal residence, which would have prevented the children
    from being returned to her mother.
        Furthermore, the Mental Retardation and Development
    Disabilities Administration failed to provide Brianna's mother
    with the housing and assistance she needed.
        Next, the judge made the decision to send Brianna back to
    her mother without holding a hearing.
        The Health Department lost track of Brianna and her mother,
    routinely closing the case, rather than providing assistance.
        And finally, the neighborhood health clinic failed to
    follow up on a call that Brianna might be in trouble, and
    waited a full day before notifying authorities.
        All of these errors, all of these unbelievable lapses in
    judgment indicate a total collapse of the system, a complete,
    unquestionable, inexcusable breakdown.

                            reports of sexual abuse

        In a more recent incident, the Washington Post reported
    just last week that at least 150 filed reports of child sexual
    abuse from the years 1999 and 2000 fell through the cracks,
    going uninvestigated by police until they were alerted to a box
    containing a stack of these reports.
        Apparently, the reports went through the District's Child
    and Family Service Agency, but it does remain unclear whether
    they were ever transmitted directly to the city's seven
    district police stations. According to the Washington Post, law
    enforcement sources believe that since the police became aware
    of these missing reports last year, some of the original
    victims have been molested again.
        Stories like this should make us all sick. We, as a
    society, must not tolerate this kind of incompetence, utter
    incompetence. We cannot allow blatantly irresponsible acts like
    this to continue.
        Now, I recognize that the District child welfare system did
    not collapse overnight, and we are well aware that it will not
    be fixed overnight, either, but our oversight responsibility,
    as members of this subcommittee, is to determine if the
    District has adequate resources available to meet its needs so
    that the city can repair itself and can comply with the court-
    ordered consent agreement. We have, I believe, an obligation to
    ensure that budgetary resources are sufficient, and are being
    used effectively and appropriately to get the job done.
        We have an obligation, further, to review the District's
    proposed budget with close congressional scrutiny to ensure
    that any dollars that flow into this system are used for the
    proper protection of the children involved, so yes, a part of
    this hearing is about money. It is about resources. The system
    was broken. The court stepped in and said, in essence, fix it.
        Now, we are here to determine if the District has fixed it,
    and if the city has not, we want to know why not. Is it because
    of a lack of resources? Is it because of the ineffective use of
    resources? Are there sufficient funds available for the city's
    component parts to function together effectively? What are the
    District's goals for the future? Can those goals be met from a
    budgetary perspective? Can additional resources help prevent
    another Brianna from dying? Can additional resources prevent
    cases of sexual molestation from falling through the cracks,
    from going uninvestigated for periods of well over a year?

                              reforming the system

        We are anxious to hear our witnesses and hear the answers
    to these questions. However, this hearing must go beyond
    questions of resources. The fact is that resources are no
    substitute for the kind of responsible management required to
    make the systemic reforms necessary for the District's child
    welfare system to function effectively. In my view, the reform
    of the system should be the District's number 1 priority. Let
    me repeat that. Considering budget, in considering
    responsibility, in considering public policy, there should be
    nothing more important than the protection of the children whom
    this District has in its power, has under its control, and has
    an obligation to protect.
        As the new chairman of this subcommittee, I want to make it
    vividly clear that protecting at-risk children in the District
    is also my number 1 priority, and I intend for the next 2 years
    at least to focus on the children of this District, and I
    intend to focus particularly on those children that are most at
    risk, and many of those children who are most at risk are the
    children who are part of our social system and our child
    protection system.
        This should come as no surprise for anyone. For years,
    especially since coming to the U.S. Senate, I have devoted my
    attention to institutional reform in the foster care and child
    welfare systems across our Nation. The adoption of the Safe
    Families Act essentially was about making the necessary reforms
    to move children from foster care to permanency, and more
    importantly to make the health and welfare of these children
    paramount. I believe it is necessary to see how these reforms
    are impacting the District's child welfare system specifically,
    and to examine how the goals of this important law will work to
    the benefit of all children in our Nation's capital.
        Let me at this point turn to the Ranking Member of this
    committee, Senator Landrieu, someone whom I have worked with,
    and worked with on the Safe Families Act that I have been
    referencing, someone who has really been a leader in the
    protection of children and a leader in the issue of foster care
    and adoption. Senator Landrieu.

                     statement of senator mary l. landrieu

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    all, to our first hearing today, and I want to begin by
    commending the chairman for his extraordinary work and focus in
    this area during the time that he has been in the Senate, and I
    have had the privilege to join him on many bills, particularly
    the Adoption and Safe Families Act as an original cosponsor,
    and so his leadership has just been an extraordinary help to
    us.
        He is the father of eight children. He comes at this issue
    from a lot of real personal experience, and so I want to
    commend him. I have a lengthy statement for the record, but I
    would like to associate myself with the remarks of the
    chairman. He and I think very much along the same lines in this
    regard, so it is not necessary for me to repeat all of the
    statistics and history, which he did in an excellent and
    wonderful way.
        I would just like to note, however, having worked in this
    area of child welfare for many, many years, that many of the
    issues that the District is facing today are not necessarily
    unique to the District, that communities and States around the
    Nation are really struggling with this problem. We are well
    aware of that. In my own State of Louisiana, we are also faced
    with overburdened case workers, backlogs in reports, too many
    children in care for too long, a disappointing, in my opinion,
    lack of focus on permanency and adoption, minimizing options
    for families, and I could go on and on.
        So we must keep our focus in this hearing through our
    budget process on the budget of D.C., and I also want to join
    the chairman in saying that this will be my number one
    priority, as a new member of the Appropriations Committee, to
    keep my focus on helping the District, that it is not
    necessarily only unique to the District of Columbia.
        I also want to bring out, and I am so pleased that the
    chairman will not let us forget the tragedy surrounding Brianna
    Blackman's death. I also note that just a few months ago, not
    too far from here, in the State of Virginia, Caitlin Frasier
    suffered the same horrible fate, and I could give hundreds of
    examples.
        So let us just remember that this really is a national
    crisis. It really is going to require a national focus and
    national solutions. We will continue, as we have done in the
    past several years, to sponsor bills and amendments and new
    approaches in giving new tools to local officials as we work
    through these difficulties, but it is important for us to stay
    focused, to know that we have made some incremental progress
    here, but there is a lot to do.
        I will only say this, that while it is a complicated
    problem, in this Senator's opinion there are solutions. There
    are clearly solutions that work. There have been turn-arounds,
    success stories all over this Nation. We know what works. There
    are some wonderful best practices out there, and it is my hope
    that as I listen and learn more about what you all have been
    through in the last couple of years, that I can help to get
    those tools into your hands to help shape a solution so that
    the thousands of children that the chairman has pointed our
    attention to can receive help quickly.

                               prepared statement

        Their needs are urgent, their needs are real, and I for one
    am not going to be one of the people that says it is just too
    much, we just cannot do it, there are no solutions. I know
    there are, and I am looking forward to working with you to find
    them.
        Thank you so much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Good Morning. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the
    witnesses for giving of their time to come and share with us the
    progress they have made and the remaining challenges they still face in
    the child welfare system in the District of Columbia. I sincerely
    believe that there is no greater accomplishment one can achieve in this
    world than making a difference in the life of a child. Yet, I also
    understand that this type of work is uniquely demanding, with little
    thanks and even less glory. So, I thank you.
        It has been said that there is no such thing as a simple solution
    to a complex problem. For a number of reasons, I think that that maxim
    applies to the topic of this hearing today. To think that one hearing,
    one bill, one reform, one court order or one person can single handedly
    solve the problems facing the child welfare system in DC would be a
    mistake. The solution to this very complex problem lies in system wide
    reform, led by the Mayor and those he sees fit to appoint. This process
    will require continued support and financial investment by the federal
    government. And above all else, it will require that the district be
    willing to do what, quite truthfully, is hard for many governments to
    do--to put their children's needs first instead of last.
        It has also been said that an undefined problem has an infinite
    number of solutions. For me, exploration is the best use of this
    hearing, and perhaps future hearings on this issue. To encourage the
    district to explore their challenges, assist them in developing real
    short term and long term solutions and most importantly, determine what
    the federal government, through its appropriation power, can do to
    supplement and support those reforms. In my view, this is not a
    situation in which it would be prudent for us to give ``unfunded
    mandates.'' Rather, we should use our unique relationship and
    responsibilities to the district to help them to help themselves.
        Child Welfare experts from across the country have been a part of
    drafting their plans for reform. Others have reviewed this plan and
    agree that it is based on the best practices of other successful reform
    efforts. What the District needs now is the freedom to implement this
    plan and the tools necessary to make it work.
        As a child welfare advocate, I think it is important to note that
    many of the child welfare issues faced by the district are not unique
    to this city. In my own state of Louisiana, they are also faced with
    overburdened caseworkers, back logs in the courts, and too many
    children in care for too long. While we must keep our focus on the
    tragic death of the little girl from DC foster care, Brianna Blackmond,
    we must also remind ourselves that two months ago a little girl from
    Virginia, Katelyn Frazier, suffered the same horrible fate. The foster
    care crisis is a national crisis. Reforms made in DC can and should be
    coordinated with nationwide reform for children in care.
        This is not to say that there are not issues here that are unique
    to DC. There are and that is why it is so important to allow the Mayor
    and the newly created agency to have the flexibility necessary to
    address the challenges. DC suffers from a more desperate lack of
    qualified caseworkers. The national shortage in these types of
    professionals is hardest felt here. In addition, their inability to
    recruit foster parents far exceeds the national scope of this problem.
    Finally, the demographics of their children pose unique challenges that
    need to be addressed.
        I look forward to hearing from the officials present about their
    renewed vision for the future of the child welfare system in DC.

        Senator DeWine. We will now turn to our first panel. Deputy
    Mayor Carolyn Graham is currently the Deputy Mayor for
    Children, Youth, and Families, formerly serving as the Senior
    Policy Advisor to the Mayor for Children and Youth. She has had
    an extensive career in the field of human services and
    nonprofits, at one time serving as the Director of the Human
    Services Department of Broward County, Florida. She has a
    master's of education degree from Antioch College, and a master
    of public administration, City University of New York, and a
    master of divinity from New York Theological Seminary.
        Sondra Jackson currently is the interim receiver for the
    Department of Child and Family Services, and we welcome her as
    well.
        Judith Meltzer is the senior associate at the Center for
    the Study of Social Policy. The Center for the Study of Social
    Policy is a nonprofit policy research and technical assistance
    organization located in the District of Columbia. From 1992 to
    1995, and from January 1997 to the present, the Center for the
    Study of Social Policy has served as the court-appointed
    monitor of the District's child welfare system under LaShawn A.
    v. Barry.
        Eric Thompson, our fourth panel member, is currently with
    Children's Rights, Incorporated, formerly of the American Civil
    Liberties Union's Children's Rights Project, who brought the
    class action lawsuit of LaShawn A. v. Barry.
        Welcome, all of you. We thank you very much for coming. I
    think what we will do is start from my right, which would be
    your left, with Ms. Graham, and we will just work our way right
    down the list. As I indicated to the panel members, Congressman
    DeLay is on his way, and when he gets here we will put him on
    because of his schedule, and we will interrupt the testimony at
    that point. If you could limit your comments to about 5
    minutes, then we will go from there, and in fact I see Mr.
    DeLay at this point. Congressman, thank you for joining us. We
    are going to put you right on, and the timing could not have
    been better. You have not been subjected to my lengthy opening
    statement----
        Senator Landrieu. Which was excellent, though long.
        Senator DeWine. But I will send you a copy of it.
        Mr. DeLay. Thank you, sir.
        Senator DeWine. Let me introduce Hon. Tom DeLay, who in
    addition to his leadership in the House of Representatives in
    general has been a real leader in this whole area of adoption
    and foster care, and anything that has to do with children, you
    can bet Congressman DeLay is going to be involved in it.
        He brings a personal interest to this as well as a public
    policy interest. He is someone who has acted on that personal
    interest, and someone who has taken his leadership position in
    the House of Representatives and used that as a bully pulpit
    for children. Congressman, thank you very much for joining us,
    and the floor is yours.
    STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM DeLAY, MAJORITY WHIP, U.S.
                HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
        Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Senator, and Mr. Chairman, and
    Senator Landrieu. I greatly appreciate your holding this
    hearing. It is a very important issue that you are looking at
    today, and I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but what
    you failed to say is, I am very direct, and I am going to be
    direct this morning.
        What has been going on in Washington, DC, although a lot of
    people are working right now and doing a great job, including
    the mayor, this is an issue that is a travesty. We need to
    focus on the best interests of the children, so I am glad to be
    here with you this morning, and I am glad that we share a
    commitment to demand accountability from the system that
    protects children in the District of Columbia.
        Both the foster care system and the city's court system
    have to change before the District's children will begin
    receiving the protection that they so urgently need. Resolving
    the problems plaguing the District's foster care system will
    require a very thorough and probing analysis, and frankly some
    very hard decisions.
        We begin with an unavoidable consensus: the current system
    is flawed, and that system is flawed because some abused
    children are still languishing in foster care for almost 4
    years. Other children lose their lives because people in the
    District's systems did not do their jobs.

                         Adoption and safe families act

        Many of us were concerned by the plight of children trapped
    in the District's child welfare system long before public
    attention focused on its shortcomings. In 1997, we passed in
    Congress the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Senator DeWine,
    thanks to you, with your hard work in passing this legislation,
    our goal was to make the child's health and safety the
    paramount concern, while deciding where to place abused
    children.
        We hoped that this legislation would finally begin a
    transformation to a system that places the best interest of the
    children within that system first. That is certainly not
    happening today, because the current system still does not
    work. I think that is intolerable, and we should not accept it.
        We now know that the benefits of the foster care reform
    legislation have not been realized in Washington, DC, because
    the District simply did not move aggressively enough to embrace
    the required changes. That will only happen if the District
    takes the concrete steps needed to create an effective system.
    These include but are not limited to putting children's
    interests first, making timely judicial decisions, shortening
    the time in foster care, and establishing a safe, permanent
    placement as priority.

                              reforming the System

        Unfortunately, it took the death of yet another innocent
    child to expose the lamentable state of the District's foster
    care system to the public eye. It will only be through the
    sustained attention of men and women in the District that the
    system will be reformed, and only reform will ensure that
    children will not be further harmed by the system tasked with
    protecting them.
        Those of us calling for accountability have taken some
    criticism of late. Opponents of reform claim that the catalyst
    of our attention has been the headlines surrounding Brianna
    Blackman's death. Well, I, for one, am still upset by the
    filings that killed Brianna, but her tragic death only
    exacerbated concerns we already had with shortcomings in many
    foster care systems around this country.
        The truth is that we are trying to prevent the additional
    deaths that will inevitably flow from a system that is
    recklessly incompetent and unaccountable. We have also got to
    make certain that the District does not continue allowing
    children to linger endlessly in foster care. We need to speed
    their transition to permanent placement.
        We are here today to get a status report on the steps the
    District is taking to meet these unmet needs, and I am glad
    that Mayor Williams shares our frustration, and has done an
    incredible job in standing up to some incredible opposition. I
    also think he shares our determination to mandate the changes
    that will protect children in Washington, DC.
        We can only hope that the people empowered to protect
    children will put aside parochial concerns and make the
    children's best interests their sole overriding criterion. When
    that happens, I think the District will finally be on the right
    track, and I want to work closely with those of you in the
    Senate to move the District's foster care system from
    receivership to a successful program that can be a model for
    reform, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing.
        Senator DeWine. Congressman, thank you very much. We really
    appreciate your testimony. We will let you go back to the other
    side, and we just appreciate your commitment. We know that this
    is the first of probably several hearings that we are going to
    hold, and we look forward to working with you to help the
    District resolve these issues.
        Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you. We appreciate it very much.
        Ms. Graham, thank you.
    STATEMENT OF CAROLYN N. GRAHAM, DEPUTY MAYOR, OFFICE OF
                THE MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Ms. Graham. Good morning, Senator DeWine, and Senator
    Landrieu. I am Carolyn Graham, Deputy Mayor for Children,
    Youth, and Families in the District of Columbia, and on behalf
    of Mayor Anthony A. Williams I welcome the opportunity to
    testify at this oversight hearing today, and wish to commend
    each of you for the work that you have done on the Adoption and
    Safe Families Act.

                                 Receiverships

        As you know, the quality of our child welfare system in the
    District of Columbia has been a longstanding concern for the
    city. In September of last year, I testified before the House
    of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee
    on the District of Columbia, that it was time for the Child
    Welfare Agency to return to the control of the Mayor. I told
    the committee that although some improvements had been made
    during the receivership in terms of infrastructure within CFSA,
    substantial improvements have not been seen in terms of case
    practice and better permanency outcomes for children.
        I also testified at that time that receiverships are not
    intended as permanent solutions, and further, that this
    administration has clearly demonstrated a commitment to
    improving the child welfare system in the city. I am thus
    pleased to report to you today that, following that hearing, a
    consent order was approved by the U.S. District Court on
    October 23, 2000, in the LaShawn case.
        In this order, the Federal court approved the parties'
    agreement to terminate the receivership and return the agency
    to the control of the District of Columbia upon the
    satisfaction of four specific conditions. The first is the
    enactment of legislation to unify the child welfare system, and
    to establish the CFSA as a Cabinet-level agency. The second is
    the promulgation of regulations for foster and group homes, the
    third is the selection of a Director, and the fourth is the
    Director's selection of a senior management team for the
    agency. We are well on our way to satisfying each of these
    conditions.
        The legislation to unify the agency and to establish it as
    a Cabinet-level was developed and is now in Congress, going
    through its 30-day approval process. We would expect that, by
    the end of this month, that process will have been completed.
    The regulations for foster homes and group homes will be
    published in the District Register within the next 30 days. A
    search firm has nearly completed its work in the identification
    of a director for the agency. We expect to select this
    individual by next month, and anticipate that the senior
    management team will be in place in May 2001.
        Based on our progress to date, we expect the receivership
    to terminate, and the Child Welfare Agency to return to the
    control of the Mayor before the end of the current calendar
    year. We also are aggressively moving to implement the
    emergency child welfare reform plan that was submitted to the
    House of Representatives following the September 2000 hearing.

                              Mayor's reform plan

        This reform plan was developed by the Mayor, and has six
    major areas of foci. One is the unification of the child
    welfare system, development of an integrated approach to the
    investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect, the
    development of a neighborhood-based service delivery system,
    augmentation and reconfiguration of the legal staffing in the
    Office of Corporation Counsel in order to more expeditiously
    process abuse and neglect and adoption cases, the collaboration
    with the D.C. Superior Court, and the Council for Court
    Excellence, to address the backlog of adoption and foster care
    cases, and to explore family court models.

                      CFSA's information management system

        Finally, the integration of CFSA's information management
    system into the District's newly developed safe passages
    information system. Here again, I am pleased to report that
    significant progress has been achieved. Regarding the systems'
    unification, we are working with the American Humane
    Association to train staff and to move that program component
    of abuse that the Court currently have into the Child Welfare
    Agency. With respect to the interstate compact for the
    placement of children, we are also moving that into the Child
    Welfare Agency. The agency will assume responsibility for this
    function as of April 1.
        Child abuse investigations. On March 7, we took major
    strides towards improving our system for investigating and
    prosecuting child abuse cases. An MOU was signed by all of the
    agencies responsible for the investigation, and prosecution of
    child abuse. This agreement will ensure that children are
    interviewed only once during a child abuse investigation.
        The neighborhood based service delivery system, we are
    exploring ways to expand that network now. Chapin Hall, a
    premier child welfare research and technical assistance
    organization, conducted an initial assessment of the current
    private service provider's capacity, and a follow-up assessment
    is currently being planned. With respect to legal resources, we
    are substantially increasing the legal resources for the child
    welfare agency. The Office of Corporation Counsel is now
    beginning the process of hiring more than 30 new legal and
    paralegal staff to process abuse and neglect complaints, as
    well as termination of parental rights petitions and adoptions.
        With respect to the family court, as you perhaps know, the
    Superior Court is currently undertaking an internal assessment
    to determine the best strategy to pursue for establishing such
    a court. It should be noted that resources still appear to be a
    significant issue for the court. The Mayor has met on several
    occasions to discuss his support of the court's adoption of a
    family court model. While not being prescriptive, Mayor
    Williams has stressed the need for such a court, and his
    willingness to support the court's adequate resourcing in order
    to bring a family court to the District of Columbia.

                                     Faces

        With respect to the information system, work has begun to
    integrate CFSA's information system, FACES, into the District's
    Safe Passages information system. Safe Passages will ultimately
    combine information from all of the agencies in the city that
    serve children, including child welfare, juvenile justice,
    mental health, the Department of Health, early intervention,
    and the public school system.
        This system will allow us to look across agencies and
    identify the services the children are receiving, as well as
    determine spending on a per-child basis. Safe Passages will
    also facilitate interagency communication and a coordinated
    case management approach to addressing the needs of our
    children in the city.
        The child welfare system is, indeed, a top priority for
    this administration. Among other things, this is reflected in
    this administration's fiscal year 2002 budget submission. The
    Mayor has requested $188 million in funding for the Child
    Welfare Agency. This constitutes full funding of the consent
    order. It represents 11.8 percent over the fiscal year 2001
    approved budget. In dollars, this translates into approximately
    $20 million new dollars over fiscal year 2001's approved
    budget.
        Senator DeWine. Ms. Graham, could we ask you to wrap up,
    please?
        Ms. Graham. Yes, sir.
        Senator DeWine. We would appreciate it.

                               prepared statement

        Ms. Graham. In closing, the administration looks forward to
    regaining responsibility for the full functions of this agency
    on a day-to-day basis. We are committed to working with all
    stakeholders to better protect our children from abuse and
    neglect, and to quickly find permanent homes for those children
    who cannot live safely with their parents.
        I thank you for this opportunity.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Carolyn N. Graham

        Good morning Senator DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the
    Committee. I am Carolyn N. Graham, Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and
    Families in the District of Columbia. On behalf of Mayor Anthony A.
    Williams, I welcome the opportunity to testify at this oversight
    hearing today.
        As you know, the quality of our Child Welfare System has been a
    longstanding concern for the City. The City has been under a Federal
    court order since 1991 and the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA)
    has been in some form of receivership since 1994.
        In September of last year, I testified before the House of
    Representatives (Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the
    District of Columbia) that it was time for the Child Welfare Agency to
    return to the control of mayor. I told the Committee that, although
    some improvements have been made during the receivership in terms of
    infrastructure within CFSA, substantial improvements have not yet been
    seen in terms of case practice and better permanency outcomes for
    children.
        I also testified at that time that receiverships are not intended
    as permanent solutions and, further, that this administration has
    clearly demonstrated a commitment to improving the Child Welfare System
    in this city.
        I am thus pleased to report to you today that, following that
    hearing, a consent order was approved by the United States District
    Court on October, 23, 2000 in the Lashawn case. In this order, the
    Federal court approved the parties' agreement to the terminate the
    receivership and return the agency to the control of the District
    Government upon the satisfaction of four specific conditions:
      --First, the enactment of legislation to unify the Child Welfare
            System and establish CFSA as a Cabinet-Level Agency with
            independent personnel, procurement and licensing authority,
            consistent with District of Columbia Law;
      --Second, the promulgation of regulations for Foster and Group Homes;
      --Third, the selection of a CFSA Director; and
      --Fourth, the selection, by the new Director, of a Senior Management
            Team for CFSA.
        We are well on our way to satisfaction of each of these conditions:
      --The legislation to unify the Child Welfare System and establish
            CFSA as a Cabinet Level Agency was developed by the Mayor and
            approved by the District Council. It was forwarded to Congress
            for the 30-day Congressional review period and should be
            enacted on March 30, 2001.
      --Regulations for Foster Homes and Group Homes have been drafted
            (with extensive stakeholder input) and will be published in thE
            DC register within the next 30 days.
      --A Search firm has been engaged through George Washington
            University's Center for excellence in Municipal Government to
            help us with conducting a national search for a CFSA Director.
            This work is being supported by a generous grant from the Annie
            E. Casey Foundation. The first round of candidate interviews
            for the position of Child Welfare Agency Director has been
            completed. We expect to select a Director by next month and
            anticipate that the senior management team will be in place
            during May 2001.
        Based on our progress to date, we expect the receivership to
    terminate and the Child Welfare Agency to return to the control of the
    Mayor before the middle of the current calendar year.
        We are also aggressively moving forward to implement the emergency
    Child WeLfare Reform Plan that was submitted to the U.S. House of
    Representatives following the September 2000 hearing. This reform plan
    was developed by the Mayor and has six major areas of focus:
      --Unification of the Child Welfare System, the functions of which are
            currently split among CFSA, the Metropolitan Police Department
            and the Social Services Division of the District of Columbia
            Superior Court;
      --Development of an integrated approach to the investigation and
            prosecution of child abuse and neglect;
      --Development of a neighborhood-based service delivery system through
            expanded partnerships with community service providers;
      --Augmentation and reconfiguration of legal staffing in order to more
            expeditiously process abuse and neglect and adoption cases and
            in order to provide more direct legal support to CFSA Social
            Workers;
      --Collaboration with the D.C. Superior Court and the Council for
            Court Excellence to address the backlog of adoption and foster
            care cases and to explore family court models; and
      --Integration of CFSA'S information management system into the
            District's newly developing safe passages information system.
        Here again, I am pleased to report significant progress.
      --System Unification.--As I noted above, the Legislation to unify the
            Child Welfare System was passed by the Council and is under
            Congressional review. In addition, we have contracted with the
            American Humane Association--a nationally renowned expert in
            Child Welfare System Reform--to assist with ending bifurcation
            and to manage the process of transferring Court Social Services
            (CSS) staff and cases to the Child and Family Services Agency.
            Indeed, planning for the transfer is underway. We negotiated a
            Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Superior Court that
            establishes the conditions that must be met in order to
            transfer CSS' staff to CFSA. We are currently negotiating terms
            for the transfer of the CSS employees with the personnel
            director at the Superior Court. The American Humane Society is
            working with Representatives from CFSA and CSS to develop the
            programmatic aspects of the transfer, which we hope to
            accomplish by October 1, 2001.
      --ICPC.--The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children--known
            as ICPC--is also being transferred to CFSA pursuant to the
            October 23, 2000 consent order and the new enabling
            legislation. this function is required when children from the
            District are placed in other states. previously, the function
            was handled by the District's Department of Human Services.
            CFSA staff are currently being trained by the American Public
            Human Services Association (APHSA) to assume this function. The
            agency will assume the responsibility on April 1, 2001.
      --Child Abuse Investigation.--On March 7, 2001, we took major strides
            toward improving our system for investigating and prosecuting
            child abuse. An MOU was signed by all of the agencies
            responsible for the investigation and prosecution of child
            abuse. this agreement will ensure that children are interviewed
            only once during a child abuse investigation and that this
            interview will be conducted in a place that is friendly to
            children by someone who is an expert in working with children.
            Previously, children had to endure multiple interviews with
            multiple agencies, further traumatizing them. This agreement
            was signed by the Mayor, the United States Attorney, the
            Superior Court, the Child and Family Services Agency, the
            Office of Corporation Counsel, the Safe Shores Children's
            Advocacy Center, Children's National Medical Center, the
            Commission on Mental Health Services, and the D.C. Public
            Schools. The MOU establishes a clear process that will
            facilitate appropriate communication and collaboration amongst
            these agencies.
      --Neighborhood-Based Services.--We are continuing to partner with
            community-based organizations, which are working in our
            neighborhoods with families. We are exploring expanding our
            partnerships with private service providers. Chapin Hall--a
            premiere Child Welfare Research and Technical Assistance
            Organization--conducted an initial assessment of current
            private service provider capacity and a follow-up assessment is
            now being planned. Once this work is complete, we will be able
            to determine the degree to which we might increase our use of
            these agencies.
      --Legal Resources.--We are substantially increasing legal resources
            for the Child Welfare Agency. The Office of Corporation Counsel
            is now beginning the process of hiring more than 30 new legal
            and paralegal staff to process abuse and neglect complaints as
            well as termination of parental rights petitions and adoptions.
            The Mayor's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of
            Corporation Counsel includes approximately $1.9 million in
            additional funding in order to maintain these new positions.
      --Family Court.--As you perhaps know, the Superior Court is currently
            undertaking an internal assessment to determine the best
            strategy to pursue. It should be noted that resources still
            appear to be a significant issue for the court. The Mayor has
            met on several occasions to discuss his support of the court's
            adoption of a family court model. While not being prescriptive,
            Mayor Williams has stressed the need for such a court and his
            willingness to support the court's adequate resourcing in order
            to bring a Family Court to scale in the District.
      --Information System.--Work has begun to integrate CFSA's information
            system--``FACES''--into the District's safe passages
            information system. Safe passages will ultimately combine
            information from all of the agencies in the city that serve
            children, including Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Mental
            Health, Department of Health, Early Intervention and the Public
            School System. This system will allow us to look across
            agencies and identify the services children are receiving as
            well as determine spending on a per child basis. Safe passages
            will facilitate interagency communication and a coordinated
            case management approach to addressing the needs of children.
        Child Welfare is a top priority for this administration. Among
    other things, this is reflected in this administration's fiscal year
    2002 budget submission. The Mayor has requested $188 million in funding
    for the Child Welfare Agency. This constitutes full funding.
        We are taking every opportunity to ensure that there is a seamless
    transition of CfSA back to the Mayor's control through the development
    of linkages between the Child Welfare System and our Health and Human
    Service Agencies.
      --The CFSA receiver participates in twice-monthy meetings with the
            Directors of all our Human Service Agencies. This provides an
            opportunity to identify and resolve cross-agency issues.
      --CFSA participates in several interagency work groups coordinated by
            the Mayor's Office, including one focusing on developing
            community-based services for children with mental health needs.
            This group is focusing on bringing foster children who are in
            out-of-state mental health facilities home to the District by
            developing the needed services here in the city. This work is
            being supported by the Casey Family Program.
      --A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between CFSA and the
            Department of Health's Addiction Prevention and Recovery
            Administration (APRA). Under this MOU, APRA will be developing
            and implementing detoxification and Substance Abuse Treatment
            Services and Programs for children and families in the Child
            Welfare System.
        In addition to initiatives directly related to the Child Welfare
    System, this administration is also taking a very proactive and
    preventive approach to improving child well-being as evidenced by the
    following:
      --Establishmnent of Neighborhood based Parent Development Centers;
      --Implementation of home visits to families with newborns and young
            children; and
      --Significant expansion of after school programs for children and
            youth.
        Indeed, the Child Welfare Agency returns to the city at an exciting
    time as we embark upon a major initiative to rebuild our Human Services
    Network in the District. We are now developing a plan to establish a
    system of ``Neighborhood Places'' throughout the City. These
    neighborhood places will be centers in neighborhoods where public
    services for children and families will be available and integrated
    across agency lines. In other words, there will be one place in a
    neighborhood where you can go to get child care, medicaid, food stamps,
    SSI, TANF, and employment information and services. Ultimately, Child
    Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Health and Mental Health Services will be
    aliged with these neighborhood places. These centers will also be
    closely linked to existing private and faith-based networks, ensuring
    that families benefit from the range of community partners who are
    already working in these neighborhoods. The vision is of a seamless
    system of Human Services that families can access in the neighborhoods
    where they live. A primary focus of these centers will be on supporting
    families so that child abuse and neglect does not occur in the first
    place.
        In closing, this administration looks forward to regaining
    responsibility for the full functions and the day-to-day operations of
    the Child Welfare Agency. We are committed to working with all
    stakeholders to better protect children from abuse and neglect and to
    quickly find permanent homes for those children who cannot live safely
    with their parents. The City's children deserve no less than this. I
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before the distinguished
    members of this committee and am happy to answer any questions that you
    may have.

        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
        Ms. Jackson.
    STATEMENT OF SONDRA JACKSON, ACTING CHIEF, CHILD AND
                FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA
        Ms. Jackson. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator
    Landrieu. My name is Sondra Jackson, and I am the court-
    appointed interim general receiver for the Child & Family
    Services Agency. I was appointed in December 2000. However, I
    have worked with the agency in an effort to bring the agency
    into compliance with the modified final order for 3\1/2\ years
    now. I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on
    the status of the Child and Family Services Agency,
    particularly as the agency begins the transition back into the
    District of Columbia.
        I would like to begin my testimony by highlighting some of
    the accomplishments CFSA has made that I believe make
    transitioning possible at this time.

                                   Challenges

        The District of Columbia has been confronted with many
    challenges over the past 3 years. There have also been some
    successes. We have exceeded our performance goals in areas of
    the child welfare system such as increasing the number of
    adoptions by about 49 percent, increasing the number of foster
    homes by about 16 percent, and improving Federal reimbursement
    by 22 percent from last year.
        We have also developed D.C. Kids, our health care program,
    which is designed to provide comprehensive health services for
    children. In other words, we are doing mental health
    screenings, physical health screenings, comprehensive exams,
    and now over 80 percent of all of these children have been put
    into a health care tracking system.
        We also want to expand our family preservation and support
    services by the use of community based partners, and I think it
    is going to be important that we continue that effort in the
    District of Columbia.
        The fastest-growing population in child welfare today is
    relative care. We have over 2,545 children in the city in our
    system placed with relatives. The agency will need to continue
    to develop supports for relatives. So far, we have a 4(e)
    demonstration project that works with the community to try to
    enhance the services for relatives.
        We also have a kinship-guardianship program, subsidized
    guardianship program, which starts within a month. The
    automated system that you referenced, Faces, is undergoing
    modifications this year, and enhancements. We are excited to
    work with the Mayor's office on integrating our system into the
    city's child information system.
        The agency continues to work to achieve greater interagency
    cooperation with other agencies in the city. The Superior Court
    is important, the Corporation Council, the Metropolitan Police
    Department are all important agencies in terms of coming into
    compliance with the Adoptions and Safe Families Act.
        In addition, the agency must form a better relationship
    with other District agencies that offer specialized services
    for children, such as D.C. Public Schools, the Mental Health
    Commission, and the Addictions Prevention Recovery
    Administration. We are funding several initiatives with these
    agencies to develop specific services for children in the child
    welfare population.
        Appropriate staffing levels continue to be a major concern
    for CFSA, and we have put in incentive packages which have
    recently been approved by the Mayor and the city council. CFSA
    also continues to recruit individuals with bachelor level
    degrees in social work to augment the service delivery. As you
    know, all of our social workers are master's level people.
        A major challenge, though, has been in retaining workers,
    and there are several problems with that. The one that I think
    we are going to try to find a solution to is to get adequate
    legal representation for our social workers in the court to
    help prepare workers as they go into their hearings. The agency
    is transferring $1 million to the Corporation Counsel to make
    this happen.
        CFSA wants to improve and recruit foster parents. We have
    several projects with foundations to help us accomplish this.
        Senator DeWine. Ms. Jackson, if you could just wrap up
    please, we would appreciate it.
        Ms. Jackson. Okay. Finally, CFSA is working with the city
    and plaintiffs in transitioning the agency back. We have had
    satisfactory relations as we attempt to do this.

                               prepared statement

        In conclusion, I want the committee to know that we are
    very concerned about our children, that we continue to work
    closely to provide better services, and I thank the committee
    for hearing me.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Sondra Jackson

        Good morning Chairman Dewine and members of the Subcommittee. My
    name is Sondra Jackson and I am the court-appointed Interim General
    Receiver for the Child and Family Services Agency. I have served in the
    capacity of Interim General Receiver since December 2000. Thank you for
    the opportunity to provide testimony on the status of the Child and
    Family Services Agency, particularly as the Agency begins the
    transition back into the District of Columbia government.
        The Child and Family Services Agency operates under the mandates of
    the Modified Final Order (MFO) issued by U.S. District Court Judge
    Thomas F. Hogan in January 1994. For the past three (3) years, I have
    been a part of the Agency's efforts to bring this Agency into
    compliance with the requirements of the Modified Final Order. Although
    there are areas that still need improvement, I believe that we have
    made significant progress.
        I would like to begin my testimony today by highlighting some of
    the accomplishments CFSA has made under the current Receivership that
    make transitioning back into the District of Columbia government
    possible at this time, and conclude by providing the Subcommittee with
    an update on CFSA's role in the transition.
                              cfsa accomplishments
        While the Child Welfare system in the District of Columbia has been
    confronted with many challenges this past year, there has also been
    significant improvement and progress over the last three years. I am
    pleased to report briefly on a number of accomplishments for fiscal
    year 2000, and the status of the Agency's performance goals and targets
    contained in our fiscal year 2001 budget document.
    Fiscal year 2000 Performance Goals and Targets
        CFSA targeted a 32 percent increase in the availability of
    neighborhood based services to children and families through the
    Healthy Families collaboratives. A 33 percent increase was achieved;
    from 987 to 1,316 families.
        CFSA targeted a 100 percent rate of safely protecting children
    within their families. A rate of 97 percent was achieved; 7,435 out of
    7,641.
        CFSA targeted a 40 percent increase in the number of finalized
    adoptions. A 37 percent increase was achieved; from 250 to 343.
        CFSA targeted a 15 percent reduction in the length of time between
    the decision to pursue adoption and finalized adoption. A 44 percent
    reduction was achieved; from 2.36 to 1.32 years.
        CFSA targeted a 33.6 percent increase in federal reimbursement
    under titles IV-E, XVI (SSI), and XIX (Medicaid). A 22.6 percent
    increase was achieved; from $45.6 to $55.8 million.
        CFSA targeted a 10 percent increase in the number of licensed
    foster care homes. A 16 percent increase was achieved; from 437 to 507.
    DC KIDS
        The DC KIDS Health Care Program was implemented in fiscal year
    2000. This health system was developed to ensure that children entering
    the care and supervision of the Agency receive a full health screening
    and follow-up health care. Approximately 80 percent of all foster care
    children were enrolled in DC Kids. We are currently in the process of
    reviewing the existing contract, which expires September 30, 2001, and
    re-negotiating a new contract to ensure that this system of services
    continues to meet the needs of the children we serve. In addition, we
    are also in discussions with Children's Hospital to provide a full
    range of health care services for all children, including those
    currently served by Court Social Services, and to expand services
    specifically for child victims of sexual abuse.
    Community-Based Services
        Expanding family preservation and supportive services in the
    community is critical to achieving compliance with the Adoptions and
    Safe Families Act, regardless of whether a child resides in the home,
    with a relative, with an adoptive parent, or in foster care. Using
    neighborhood supports and the professional help of social workers from
    the Agency, we have been able to augment the strengths of the families
    in their own communities. It is not good practice to remove children
    from everything they know and love if a nurturing, safe, and supportive
    home can be found where they live.
    Kinship Care
        In fiscal year 2000, CFSA provided services to 986 families with
    2,545 children living with kin in their communities. The number of
    children in kinship care, who might otherwise have been removed from
    their community, increased 22 percent from fiscal year 1999.
    ``Connecting Families'' is a five year Title IV-E Child Welfare
    Demonstration Program which was launched in fiscal year 2000. This
    project will assist CFSA in documenting the effectiveness of a service
    delivery system that relies on community-based partners to provide
    concrete support and services to kinship families.
        In addition, CFSA is in the process of launching a kinship
    guardianship subsidy program for relative caregivers. The regulations
    needed to implement this program are being reviewed by the Office of
    Corporation Counsel and are expected to be published in the D.C.
    Register by April 2001.
    Policy Manual
        The Agency has developed and updated policies for all major
    components of child welfare service delivery, including Intake and
    Investigations, Foster Care Services, Placement, Kinship and Family
    Services, and Monitoring Homes. These policies have been converted to
    an online format for easy staff use and regular updates.
    FACES/Child Welfare Information System
        The Agency's automated system, FACES, was succesfully implemented
    in fiscal year 2000. Its functionality includes the critical components
    to support service delivery, tracking and financial management. To
    date, interfaces between FACES and the District's SOAR and ACEDS
    systems have been completed. Interface requirements for the DC KIDS
    program and the Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement
    remain under development. Modifications and enhancements to the FACES
    system will continue during fiscal year 2001. In addition, CFSA has
    actively participated in the Mayor's Safe Passages Child Information
    System project with the expectation that FACES information will be
    integrated into the District-wide system.
    Training and Staff Development
        In 1999 the Agency contracted with Virginia Commonwealth University
    (VCU) to deliver comprehensive training. During fiscal year 2000, the
    CFSA/VCU Training Project held 50 training courses, conducted 110 days
    of training, and trained 887 CFSA staff.
                          fiscal year 2001 highlights
    Inter-Agency Initiatives
        The Agency continues to work to achieve greater inter-agency
    cooperation between CFSA and the D.C. Superior Court, Corporation
    Counsel, and the Metropolitan Police Department in fulfilling the
    mandates of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. In addition, CFSA has
    initiated memoranda of understanding and issued requests for proposals
    to improve the Agency's ability to ensure mental health and substance
    services to the children and families currently served by the child
    welfare system. In this regard, CFSA has worked very closely with the
    Commission on Mental Health Services and the Addiction Prevention
    Recovery Administration to expedite this process. As a result of those
    discussions the Agency has also made funding available to ensure that
    our clients receive specialized treatment and services through programs
    administered by those agencies.
    Staffing/Recruitment and Retention
        Appropriate staffing levels continue to be a major concern. CFSA
    submitted a recruitment and retention compensation incentive package to
    the Mayor that included a hiring bonus and an additional income
    allowance designed primarily as a retention incentive. The Mayor and
    the D.C. Council have approved this incentive package on an emergency
    basis.
        CFSA has implemented other compensation incentive programs. An
    employee referral program and a program to reimburse new hires for
    relocation expenses are designed to enhance recruitment and to
    recognize employee contributions in the hiring of social workers. The
    Agency's recruitment plan envisions the hiring of an additional 50 new
    social workers who will be graduating this Spring from social work
    programs. In addition, CFSA continues to recruit and hire individuals
    with bachelor-level degrees in social work to augment the caseload
    responsibilities of existing workers. It is anticipated that prior to
    the end of this fiscal year new tangible programs proposed by our
    retention committee will positively impact our recruitment and
    retention needs.
    Legal Representation
        A major challenge the Agency has experienced in retaining qualified
    social workers has been the absence of adequate legal preparation and
    representation in court hearings. To address this particular area of
    concern, and to improve the Agency's working relationship with the D.C.
    Superior Court in achieving compliance with the Adoption and Safe
    Families Act, the Agency is transferring $1 million to the Office of
    the Corporation Counsel for the hiring of additional attorneys and
    paralegal staff to be co-located within CFSA.
    Foster Home Recruitment Incentives
        CFSA's campaign to approve and recruit foster and adoptive parents
    has faced a number of challenges. However, in an effort to create
    additional homes in the District of Columbia, the Agency has commenced
    the My Community My Children Initiative in collaboration with the Annie
    E. Casey Foundation. This initiative will involve community partners in
    recruiting new homes and resources in the District of Columbia. In
    addition, the Modified Final Order requires CFSA to pay a board rate
    equal to the full cost of raising a child in the urban southeast. The
    Agency recently increased these rates to comparable levels in fiscal
    year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. It is the Agency's expectation that
    these recent increases will also improve the Agency's ability to
    recruit more foster homes in the District of Columbia.
                    update on cfsa's role in the transition
        As you may be aware, under the terms of a Federal Court Order
    entered on October 23, 2000, there are four (4) requirements that must
    be fulfilled before the LaShawn Receivership will terminate. The first
    requirement includes passage of legislation creating a separate
    department with independent personnel and procurement authority,
    licensing responsibility for child welfare related facilities, and
    consolidation of the abuse and neglect case responsibility in the new
    department. Second, the District must promulgate licensing regulations
    for both group and foster homes, and maintain Interstate Compact on the
    Placement of Children (ICPC) responsibility for children currently in
    the care of CFSA. Third, the District must hire a Director of the new
    department. Finally, the Director must assemble a management team for
    the new Department. CFSA has been working very closely with the Deputy
    Mayor for Children, Youth and Families to satisfy these transition
    requirements so that the Receivership will end this Spring.
    Transition Legislation
        Legislation establishing the Department of Child and Family
    Services and otherwise meeting the requirements of the Order was passed
    in December 2000, was signed by the Mayor and forwarded to Congress,
    and is awaiting the completion of the congressional review period. This
    Receivership has always advocated for legislation that would establish
    a single-State child welfare agency in the District of Columbia with
    primary responsibility for investigating child neglect and abuse cases.
    In fact, prior to the submission of the Mayor's emergency reform plan,
    the Agency requested the American Humane Association (AHA) to study the
    issue of bifurcation. This report, which was completed in November,
    2000, provided the impetus for the plans now underway for the
    unification of child abuse and neglect responsibilities. Presently,
    representatives of the D.C. Superior Court, the Office of the Deputy
    Mayor for Children, Youth and Families and CFSA are working with AHA to
    coordinate this effort.
    Licensing Regulations for Foster Homes and Group Homes
        CFSA drafted the initial foster home licensing regulations and is
    working very closely with the District to develop regulations for the
    licensure of group homes. Over the last several months, working groups
    have been meeting to develop the regulations, and both sets of proposed
    regulations are in final draft form.
    Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Transfer
        The October 23rd Order and enabling legislation also require the
    transfer of responsibilities related to the Interstate Compact for
    Placement of Children (ICPC) from the Department of Human Services to
    the new Department of Child and Family Services. I have signed a
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Deputy Mayor for Children,
    Youth and Families to effect this transfer. The American Public Human
    Services Association (APHSA) has agreed to train staff and to notify
    all other states of the transfer of responsibilities. Under the terms
    of the MOU, the Receivership will absorb all costs related to the
    transfer during this fiscal year. This transfer is expected to take
    place April 2001.
    Selection of CFSA Director and New Management Team
        With respect to the search for a new Director, a national search is
    underway. The process for selection includes input from a committee
    comprised of the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families, the
    District's Director of Personnel, Plaintiff's Counsel, the Court
    Monitor, the Director of the District's Youth Services Administration,
    and the Chair of the D.C. Council's Human Services Committee. I also
    serve on this committee. The Director of the District's Office of
    Personnel is coordinating the search.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the Child Welfare System in the
    District of Columbia has been confronted with many challenges this past
    year, there has also been significant improvement and progress.
    Ensuring the safety and well being of the children in our care
    continues to be the responsibility we take most seriously. Thank you
    for the opportunity to address the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
    on the District of Columbia. I would also like to thank the
    Congressional staffers who visited our offices this month to observe
    first hand the positive things the Agency is doing to support children
    and families in the District of Columbia. I ask for your continued
    support in our efforts to achieve compliance with the requirements of
    the Modified Final Order and the return of the Agency to the District
    of Columbia government. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.

        Senator DeWine. We thank you very much.
    STATEMENT OF JUDITH MELTZER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER
                FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY
        Senator DeWine. Ms. Meltzer, thank you for joining us.
        Ms. Meltzer. Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank you
    for inviting me, and I especially want to thank both of you for
    your opening statements, and the importance that you have given
    to this issue in those statements.
        I am Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of Social
    Policy, and the center, as you mentioned previously, serves as
    the independent monitor of the District's system under the
    LaShawn decree.

                                 LaShawn decree

        As monitor, I am responsible for independently and
    objectively assessing the progress of the Government and the
    receivership in implementing the decree. We do this in as
    collaborative a way as possible, working with the receiver,
    with District government officials, with outside advocacy
    groups, and with the plaintiffs. We review administrative and
    case load data provided by the agency on a monthly basis, we
    perform independent case record reviews, we do case studies,
    and we perform special studies as needed. We have recently
    commissioned an independent audit of the agency's financial
    activity for fiscal year 2000, and we expect to have that audit
    completed by June 15.
        We are near completion of an in-depth review of children in
    group care facilities, which involved us doing on-site visits
    at these facilities, as well as focus groups with the children
    and youth who attended the facilities. We have also just
    initiated an in-depth review of the quality of care provided
    under the DC Kids health care initiative.

                              Child welfare system

        It is important for you to know that the child welfare
    system has, in fact, improved since 1992, when I first began as
    monitor, and some of the clear improvements have been in the
    development of capacity to support families in neighborhoods
    through the Healthy Families, Thriving Communities
    Collaboratives, the creation of a staff training capacity,
    which never existed before, multiyear increases in numbers of
    adoptions, and significant increases in the agency's ability to
    draw down Federal funds under title 4(a) and title 19 of the
    Social Security Act.
        Saying this, however, is not meant to imply that the system
    is anywhere near where it should be in terms of compliance, and
    it has been extremely frustrating for me as monitor, for the
    leadership of the agency, and for the public at large to
    understand why it has been 10 years and the agency is still so
    far from where it needs to be.
        Early on in Mayor Wiliams' tenure he made it clear that he
    was committed to reassuming responsibility, and effectuating a
    transition. A first test of his commitment was his deliverance
    on the fiscal year 2000 budget, which he did deliver on in the
    budget for fiscal year 2000 for the agency at $184 million,
    representing about a $30 million increase from the prior years.
        That was the first time that that agency ever had enough
    money to adequately carry out its mandates, and we actually do
    not even know at this point whether it is significant, but at
    this point they now have enough money that they have properly
    budgeted to put in place some of the resources for children and
    families that have been so sorely absent.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget is going to enable the
    development of substance abuse resources, mental health service
    resources, increase in foster parents' rate, and additional
    specialized placement resources. Those are just absolutely
    essential.

                                Transition order

        Having delivered on the fiscal 2001 budget process, we
    entered into negotiations of this October 23, 2000 transition
    order, which everybody has mentioned. The order lays out
    prerequisite requirements for ending receiverships and for
    monitoring progress during a transitional period. It also
    provides some clear commitments to address some of the
    structural issues which have really impeded progress over these
    last 2 years, and that is why the inclusion in that order of
    the requirements for bringing abuse and neglect together and
    for dealing with the Superior Court and for providing lawyers
    and corporation counsel is so significant.
        I want to underscore, though, that the receivership has not
    yet ended, although we are engaged with the District in meeting
    with the prerequisite requirements in an expeditious way.
    Attached to my written testimony is a report that I just filed
    with the court on where we are with all those transition
    requirements.

                          prerequisite for Transition

        It is my best estimate that if things proceed as they are
    now, the prerequisites for a transition will be accomplished in
    June or July of this year. At that point, the receivership will
    end, and a probationary period will begin. During the
    probationary period, the agency will be expected to meet
    certain performance benchmarks related to remedial order
    requirements, and these are really children-related
    requirements. They are things like timely completion of
    investigations, placement of children in licensed foster homes,
    placement of children with siblings, reduction of children
    experiencing multiple placements.
        We have set benchmarks for improvement over a 6-month
    period. These progress benchmarks were set deliberately low, or
    I would say conservatively, because we are not trying to set
    the bar so high that the agency has to go back into
    receivership, but we are trying to make sure that progress
    continues.

                                 LaShawn order

        It is important also to emphasize, though, that at the end
    of the receivership, when the probationary period ends, the
    LaShawn order is still in effect, and the LaShawn order remains
    in effect until it is complied with. Under current
    circumstances we will continue to monitor the District's
    progress in complying with the agency's order.

                               prepared statement

        I wanted to briefly indicate what some of the challenges
    are that I think exist going forward, but I know I am out of
    time, so I will do whatever you want.
        Senator DeWine. We will do that in questions, and when we
    get a chance in the questions just jump in at some point. We
    will make sure that gets covered, because we want to hear that.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Judith Meltzer

        Good morning. I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to
    testify this morning and for your interest in improving the child
    welfare system in the District of Columbia. I am Judith Meltzer, Deputy
    Director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy. The Center has
    been appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan as the
    independent monitor of the District's child welfare system under the
    LaShawn A. v. Williams lawsuit. We have served in that capacity from
    1992-1995, and from 1997 to the present, with a brief hiatus when the
    system was first placed in Receivership.
        As Monitor, I am responsible for independently and objectively
    assessing the progress of the District of Columbia government and the
    Receivership in implementing the LaShawn decree. The decree establishes
    the framework and requirements for a child welfare system that operates
    in compliance with District and federal law and that adequately
    protects children and supports and preserves families. I carry out the
    monitoring function in as collaborative a way as possible, working
    closely with the Receiver, District government officials, outside
    advocacy groups and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. We review
    administrative and case flow data provided by the Agency on a monthly
    basis, do independent case record reviews and case studies and perform
    special studies as needed. For example, we have commissioned an
    independent audit of the Agency's financial activity which is underway,
    and expected to be complete by no later than June 15, 2001. We are near
    completion of an in depth review of children in group care facilities,
    which included on-site reviews to half of the facilities under contract
    to care for children as well as focus groups with the children and
    youth residing in the facilities. We have also just initiated an in
    depth review of the quality and adequacy of health care services
    provided to children in the foster care system under the DC KIDS
    initiative.
        It is important for you to know that the child welfare system has
    in fact improved since 1992, when I first began as Monitor. Some clear
    improvements have been the development of the capacity to support
    families in the neighborhoods through the eight Healthy Families,
    Thriving Communities Collaboratives; the creation of a staff training
    capacity through Virginia Commonwealth University and local schools of
    social work; a multi-year increase in the numbers of children adopted;
    and significant increases in the Agency's ability to properly draw down
    available federal revenue to support its work. Saying this, however, is
    not meant to imply that the system is anywhere near where it should be
    in terms of compliance with the LaShawn Remedial Order. There are many
    problems that have proven intractable to reform efforts and there are
    some things that have gotten better for awhile, only to move backward
    over time. The pace of progress and the ability to fix problems
    permanently has been extremely frustrating for me as Monitor, and is
    equally frustrating for leadership and staff within the Agency and for
    the public at large.
        Early on in Mayor Williams's tenure, he made it clear that he was
    committed to re-assuming responsibility for child welfare functions in
    the District and that he was prepared to provide the leadership
    required to effectuate a transition from Receivership. A first test of
    his Administration's commitment was the funding of the fiscal year 2001
    budget for the Receivership. Despite the rhetoric over the years which
    has implied that the Receivership has been free to establish its own
    budget and operate independently, the Receivership has always had to go
    through the regular budget and appropriations process of the District
    and until this year, was never adequately funded. The fiscal year 2001
    budget included an infusion of approximately $30 million which should
    enable the Agency to fund many previously unavailable resources such as
    substance abuse treatment, mental health services for children and
    families, as well as foster parent rate increases and additional
    specialized placement services.
        Having delivered on the Mayor's budget promise for fiscal year
    2001, we recently completed negotiations with the District and the
    plaintiffs which resulted in Judge Hogan's October 23 Transition Order.
    This Order lays out a series of prerequisite requirements for ending
    the Receivership and for monitoring progress during a transitional
    period. It provides clear, lasting commitments to address some of the
    structural issues that have inhibited compliance over these many years,
    and builds in long-term protections on such things as the budget and
    staffing for the Agency. I want to underscore that the Receivership has
    not yet ended but that we are engaged with the District in meeting the
    prerequisite requirements in an expeditious way. Attached to my
    testimony is a written report to Judge Hogan dated March 13, 2001 which
    assesses the current status of efforts to meet the transition
    requirements.
        It is my best estimate that if things proceed as they are now, the
    prerequisites for transition will be accomplished in June or July,
    2001. At that point, the Receivership will end and a probationary
    period will begin. During the probationary period, the Agency will be
    expected to meet certain performance benchmarks related to Remedial
    Order requirements. These are, for example, benchmarks regarding timely
    completion of investigations, placement of children in licensed foster
    homes that do not exceed licensed capacities, placement of children
    with siblings, reduction of children experiencing multiple placements,
    etc. Progress will be measured according to agreed-upon levels of
    improvement over a six-month period. As Monitor, we will establish the
    baseline performance at the point of transition and measure again at
    six months. The improvement targets were set extremely conservatively
    because the Court did not want to set the bar unrealistically high,
    thereby insuring District failure. The intent of the probationary
    benchmarks is to assure that progress will steadily continue after the
    Agency is removed from Receivership. It is important to emphasize that
    the end of the Receivership and the end of the probationary period does
    not mean the end of the LaShawn Order. The underlying Court Order and
    its requirements will remain in effect until substantial compliance is
    achieved. As Monitor, I will be working with the new Administrator to
    develop a revised implementation plan to achieve compliance with the
    LaShawn Order. Until compliance is demonstrated, there will be ongoing
    Court oversight of this agency's functioning.
        I want to briefly indicate what some of the most important
    systematic and programmatic challenges for this agency in the next
    year.
        The first and most important is to develop a stable workforce. Over
    the year 2000, the Agency hired 132 social workers but lost 128
    workers, thus leaving them in much the same place, characterized by
    severe understaffing, high caseloads, worker burnout and inadequate
    service provision. The current staffing situation with a vacancy of
    almost 50 social workers is a crisis requiring immediate attention. I
    have asked the Agency to develop an emergency plan for utilizing BSW as
    well as MSW social workers and to reenergize their recruitment
    activities, utilizing hiring bonuses, incentive payments, payments to
    current workers to identify and recruit new staff, relocation
    allowances and reciprocity on licensure.
        A second challenge is to improve the functioning and accountability
    of the front door of the system--that is the intake and investigation
    process--for both child neglect and child abuse cases. This will
    involve implementing joint investigations with the police, the transfer
    of Court Social Services staff currently serving families with
    substantiated child abuse, and working in greater partnership with the
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative and their community
    partners.
        A third challenge is to comply with ASFA requirements on
    permanency. This will require vast improvement in assessment and case
    planning, developing a functional working relationship with the Office
    of Corporation Counsel, insuring that Corporation Counsel has the
    budget authority to hire a sufficient number of attorneys and that they
    outstation them to work closely with CFSA workers, and making
    structural improvements at the DC Superior Court.
        A fourth challenge is to greatly accelerate the identification,
    study and support of foster and adoptive parent resources in the
    District of Columbia. This will require partnerships with communities,
    faith organizations, private agencies, the media as well as enhanced
    internal capacity to study and approve potential families.
        The fifth challenge is a leadership challenge. The new
    Administrator must have the ability to create a common vision for child
    welfare services in the District and to heal the fractures and finger-
    pointing among stakeholders that have made this job even harder than it
    should be. The Administrator must be experienced, talented, tough and
    bold and will need to be able to operate the Agency with a fair amount
    of independence. At the same time, the Administrator will need the
    clear support and backing from the Mayor, as unpopular decisions that
    rock the status quo must be made and sustained. The Administrator must
    demonstrate a commitment to outcomes and a willingness to work in new
    ways with communities and neighborhoods which break down the isolation
    of the child welfare agency. If children are to be protected, CFSA must
    make the community at large a real partner in their work on behalf of
    vulnerable children and families.
        Thank you and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

      Progress Report on Implementation of October 23, 2000 Consent Order
                Governing Transition of the LaShawn Receivership

        This is the second report prepared by the Monitor on the progress
    made to fulfill the conditions of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order
    governing the termination of the LaShawn Receivership.
        Under the terms of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order, there are
    several actions that need to occur prior to the termination of the
    LaShawn Receivership. The District government is moving forward to
    accomplish the pre-termination requirements of the Consent Order.
    Current progress in each of these areas is described below:
        1. Enactment of legislation to end the bifurcation of abuse and
    neglect and to establish the Child and Family Services Agency as a
    cabinet-level agency with independent personnel authority, independent
    procurement authority, and authority to license foster and group homes.
    The legislation also is to provide for the transfer of responsibility
    and authority for child abuse cases currently vested in the Director of
    the Superior Court Social Services to CFSA.
        Status: Legislation was passed by the District Council on December
    19, 2000 and was subsequently signed by the Mayor and approved by the
    Control Board. It was forwarded to the U.S. Congress on February 7,
    2001 for required Congressional review and approval. If no objections
    are raised, it will become law after 30 legislative days which should
    be March 30, 2001. The bill established the child welfare agency as an
    independent cabinet level agency with responsibility for personnel
    functions and independent procurement authority consistent with
    District law. It also places responsibility for the licensing of foster
    homes and groups homes as well as for the Interstate Compact for the
    Placement of Children (ICPC) approval process within the child welfare
    agency. Finally, the bill requires joint investigation of abuse cases
    by CFSA and the Metropolitan Police Department and the transfer of
    Court Social Services' responsibility to CFSA for serving families in
    which there is child abuse.
        Planning is underway for the transfer of Court Social Services
    staff, functions and responsibilities so that child abuse and neglect
    functions in the District can finally be merged. The American Humane
    Association is facilitating the planning activities and is coordinating
    the work of the many involved agencies including the Mayor's Office,
    the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Superior Court of the District
    of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Child and
    Family Services Agency. There is much work that must be accomplished
    for this transition to be smoothly completed by October 1, 2001 (which
    is the planning target for the complete transfer of responsibility). In
    order for this to happen, interim milestone and performance benchmarks
    must be met and staff must be hired and trained. Despite some initial
    reluctance, all parties are now working together to make this happen.
    In the short term, Court Social Services is experiencing some attrition
    of existing staff. This is creating caseload pressures at Court Social
    Services which parallel the caseload pressures at CFSA. Discussion has
    begun about expediting the hiring of additional workers at CFSA who can
    be detailed to Court Social Services in this interim period. This will
    accelerate cross-training and ensure that the critically important
    abuse caseloads are not underserved.
        2. Development and Promulgation of Licensing Standards for Foster
    and Group Homes
        The October 23, 2000 Order requires that foster and group home
    licensing standards be developed and promulgated prior to the
    termination of the Receivership.
        Status: Neither of these two conditions is accomplished yet but
    substantial progress has been made.
        The proposed foster home regulations were sent this last week to
    the Office of Corporation Counsel for final legal review. They should
    be published for comment in the District Register within two weeks. The
    comment period is 30 days after which the regulations can be finalized.
    If all goes as planned, the regulations can be completed by mid-May.
        Draft group home regulations were developed by the Office of the
    Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families with outside assistance
    from Holland and Knight. Two drafts of the regulations have been sent
    out for stakeholder comment and a series of stakeholder focus groups
    have been conducted. The regulations are currently under final revision
    after which they will be sent to the Office of Corporation Counsel for
    final legal review and publication in the District Register. This
    process will take somewhere between three weeks to one month. The
    comment period will be another 30 days after which the regulations will
    be finalized. It is the Monitor's hope that all of these steps will be
    accomplished by June, 2001.
        3. Recruitment and Selection of an Agency Director
        A Director for CFSA, selected and appointed by the Mayor with
    concurrence of Plaintiffs and the Monitor, must be in place prior to
    termination of the Receivership.
        Status: There has been continuing activity to recruit a new
    administrator for the Agency. The Director of the District's Office of
    Personnel (DCOP) is coordinating this work with the help of an outside
    search firm, Bennett and Associates. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has
    underwritten this process through a grant to the George Washington
    University Center for Excellence in Municipal Government to provide
    assistance with the process of recruiting a new Director, as well as
    for recruiting, developing and training the new leadership team.
        The selection process has not gone as quickly as was originally
    anticipated. At this time, an initial round of candidates has been
    identified and interviewed by a small committee composed of the Deputy
    Mayor for Children, Youth and Families, the District's Director of
    Personnel, Plaintiff's Counsel, the Mayor's Special Counsel, the Court
    Monitor, the Interim Receiver and the Director of the District's Youth
    Services Administration. The search firm has been compiling reference
    material and it is hoped that the selection of final candidates will be
    made shortly. Finalists will be invited back for a fuller range of
    interviews with key stakeholders in government and the community after
    which a recommendation for selection will be made to the Mayor. It is
    the Monitor's hope that a candidate will be identified and recommended
    to the Mayor within a month. Given this timetable, it is unlikely that
    the new Administrator would be available to begin work much before
    June, 2001. Sondra Jackson, the Interim Receiver, has indicated her
    willingness to remain until an Administrator is hired, assuming it is
    accomplished expeditiously.
        4. Recruitment and Selection of a Management Team
        Prior to termination of the Receivership, the new Director must
    have an acceptable management team in place.
        Status: Progress on this requirement will need to await the
    selection of a Director. As noted above, the Annie E. Casey Foundation
    grant can be used for help in recruiting a qualified management team
    and for a strategic planning retreat or other activities designed to
    develop the agency's senior leadership team.
        In addition to the four areas discussed above, where action must be
    completed prior to termination of the Receivership, the October 23
    Consent Order required action to begin in several other areas. These
    include:
        5. All responsibility for the Interstate Compact for the Placement
    of Children (ICPC), currently carried out by an office within DHS, is
    to be transferred to CFSA.
        Status: The Memorandum of Agreement governing the transition of the
    ICPC function to the Child and Family Services Agency was signed on
    February 6, 2001. The originally scheduled date for the transfer of
    this responsibility was March 1, 2001. The transfer date has been
    postponed pending completion of training of the new staff at CFSA who
    have been hired to carry out these functions. That training is underway
    with the expectation that the function will be transferred in April,
    2001.
        6. Employment of BSW and Paraprofessional Staff
        The October 23 Consent Order allows CFSA to employ staff with BSW
    degrees as well as paraprofessional staff under appropriate
    circumstances to deliver services required under the MFO with agreement
    by Plaintiffs. The Order further stated that within 30 days, the
    parties were to negotiate the specific circumstances under which these
    staff are to be used.
        Status: Upon agreement of the parties, the Monitor was to request
    and review a proposal from CFSA for the uses of BSW and
    paraprofessional staff. An initial proposal was developed by the
    Receivership and forwarded to the Monitor on November 21, 2000. One of
    the Monitor's comments on the initial proposal was that it did not go
    far enough, particularly in light of the hiring crisis at CFSA.
    Currently, there are close to 50 social worker vacancies at CFSA. The
    experience over the past few years has been that every spring and
    summer, the Agency hires as many MSWs as they can, primarily new
    graduates of schools of social work. Over the course of the year
    however, the rate of hiring slows and monthly turnover continues. Thus,
    by spring of the subsequent year, the Agency finds itself in roughly
    the same place with respect to hiring goals as the prior year. In fact,
    during the calendar year 2000, CFSA hired 132 social workers but lost
    128 workers due to resignation or termination.
        It has been the Monitor's belief that the staffing pattern ought to
    include a combination of MSW and BSW trained social workers as well as
    a range of paraprofessional support staff. With proper training and
    supervision as well as clarity in job function and expectations, staff
    other than MSWs can properly carry out the case management and social
    work functions of the Agency. As a result of recent discussions with
    the Monitor, the Receivership is in the process of preparing a more
    ambitious plan for diversification of staff which will rely on both MSW
    and BSW social workers. Both the District and Plaintiffs support this
    approach. It is expected that a revised plan will be submitted to the
    Monitor within the next week and forwarded to the Defendant's Counsel
    and to Plaintiffs for their review and approval.
        7. Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
        The October 23 Consent Order stipulates that the Mayor will take
    all reasonable steps within his authority to obtain passage of the CFSA
    budget using the fiscal year 2001 budget of $184 million as a baseline,
    with required adjustments for implementing the new legislation,
    providing for foster parent rate increases, and providing additional
    staff necessary to meet MFO caseload standards.
        Status: The District's fiscal year 2002 budget process is just
    beginning and the Mayor's proposed budget is expected to be complete by
    mid-March. The Mayor's Office has verbally indicated the CFSA budget
    will include the $184 million baseline, as agreed upon in the Consent
    Order, plus the necessary additions to cover the costs associated with
    implementing the new legislation, principally the assumption of
    responsibility by CFSA for investigation of abuse cases; the costs
    associated with assuming the licensing function; the transfer of ICPC
    responsibilities; the costs associated with the transfer of the Court
    Social Services responsibilities and caseload; and required increases
    in foster parent rates. These initiatives will cost approximately $4
    million in fiscal year 2002 (assuming that the Superior Court Social
    Services staff are transferred under an Intergovernmental Personnel Act
    (IPA) agreement and their salary costs do not need to be in the CFSA
    fiscal year 2002 budget).
        In addition to commitments on the CFSA budget, the Office of
    Corporation Counsel has indicated that the OCC budget will include the
    funds required to provide additional staff attorneys and paralegal/
    support staff to properly carry out child welfare functions. Because of
    the urgency of this need, the Receiver is transferring funds from
    CFSA's fiscal year 2001 budget to OCC to enable the immediate hiring of
    32 additional positions (25 attorneys and 7 support staff). It is the
    Monitor's expectation, based on verbal assurances by OCC staff, that
    continued funding for these positions, as well as funds to meet
    additional hiring commitments contained in a proposed OCC staffing plan
    currently being negotiated by the parties (see Point 8 below), are
    expected to be included and clearly identifiable in the fiscal year
    2002 budget request for OCC.
        8. Adequate Legal Staff
        The October 23 Consent Order requires that CFSA be provided
    adequate legal staff to enable the agency to meet its legal obligations
    under the MFO. The Order did not detail what constitutes ``adequate
    staffing,'' but there was an agreement that this would be determined
    based on an independent staffing study which would take into account
    the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the MFO
    requirements, and relevant professional standards. In addition, the
    Order requires that OCC attorneys assume an attorney-client
    relationship with CFSA and that there be a plan for co-location of
    staff.
        Status: As previously shared with the Court, the staffing study
    prepared for the Office of Corporation Counsel met neither the
    Monitor's nor the Plaintiffs' expectations for this requirement.
    Discussions have been ongoing since December to address this issue. The
    Office of Corporation Counsel developed a revised proposal in early
    March which details their commitments to hire additional staff and to
    outstation a considerable portion of those staff with CFSA. Discussions
    on the acceptability of that plan are continuing. Issues that remain to
    be resolved are adequacy of staffing commitments for certain functions
    and lines of authority and accountability between OCC and CFSA. It is
    the Monitor's hope that differences in these areas can be resolved. In
    the interim, CFSA is transferring funds to OCC to enable the immediate
    hiring of 32 new positions (attorneys and support staff) to meet the
    immediate legal needs of CFSA staff and clients.
        9. Performance Standards
        The October 23 Consent Order requires the Monitor to establish the
    baseline against which performance standards during the post-
    termination probationary period will be assessed. The Monitor will
    conduct the baseline study on performance using data from the month
    prior to the termination of the Receivership. At this point, as
    mentioned previously, it is not possible to precisely determine when
    that will occur.
        During this interim period, CSSP is continuing its ongoing
    monitoring activities with respect to the requirements of the LaShawn
    Order. These include monthly review of administrative data and
    preparation of formal progress reports for the Court and the public;
    informal monitoring meeting with the Agency Receiver and staff;
    completion of work in progress on a review of children in congregate
    care facilities; initiation of a targeted study of the DC Kids Health
    Care Program for Children in Foster Care; monthly convening of case
    reviews by an independent Practice Development Case Review Committee;
    and contracting for an independent fiscal audit of CFSA for fiscal year
    2000. The audit firm of Williams, Adley and Company, LLP was engaged by
    the Monitor in early February and is currently doing an independent
    audit of the Agency for fiscal year 2000. The audit should be completed
    by no later than June 15, 2001.
    STATEMENT OF ERIC THOMPSON, STAFF ATTORNEY, CHILDREN'S
                RIGHTS, INC.
        Senator DeWine. Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Thompson. Good morning, Chairman DeWine, Senator
    Landrieu. My name is Eric Thompson and, along with Marsha
    Robinson Lowrey from Children's Rights, I represent the
    plaintiff children in the LaShawn class action lawsuit which
    was intended to reform child welfare services in the District
    of Columbia.
        On behalf of those abused and neglected children we
    represent, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the
    committee to present our perspective on the current status of
    the District's child welfare system. I am also very gratified
    to hear that the needs of these children are a priority in this
    committee.

                         transition out of Receivership

        Senators, as you know, we are now entering a new phase. We
    have negotiated, transitioned out of receivership based on the
    District satisfying certain conditions, after which
    administration of the child welfare system will be returned to
    the District control. However, it is important to emphasize
    that although the receivership will end if the District meets
    these specified conditions, court oversight over this agency
    does not end.
        In addition, the agreement provides for a 6-month probation
    period after the receivership ends, and the likelihood is that
    a receivership will be reimposed if the District fails to meet
    certain standards.
        Throughout the receivership, those aspects of the District
    government not under the control of a receiver have been
    enormously resistant to reforms in the agency, and cooperation
    from other branches of the District government was nonexistent.
    Nevertheless, the agency is now better organized. It has better
    systems in place than before it went into receivership.
    Unfortunately, it is still not functioning as an agency that
    can provide appropriate care and protection for children.

               steps to regaining administration of Child welfare

        The Mayor's interest in regaining District administration
    of child welfare has provided an opportunity and an agreement
    that we have heard about this morning to remedy many of the
    problems that have long been impediments to the provision of
    appropriate services to children. The key provisions to which
    the District has recently agreed, and which the Federal court
    has ordered, are, first, adequate funding. The fiscal year 2001
    budget amounting to $184 million was the first compliance
    budget ever submitted to Congress since the court's remedial
    order almost a decade ago.
        Second, the transition order also establishes the agency as
    a Cabinet-level agency, reporting directly to the Mayor.
        Third, CFSA will have authority over agency-related
    functions such as independent personnel procurement authority,
    and licensing authority for foster homes and group homes.
        Fourth, as required by the transition order, legislation
    has been passed by the Council of the District of Columbia to
    consolidate all abuse and neglect investigations and services
    under CFSA. This will finally end bifurcation and bring the
    District in line with the rest of the country.
        Fifth, the transition order requires the Office of
    Corporation Counsel to hire additional attorneys until there is
    adequate legal staffing for the agency. This will need to be
    reflected in a significant increase in the budget for the
    Office of the Corporation Counsel next year.

                                 LaShawn order

        In conclusion, the District's child welfare system will
    continue to function under the LaShawn remedial order, and the
    court-ordered monitor will remain in place to report on whether
    the system is improving.
        We, as plaintiff's counsel, welcome the desire by the
    District government to take responsibility for a Government
    system so critical to the live's of the city's most vulnerable
    children and their families. We are, however, mindful that the
    city's government has not in the past made good on its promises
    to children.
        We are also well aware that the District government did not
    take steps necessary to cooperate with the receivership and
    help strengthen this agency until very recently. We hope that
    the city's goal in seeking an end to the receivership has not
    been limited to realizing its desire for autonomy, and that
    when the agency does revert to city control the District
    government will exercise the commitment and competence
    necessary to operate an adequate child welfare agency and
    protect abused and neglected children in this city.

                               prepared statement

        While plaintiff's counsel will not hesitate, should it
    become necessary, to bring the District back into court with
    the possibility of new Federal court sanctions should city
    government not make good on its commitments, we are guardedly
    optimistic.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Eric Thompson

        On behalf of the abused and neglected children we represent, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to present
    our perspective on the current status of the District's child welfare
    system, and the implementation of the court-ordered reform plan that
    grew out of the lawsuit, LaShawn v. Barry. My name is Eric Thompson,
    and along with Marcia Robinson Lowry from Children's Rights, we
    represent the plaintiff children in LaShawn, the class action lawsuit
    intended to reform child welfare services in the District of Columbia.
        That case was filed in 1989, was tried in 1991, and resulted in a
    sweeping court order mandating necessary changes. When District
    government failed to comply with that court order, and demonstrated its
    inability to do so, we asked the federal court to find the District in
    contempt of court and to place the agency in receivership, which it did
    in 1995. We are now entering a new phase: we have negotiated a
    transition out of receivership, based on the District satisfying
    certain conditions, after which administration of the child welfare
    system will be returned to District control. However, it is important
    to emphasize that although the receivership will end if the District
    meets these specified conditions, court oversight over this agency--and
    the possibility of future contempt findings--does not. In addition, the
    agreement provides for a six month probation period after the
    receivership ends, and the likelihood that a receivership will be re-
    imposed if the District fails to meet certain standards.
        Throughout the receivership those aspects of District government
    not under the control of the receiver had been enormously resistant to
    reforms in the agency, including the Metropolitan Police Department and
    Corporation Counsel, and insofar as the receiver was dependent on
    cooperation from other branches of District government, that
    cooperation was non-existent. Nevertheless, the agency is now better
    organized, and has better systems in place than it did when it went
    into receivership--but it is still not functioning as an agency that
    can provide appropriate care and protection for children.
        The agreement to move the agency out of receivership remedies many
    of the problems that have long been impediments to the provision of
    appropriate services to children. The key provisions to which the
    District has agreed, and which the federal court has ordered, are:
                                adequate funding
        The child welfare system in the District has never been adequately
    funded. Even during the receivership, the agency was dependent on a
    very convoluted and unrealistic budgeting process that made it
    impossible to plan ahead, and to fund the many reforms required under
    the federal court order. Each year the District's fiscal office has
    sought to impose a baseline budget on the agency far below what the
    agency had actually spent the year before, and one that never took into
    account the many enhancements that were necessary to comply with the
    court order. Each year the receivership has had to wage a pitched
    battle with the District in order to bring the budget request for the
    agency up to a reasonable level even to maintain an inadequate status
    quo.
        As a result of the negotiations over the transition, the baseline
    budget has been established as $184 million, the amount estimated as
    necessary to comply with the court order, with an agreement that the
    baseline will be adjusted upward annually to meet certain specified
    additional expenses.
                            structure of the agency
        Prior to the receivership, the agency responsible for child welfare
    services, the Child and Family Services Agency (``CFSA'') was under the
    authority of the Department of Human Services, and did not report
    directly to the mayor.
        The transition order establishes CFSA as a cabinet-level agency,
    reporting directly to the mayor.
                    authority over agency-related functions
        Many functions on which the child welfare agency is dependent have
    been under the control of other District agencies, which have had their
    own operating problems and to which child welfare has not necessarily
    been a priority. This has made it very difficult to hire personnel
    expeditiously, enter into contracts, or ensure that foster homes and
    other facilities that care for children are licensed promptly. Some of
    those functions came under CFSA agency control during the receivership,
    but would have reverted to external control, once again making CFSA
    dependent on other governmental entities with differing priorities.
        The transition order gives CFSA independent personnel and
    procurement authority, including contracting and contract oversight,
    and licensing authority for foster and group homes. In addition, the
    Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, under which many D.C.
    children are placed in neighboring states, will now operate under CFSA
    control.
                        consolidating abuse and neglect
        The District of Columbia has been the only jurisdiction in the
    country in which responsibility for abuse and neglect cases has been
    handled by separate governmental entities; abuse complaints have been
    investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department, and services
    provided under the auspices of Court Social Services; neglect cases and
    foster care services have been under the auspices of CFSA. This
    bifurcation has long been considered a major problem and one that has
    contributed to the fragmentation and disorganization of services.
        As required by the transition order, legislation has been passed by
    the Council of the District of Columbia to consolidate all abuse and
    neglect investigations and services under CFSA, and to transfer
    responsibility for abuse cases to CFSA.
                             adequate legal counsel
        The child welfare agency has long been hampered in its ability to
    protect children, and to facilitate the adoption process, by the lack
    of adequate legal counsel, by the lack of coordination with that legal
    counsel, and by unclear lines of authority with regard to supervision
    of the legal staff. The lack of appropriate and vigorous counsel for
    CFSA was a contributing factor, among several others, in the Brianna
    Blackmond tragedy.
        The transition order mandates a reorganization of legal support for
    CFSA, requires the Office of Corporation Counsel to hire additional
    attorneys until there is adequate legal staffing for CFSA, and also
    requires that many of these attorneys be physically located in the same
    offices as the case workers who are their clients.
        In addition, the receivership will not end until a strong
    administrator has been selected to head the agency, and that
    administrator has enlisted an experienced and competent management
    team. Only after these conditions are satisfied will the receivership
    terminate. We must emphasize that the receivership will not end unless
    these conditions are met and although progress is being made, there are
    still problems with the provision of adequate legal counsel, about
    which the parties are still in negotiation, and a new administrator to
    run the agency has not yet been identified. When such a person is
    identified, it is likely that the transition will still take several
    months.
        Assuming that these conditions are satisfied, and the receivership
    is terminated, after the agency moves back into District control, the
    agency will move into a six month probationary period, during which it
    must show improvement on a number of child-related criteria. The
    Monitor will be collecting the information necessary to determine
    whether these improvements have taken place. Failure to demonstrate
    this improvement could lead to the reimposition of the receivership by
    the federal court.
        Even after the probationary period ends, the District's child
    welfare system will continue to function under a far-reaching federal
    court order, designed to reform a child welfare system that has failed
    to protect this city's children for far too long. The court-ordered
    Monitor remains in place to report on whether the system is improving.
        We welcome the desire by District of Columbia government to take
    responsibility for a government system so critical to the lives of the
    city's most vulnerable children and their families. We are, however,
    mindful that this city's government has not, in the past, made good on
    its promises to these children. We are also well aware that the
    District government has not, until only very recently, cooperated with
    the receivership that has been in charge of this agency and responsible
    for the city's children, and did not take the steps necessary to
    cooperate with the receivership and help strengthen this agency.
        Since the receivership has not yet been terminated, and may
    continue for several more months, the agency--and the city's children--
    need the support of this city's political leadership now.
        We hope that the city's goal in seeking an end to the receivership
    has not been limited to asserting its control and realizing its desire
    for autonomy, and that when the agency does revert to city control,
    District government will exercise the commitment and competence
    necessary to operate an adequate child welfare agency and protect the
    abused and neglected children of this city.
        However, the neglected and abused children of this city will not be
    left on their own. The child welfare system will continue to function,
    for the foreseeable future, under the supervision of the federal court,
    under the careful oversight of the court-appointed Monitor, and with
    vigilant counsel for the children who will not hesitate, should it
    become necessary, to bring the District back into court, with the
    possibility of new federal court sanctions, should city government not
    make good on its commitments.

        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Let me thank our
    panel.
        One of the things that we are trying to accomplish today is
    to get a snapshot of where the system is, and how children are
    being cared for today, and your opening statements, your
    comments, and your written testimony are certainly helpful in
    that regard.
        I want to start my questioning, however, by asking you all
    some very specific questions, and I would invite anybody on the
    panel to respond who can respond. I think there are certain
    basic questions that you have to ask about any child protection
    system, certain things you have got to know. If you do not know
    these things, or if the system does not know it and the public
    does not know it, then we really do not know how well we are
    doing. It is not that these statistics tell you the total
    story. They do not, but I think they are a good place to start.
        Let me first ask what the average length of time children
    are in foster care today. Does anybody know that figure, what
    the mean is?
        Ms. Meltzer. Based on a case record we did about 1\1/2\
    years ago, and which from my perspective is probably the most
    recent accurate data, because I do not trust the data that
    comes out of the information system since then, it is about 3.7
    years.
        Senator DeWine. It is about 3.7.
        Ms. Meltzer. Right.
        Senator DeWine. And it is significant that what you are
    saying is, the only statistics that we have are statistics that
    you have provided, really, as an outside monitoring group. In
    other words, there is no one on the panel who can tell me that,
    internally, the District of Columbia's statistics show that the
    average time spent in foster care is, blank, am I correct, or
    is that wrong?
        Ms. Meltzer. That is my perception.
        Senator DeWine. That is your perception. Is there anybody
    else that can give me the figure?
        Ms. Jackson. You know, these information systems take a
    while to get accurate data, but what I have now is 3.5, which
    is not that great of an increase, but we are retrieving data
    from that system now, and we know that it is not 100 percent
    accurate----
        Senator DeWine. We have got everybody in the system?
        Ms. Jackson. We have 70 percent of the people in.
        Senator DeWine. Okay, so we have got 70 percent of the
    people----
        Ms. Jackson. Well, with good data. All of the children are
    in the system.
        Senator DeWine. All of the children are in the system, but
    only 70--so for 30 percent of the children, the data is not
    good for them, is that what you are telling me?
        Ms. Jackson. It is not complete.
        Senator DeWine. It is not complete. Can you break it out
    beyond the average, or the mean? In other words, can you tell
    me how many children have been in foster care longer than 3
    years, how many have been in longer than 5 years, how many have
    been in foster care longer than 8 years, if we wanted to know
    that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. The system will give you that. I do not
    have that right now.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. You do not have that today. Can you
    supply that to me?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
        Senator DeWine. Can you give me a breakout of, let us say,
    2 years, 4 years, anything above 5 years, what percentage,
    because those are very relevant statistics. The average is
    interesting. That tells you something, but what you really want
    to see is, where do these kids really break out, and how many
    we have got there a long time.
        Let me ask another question. Do you know the average age of
    your children in the system today? I am not trying to embarrass
    anybody. I am not trying to give everybody a hard time, so if
    you all do not know, just tell me and we will move on.
        Ms. Meltzer. They have data, but that average does not tell
    you much.
        Senator DeWine. It does not tell you much. Let us start
    with that, and then you can tell me any other breakouts you
    have got.
        Ms. Meltzer. The system can provide information on the age
    distribution of the children in foster care, and they should be
    able to provide you that.
        Senator DeWine. Okay, and you think that your system can
    give me that figure?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, it can.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. We would like that, and I agree that
    the average is interesting, but it is probably not the most
    important. What you need to see is the age breakouts, what
    percentage are 8 years old, what percentage are 10 years old,
    et cetera.
        Understanding that a third, 30 percent of the children do
    not have complete files in the system--and by the way, when do
    you think that will be finished? When will you be able to say
    that the children have completed files in the system that are
    retrievable?
        Ms. Jackson. 2002.
        Senator DeWine. 2002. When in 2002?
        Ms. Jackson. Early.
        Senator DeWine. Early 2002.
        Ms. Jackson. We have hired a team of people.
        Senator DeWine. Have you got enough money to do that? I
    mean, do you, or don't you?
        Ms. Jackson. We have enough money for this year, until
    2002, yes.
        Senator DeWine. All right. Do you know what the breakout is
    in regard to what the plans are, the case goal plan for each
    child? In other words, the national statistics from the
    Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System--
    AFCARS--would show that--just as an example, 42 percent of the
    children nation-wide have a goal of reunification, 19 have a
    goal of adoption, 7 have long-term foster care, 5 emancipation,
    4 percent guardianship, and 19 percent have no goal
    established, at least those are the figures that I have nation-
    wide. Do you have comparable figures?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. I do not have them here, but I can get
    them to you.
        Senator DeWine. Do you have any idea what they are?
        Ms. Meltzer. I do.
        Senator DeWine. You do.
        Ms. Meltzer. They provide them to me monthly. About a third
    of the children in this system have a goal of adoption. It is
    not the same pattern as the national data.
        Senator DeWine. About a third have a goal of adoption.
        Ms. Meltzer. About 900 children in this system right now
    have a goal of adoption.
        Senator DeWine. Okay, so the total number of children is--
    --
        Ms. Meltzer. The total number of children--well, this is an
    interesting figure. For the last year we have been told it is
    between 3,100 to 3,300 children. This last month, the data
    coming off of the automated system is down to 2,800 children.
    That is a huge change. This is the first month that the data
    has been produced off the automated system.
        Senator DeWine. So we do not know why that is?
        Ms. Meltzer. No. I still think that there are about 3,000
    children in care, and the agency is trying to figure out
    exactly, so about a third of them have a goal of adoption.
        Some significant number of them, a couple of hundred, and I
    can give you the exact figure, have a goal of independent
    living, or emancipation, and the rest have goals of either
    return to a parent or a relative. There are a couple of hundred
    children in the most recent month's data who did not have a
    permanency goal assigned.
        Senator DeWine. Analyze for me, then, those statistics.
    What does that tell you? What does that mean to a lay person,
    someone who is listening to this and who is not an expert and
    does not understand all the terms, what does that mean?
        Ms. Meltzer. What it means to me is that there are still
    too many children in the system who have been in foster care
    for too long. The large number of children with the goal of
    adoption means that ASFA is not being implemented adequately.
    They need to be moved into permanent----
        Senator DeWine. The law is not being implemented.
        Ms. Meltzer. Right, so----
        Senator DeWine. The law that applies to every child in this
    country today, basically. I mean, the overall Federal law does.
    We have implementing laws at the State level and the District,
    but Federal law applies to everything.
        Ms. Meltzer. So what it suggests to me are all the problems
    we have been talking about in terms of adequate lawyers to move
    these cases, number of judges to hear these cases, and making
    sure about the 900 children with the goal of adoption. The
    agency indicates that about half of them are in homes that are
    willing to adopt them, so for those children the actions have
    to be taken to move those children and to finalize those
    adoptions. For the other children, there are a whole range of
    steps that have to be taken, including adoption recruitment.
        Senator DeWine. Now, my time is up, and I have a whole
    bunch, as you can imagine, more questions about statistics. I
    am going to flip it to you. This is a logical place I think to
    do it, Mary, but in regard to adoption, how does it work in the
    District of Columbia?
        I know that in Ohio and in most States we terminate
    parental rights, which is a separate proceeding. Once that is
    done, if the system is working right, following the Federal
    guidelines, following what the State has, we move quickly into
    making that child available for adoption, and then we hope that
    that child is ultimately adopted.
        How does it work in the District? What is the process? Is
    that a separate process? Do you terminate parental rights
    first?
        Ms. Jackson. No.
        Senator DeWine. No.
        Ms. Jackson. We have to have an adoptive place before the
    court will terminate parental rights in the District.
        Senator DeWine. Where else does that exist in this country?
    Is that a common thing?
        Ms. Meltzer. No, it is not.
        Senator DeWine. It is not common.
        Ms. Meltzer. The remedial order requires that rights be
    terminated for children with the goal of adoption within a very
    short period of time after the goal of adoption is established.
    The District has never implemented that provision of the order.
    The court and other people here can comment on that. The court
    has been reluctant, and basically what workers are told is that
    there have been two problems. The Office of Corporation Counsel
    has never brought TPR proceedings routinely for a combination
    of reasons.
        Senator DeWine. TPR meaning?
        Ms. Meltzer. Meaning termination of parental rights.
        Senator DeWine. Sometimes I know, sometimes I do not know.
    I just want to make sure.
        Ms. Meltzer. It has been a combination of adequate staffing
    and a sense that the court will not approve it unless there is
    an adoptive placement, and that, of course is a chicken and egg
    problem.
        Senator DeWine. Well, that is right. If you are an adoptive
    parent, you are sitting there, you have no clue whether this
    child is eligible for adoption or not. I mean, what in the
    world is going on? Why does the District do it this way? Does
    anybody else in this world do it this way?
        Ms. Graham. Not to my knowledge, Mr. DeWine.
        Senator DeWine. Well, for heaven's sake, isn't it about
    time the District caught up with the 21st Century----
        Ms. Graham. Yes.
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. And got with the program about
    protecting kids and getting kids adopted?
        Ms. Graham. Absolutely, Mr. DeWine. One of the things that
    we found--the Williams administration has been in place 2
    years. Last year, we began to work very aggressively with this
    agency. So much had not been done, and actually the Adoption
    and Safe Families Act in the District was just passed this past
    February.
        Senator DeWine. Which is again a shocking thought.
        Ms. Graham. Absolutely.
        Senator DeWine. We passed that when? November 1997 it
    became law.
        Ms. Graham. Absolutely. It certainly did. That was one of
    our first findings. As we did further research into the
    challenges of the agencies, we found that there was no
    communication with the other Departments. Actually the Office
    of Corporation Counsel was so grossly understaffed that there
    was no way that it could begin to implement the requirement not
    only of the order but also of the Adoption and Safe Families
    Act.
        Senator DeWine. Let me at this point--I want to come back
    to this, but this is a good segue to Senator Landrieu, because
    Senator Landrieu is probably in Congress one of the most, if
    not the most foremost expert on the whole issue of adoption and
    has really taken a lead in this whole area, and has tremendous
    knowledge and great passion for this, and we apparently have a
    vote that is going on.
        I will turn it over to Senator Landrieu at this point, and
    we will then break for the vote. Does anybody know if we have
    one or two? We have two votes, so you can relax once we leave.
    It is probably going to be 25 minutes until we get back, I
    would suspect.
        Senator Landrieu. There are so many questions I have I do
    not know where to start, but I would say that at least from
    what I have learned this morning, the consent agreement has
    outlined at least five important steps that need to take, or
    five important foundations that should be laid down, the
    consolidation of the agency, the selection of a new Director,
    and I am most heartened to learn about the specific directive
    to have a senior management team.
        Because even the best, most outstanding Director could be
    brought in, and if that Director is not given latitude to have
    their own senior management team, in my opinion, when you are
    trying to fix a situation like this, which is a serious turn-
    around situation--I would fall on the side of giving not only
    the Director and senior management team even broader latitude
    to hire and fire, to reorganize, and to rearrange, and I think
    that the Senator will agree with me that, as passionate as we
    are about trying to help you fix this, that it would not be in
    our interest to micromanage this turn-around, that what we need
    to do is try and get good data, good, solid measurements, and
    then give you all as much flexibility within what the courts
    will allow, and this is an additional safeguard, perhaps, to
    actually get this done sooner than later.
        The other point I just want to make is, regardless of
    whether this system stays, quote, in receivership, or moves to
    the mayor's office, which I have great confidence and respect
    and regard for the Mayor, and frankly think there could be no
    better mayor suited to take this on, since he himself is a
    product of a foster care system that in his case worked for him
    and for his family beautifully, so I most certainly understand
    his passion to try to get this system to work for other
    children that were in his similar circumstance.
        But even with his great abilities, unless we help to
    fashion and give him the budget and the tools and the
    flexibility, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be
    many, many more years, so my questions would be to all of you,
    what are some of the obvious barriers, even let us say this
    receivership moves to the Mayor, assuming we get an excellent
    Executive Director, a wonderful management team in place, which
    I think could be done, what are some of the sort of barriers
    that jump out at you that you think will even prevent us from
    making great strides quickly, and I will just ask each of you
    to identify one that comes to your mind, and perhaps we can
    direct our resources and attention there.
        Ms. Jackson. I think one of the huge barriers has to do
    with the court system, the fact that there are 59 judges, the
    fact that we have to listen to each one, the fact that the
    Council for Court Excellence put out a report that shows how
    long it takes to get these cases through the system. We have a
    very adversarial relationship with the courts, and it makes it
    very hard to effect permanent plans for children.
        Senator Landrieu. Just in response to that, there are a
    number of us, and I think Senator you actually have a bill that
    I am going to be joining you in helping to fashion if it is not
    already introduced, that is going to basically mandate that
    that court identify a specific number of judges, whatever we
    could agree would be a good number, that would focus and be
    permanently seated on these cases, so that the judges
    themselves become familiar with the cases, and with the case
    work team, and with the child advocates involved, so that there
    is more of a collaborative team effort to move some of these
    cases.
        And just let me say for the record that I am very
    respectful of what the judges might think about the way the
    system operates. We are going to move forward with mandating
    this court to do this, and unless they can come up with some
    extraordinary reason which I cannot imagine, I think that is
    one of the immediate steps that needs to be taken, so in
    fashioning how many judges and how it should work, I would
    appreciate that input.
        What, Judith, would you say is in your mind, even with a
    great Director and adequate budget, a good management team in
    place, which I am certain that the mayor could actually
    deliver, what do you think the biggest barrier is?
        Ms. Meltzer. I think that recruiting and retaining a stable
    workforce has got to be one of the highest priority challenges
    for them, because even in this last year they recruited 132
    workers, and then they lost 128 of them.
        Senator Landrieu. So for the record, we successfully
    recruited 132 workers, and lost 128.
        Ms. Meltzer. So they are back where they started from,
    basically, and it is a crisis.
        Now, let us talk about the three reasons why, and anybody
    jump in, what was the number one reason for losing them, what
    was the number two, and what was the number three reason, in
    your opinions?
        Ms. Jackson. In terms of our exit interviews--in fact, we
    did not lose 120 of the 130.
        Ms. Meltzer. Well, they are not the same people.
        Ms. Jackson. Not the same people, okay. What we get from
    exit interviews is poor supervision, number one.
        Senator Landrieu. Poor supervision, not enough supervision
    and support.
        Ms. Jackson. Exactly. Number two, working with the courts,
    and the third one is just for a different experience, or a
    different professional experience. We hire all master-level
    licensed MSW's. That is what we, according to the modified
    final order, had to hire. Now we are looking at hiring
    bachelor's level.
        Senator Landrieu. You were originally required to hire
    master's, but now you have had some relaxation of that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And you can take those with
    bachelor's degrees?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask this, given that number 1,
    according to exit interviews, was lack of proper supervision,
    do we have anything in our plan that allows us to fire managers
    that are not doing--I am not talking about senior management. I
    am talking about the supervisory level. Do we have any way to
    either give additional help and training to those managers that
    could use it, or ways that we can ask or require managers to
    leave that are not doing their job?
        Ms. Graham. The agency has invested in training, but this
    past year the city adopted the management supervisory service
    and that has allowed us to move mid-management into that core.
    We are now able to require performance plans and then, based on
    performance, terminate immediately, without going through the
    elaborate processes that one had to go through previously with
    the Civil Service System.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask you this, in the last, maybe
    to be fair in the last 12 months, how many managers have been
    terminated for lack of performance?
        Ms. Graham. None has been terminated in the agency for lack
    of performance. This plan has just really been adopted, and is
    in the process of being implemented this fiscal year, so we are
    all monitoring our management processes very closely now.
        Senator Landrieu. And I know I am treading on sort of the
    sacred cow here, because every State and city has Civil Service
    rules and regulations, and they can in many instances become
    barriers to reform, with all due respect to the Civil Service
    and those that work for the Government, but when you are in a
    crisis situation, which I would declare that this is, I think
    that there are some extraordinary steps that should and could
    be taken to get the turn-around on, and then maybe you could
    put the sort of old system back in place, is what I am moving
    towards.
        I would like to explore that, not today, but to think
    about, and I know it is going to take negotiations between
    unions and agreements and everything, but I just think in a
    crisis just the old rules sometimes need to be lifted to get
    not only new management at the top, but sort of a new culture,
    if you would, throughout the organization, and then perhaps,
    and I think your good--and most all are well-intentioned, would
    embrace that sort of new approach, because in the long run
    everyone would be benefitted.
        Now, let me ask this just for the record. What is the
    starting salary that we are able--and salary was not mentioned.
    I am surprised. It was not salary that was mentioned, it was
    supervision, courts, and----
        Ms. Meltzer. I think it is just hard work and a desire to
    leave.
        Ms. Jackson. We have comparable salaries. The starting
    salary is about $38,000.
        Senator Landrieu. $38,000, okay. Let me ask this, and I am
    going to have to leave in just a second. Could you all
    describe--when you say, children and out-of-home care, and in
    Louisiana we think of that in a foster care situation, like a
    substitute family, where there is a single parent, or two
    parents, they may have biological children of their own, and
    they take in one or two or three children, because ideally you
    want to reflect that secondary family to be as much like a
    family as possible, as opposed to congregate living, or group
    homes, et cetera.
        Can you break down in general terms the 3,000 approximate
    children? What percentage do you think, that are not with their
    biological parents, are in what you would describe, whether
    they are with relatives or not--you can include that, because I
    actually think relative care and kinship care is a very common
    sense place for children who cannot be with their biological,
    but could you just sort of outline in broad terms what
    percentage are in atmospheres like that, as opposed to group
    homes where there would be 8 or 10 or 12 children in a group
    setting?
        Ms. Meltzer. Based on the data that----
        Senator Landrieu. The data that you have just generally.
        Ms. Meltzer. It is about 25 percent of children are in
    congregate care.
        Senator Landrieu. And 75 percent are in more traditional
    foster homes.
        Ms. Meltzer. And it is mostly--most of the children in the
    congregate settings are teens, although there are some young
    children which we are constantly trying to get them to move out
    of congregate care settings into family care settings, as well
    as a lot of the children in congregate care could be cared for
    with families if they were available, which leads to what I
    would say is the other challenge I would have put--it was hard
    to choose, which is the recruitment and support of foster
    families and adoptive families is another huge challenge for
    this agency going forward.
        Senator Landrieu. How many children do you think are in
    congregate care?
        Ms. Meltzer. I have those figures, but it is not----
        Senator Landrieu. Just send it in.
        Ms. Meltzer. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And there is no barrier to foster care
    recruitment in the sense, we look for foster care parents in
    this region. We are not limited to just within the District. We
    have no barriers to trying to recruit foster families
    regionally?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, we do.
        Senator Landrieu. Or do you just look in the District? Go
    ahead.
        Ms. Graham. The agency did have a major barrier, the ICPC,
    the Interstate Compact Process for the Placement of Children
    had been underfunded. There were two individuals staffing that
    office, responsible for carrying a tremendous case load in
    support of about four agencies' work.
        The agency moved swiftly to arrange placements in Maryland.
    About 60 percent of our children are in Maryland. Many of them
    are, indeed, in family homes, but they still require the same
    kind of scrutiny as the other professional foster homes, so one
    of the things that we have done is to move that function,
    beginning April 1, over to the agency for its own placement.
    That was a major barrier, because it was a tremendous backlog
    and lack of processing papers, just a complete lack of
    cooperation.
        One of the issues, Senator Landrieu, for agencies when they
    go into receivership--I think the ideals that they are pursuing
    are wonderful, but it isolates agencies from other agencies
    that they need to have interactive relationships with. When we
    came into office we found that this agency had been completely
    isolated. Nothing was moving.
        Senator Landrieu. The agency to try to identify foster
    homes is what you are talking about?
        Ms. Graham. That is exactly right. It had no real--it did
    what it wanted to do basically for the agency, and there was a
    tremendous backlog, and the agency, in order to get children
    placed in Maryland, just simply moved out, made its own
    determinations, and placed children.
        We have a great working relationship with the State of
    Maryland, and they are working with us to bring those files up
    to date. The children are in, we believe, safe placements
    there, and there is the ongoing monitoring happening now.
        This has been a major issue that has plagued the agency.
        Senator Landrieu. So we are making progress in terms of
    trying to recruit foster care families regionally. We are not
    limited to looking for them within the District.
        Ms. Graham. Right.
        Senator Landrieu. We can find families, if we try to help
    staff up that agency. There are many, as you know, hundreds of
    families willing to be foster care families, if their
    applications could be processed in a timely manner.
        Ms. Graham. Let me speak to the District, and I am going to
    allow my colleague here to say something.
        In the District, our housing stock is quite old, and it has
    lead in it. The city has not offered subsidies for families to
    do lead abatement, which can be fairly expensive.
        When the agency just recently, I think, or about a month or
    two ago released what was an RFP for foster homes, 50 percent
    of those homes came back ineligible because of lead. We have
    got to do a massive abatement program here in the District in
    order to make homes here available. Regionally we can and do
    recruit, but we have got a major issue here in the District.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask this, and I know it is touchy,
    but are you suggesting that if a sister of a biological mother,
    a biological mother unable to care for her two children,
    petitioned the D.C. system to take care of those children
    temporarily until her sister could get it together, or maybe
    take the children permanently, if that sister has lead paint in
    the house, those children would not be allowed to go?
        Ms. Graham. That is exactly right.
        Senator Landrieu. Now, I would like to just for the record
    explore this situation, because while I think lead paint is a
    serious problem, and you do not want to put people in danger, I
    also think that children who are traumatized, having to be
    moved for good reasons, need to be with relatives whenever
    possible, particularly if the relatives are responsible and
    caring and loving, particularly if there are other children in
    that house.
        Unless you are prepared to remove every child out of every
    house with lead in it--which you may want to do. I do not know
    if we can afford to do that--then it does not seem to me that
    we can--I mean, there would be a question in my mind as to
    that, but I do not want to go into more detail, but I just
    raise it because we just--you know, put it this way.
        I grew up in a house with nine children. My father was once
    the Secretary of HUD. Some people came to his office one day
    and said that he did not think children should be placed in
    homes where they did not have their own individual bedrooms.
    Well, he laughed and sent him out of his office, because we
    grew up with four kids in a bedroom our whole life, and shared
    one bathroom, and he said, you know, how can I put Government
    rules and regulations in when that is not even how it happens
    in my house.
        So sometimes in our efforts to do the best, we overlook
    some of the simple things. These kids need to try to be first
    with responsible relatives, and if we cannot find responsible
    relatives, then we go and place them in the most family-like
    setting possible for a short time until we can determine--so I
    will revisit this lead paint issue with you all, and I have
    just got to go vote, so let us take a break for maybe 10
    minutes.
        Senator DeWine may be back before I do, but let us take a
    break--and does the staff know how long we are going to go?
    Until 1:00, probably another round of questions until 1:00, so
    thank you, and I know you all could use a break, too.
        We will resume the hearing.
        Let me just direct the first question to you. You state
    that the Child and Family Service Agency is still not
    functioning as an agency that can provide appropriate care and
    protection for children. You go on to state that the consent
    order moving the agency out of receivership does remedy many of
    the problems that impede the provision of services to children.
        In your opinion, what more needs to be done to ensure that
    children are protected, and adequately cared for? That is an
    open-ended question that maybe will give you the opportunity to
    spell out for us in more detail than you did in your 5 minutes
    that we initially gave you.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I will do is
    echo one of the points that was made a bit earlier by the
    deputy mayor, which is that the agency became very isolated
    during the receivership. I think it was clearly difficult to
    get any cooperation with other District agencies who had
    responsibilities for some of the functions that were related to
    providing adequate services or protecting children, and I touch
    upon some of those in my written submission.
        But the one that comes most clearly to mind in the context
    of the Brianna Blackman case and some of the other cases that
    have been cited is the relationship with Corporation Counsel.
    Unfortunately, there is one. There has been a severe staffing
    shortage for representation, particularly to this agency, but
    also there was a real lack of any communication, whether it was
    between social workers who were going into court without
    adequate preparation, and then were not able to be adequately
    represented on a legal basis on actual abuse and neglect
    petitions, or petitions to terminate parental rights.
        But also the agency as a whole did not have an ability to
    get on a daily basis legal advice that would enable the agency
    to determine whether a court order that was entered, which the
    agency was disputing or did not think was an appropriate order
    to be entered, could be appealed, for example.
        There was in all aspects no ability for the agency to
    appeal any of these orders, and one of the unfortunate
    consequences of the Brianna Blackman case is that the agency
    received an order from the court to return this child, and
    instead of aggressively questioning that order and seeking
    legal counsel, going back into court and at least seeking to
    revisit the issue before the judge, who had not even held a
    hearing on it, and then if unsuccessful appealing the order,
    nothing of the sort was done because it just was not part of
    the process that was in place.
        Clearly, as part of the agreement, this consent order,
    there is a specific requirement for adequate legal staffing at
    Corporation Counsel. I think I highlight the fact that in next
    year's budget submission from the District there certainly will
    have to be a very significant increase in the budget for the
    Office of Corporation Counsel to be able to meet the ASFA
    requirements which are not being met right now.
        So that is a process that unfortunately is only now being
    negotiated with the District, and we have not come on a final
    number of additional attorneys, but certainly everybody
    recognizes and should have recognized years ago that the Office
    of Corporation Counsel is grossly understaffed and cannot
    adequately represent this agency. That is a fundamental
    necessity here, and a roadblock to getting these children to
    move forward through the legal process.
        Senator DeWine. Do you feel comfortable that there are the
    additional funds now set aside to do this, and the process is
    in place to get this done?
        Mr. Thompson. Well, as an interim measure, the receiver has
    actually made available $1 million out of its budget to fund
    the immediate hiring of a number of Corporation Counsel
    attorneys. Now, it remains to be seen whether the amount that
    is proposed for fiscal year 2002 is adequate, in fact, to meet
    all the requirements. There really has not yet been a full,
    detailed staffing study of what the actual need is.
        Certainly this is a step in the right direction.
    Corporation Counsel and the District have acknowledged and
    committed to providing additional attorneys. It is an open
    question as to whether the numbers that are being considered
    are going to be adequate to the task. There is an enormous
    backlog in petitions to terminate the parental rights that need
    to be filed.
        Senator DeWine. How many people work full time now on this,
    as far as lawyers? How many are assigned full-time to deal with
    this?
        Mr. Thompson. Well, I defer to my colleagues.
        Senator DeWine. Does anybody know, on the panel?
        Ms. Jackson. They tell us that they are only able to handle
    20 percent of our cases.
        Senator DeWine. They are only able to handle 20 percent of
    your cases, meaning, what do you rely on them to do?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, to represent us----
        Senator DeWine. In court?
        Ms. Jackson [continuing]. And to be in court with us, yes.
        Senator DeWine. So in only 20 percent of the cases do you
    have counsel with you in court.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Corporation Counsel.
        Senator DeWine. And what are the plans to hire additional
    lawyers and how will the District ensure that there is that
    close working relationship between the counsel and the case
    worker, whoever is involved?
        For example, in Ohio what they do is, or in some cities,
    they literally, physically put them in the same building. They
    are right there. You just go see them. They are there.
        Ms. Jackson. We have a plan that Mr. Rigsby, who is the
    head of the Corporation Counsel, submitted to us, particularly
    for the $1 million, that we are transferring, so we should be
    getting attorneys, paralegals, and additional staff to
    represent us. Most of them will be colocated in our building,
    so that they will be accessible to the workers to help them
    prepare for court and to represent them in court.
        Senator DeWine. What is the goal as far as your
    representation? You cited the figure that in only one-fifth of
    the cases do you have counsel. How many cases do you need
    counsel? Do you need them 100 percent, do you need them in 50
    percent? I mean, it is one thing to have a full-fledged trial,
    when you are presenting evidence. You clearly need counsel
    there. It might be something else in another hearing that you
    might not need counsel. I do not know. What is the goal here?
        Ms. Jackson. The goal is to have representation really when
    we need it. It is my experience that when the agency has its
    own representation a lot of things are worked out. The lawyers
    work out and a lot of cases you do not even have to go to
    court.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Ms. Jackson. So it would really help how we work with the
    Superior Court. I think it will limit the number of cases. It
    would help the time frames that we need, and we do need agency
    representation.
        Ms. Graham. Mr. DeWine, there are 16 attorneys in
    Corporation Counsel assigned to the agency that work on these
    issues.
        Senator DeWine. So you have 16 full-time people?
        Ms. Graham. Full-time attorneys working on these issues.
        The goal is to hire between 25 and 30. In the 2002 budget
    the mayor is requesting $1.9 million to fund that attorney
    corps for the agency.
        Ms. Meltzer. I am concerned that the $1.9 million may not
    be enough. I think it needs some close analysis, because the $1
    million that they are transferring this year is only for half
    of the year, and it was supposed to be for the startup group of
    attorneys with the understanding that an additional increment
    would come on next year, plus the funding for all of the ones
    that were started with this money. The first time I had seen
    the $1.9 million is in your testimony today. I think that bears
    some close looking at, because I do not think it is going to be
    sufficient to meet the needs.
        Senator DeWine. Well, I think that certainly needs to be
    looked at, and you also have the whole issue of how this is
    implemented, how you recruit these lawyers. These are things we
    do not have to go into today, but we all know from a practical
    point of view that is a lot of lawyers to get on very quickly.
    That is certainly going to be a challenge.
        Let me ask about another issue, and that is the issue of
    guardian ad litems. How is that worked in the District? How is
    that working? If we look at the Brianna case, we have got a
    horror story there that includes the guardian ad litem failure.
        Ms. Meltzer. I am not sure I understand the legal
    underpinnings of it, but the guardian ad litems are private
    counsel that are paid through an office of the Superior Court
    called the Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect, and they
    recruit people for this job, and they train them. My experience
    is that there is wide variability in the quality and
    consistency of the services offered by these lawyers. I know
    there was an effort early last year where the court was trying
    to develop practice standards that they would impose on people
    that were assigned as guardian ad litems. I believe that got
    stalled and has not actually gone forward.
        Senator DeWine. Well, we need to look at that, I think, as
    well.
        The related issue of the case representation, how does that
    work in the District? I know in some counties and some States,
    in some jurisdictions it works very well. In some they are
    hardly there at all. How is it in the District, does anyone
    know?
        Ms. Graham. I would suggest that it is hardly there at all,
    primarily because of resources. We do have an infrastructure
    and a very dedicated team of volunteers, but they have
    constantly not had the resources. We recently, or are in the
    process of transferring some funding over to them because we
    support their work. It really needs to be an integral part of
    the system.
        Senator DeWine. It seems to me this would be a logical
    place for a foundation or some private money to become
    involved. I mean, in some jurisdictions you have private
    resources involved that work on that to help. Of course, then
    you obviously have the issue of finding the people to do it.
    You have got to find the people who are willing to spend the
    time to do that.
        Let me get back to some other kind of snapshot questions.
    Let me ask about the training of social workers and where we
    are in regard to that, and if anyone can give me any statistics
    in regard to a snapshot of these people who are out there
    dealing with these kids every day. How long have they been with
    you, how many years experience they have on the average, what
    is their educational background. You did talk about that, I
    believe a master's, but what additional training do they get
    once they start? Do you want to give me some statistics on
    that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. Our training contract is with the
    Virginia Commonwealth University. When we came, there was no
    training, or a training program, but we were able to do an RFP
    and get Virginia to come in using Howard and Catholic to train
    our staffs, so they are located in our building, and they
    provide the training.
        Now, they do some 110 days of training a year, with 50 new
    courses. Because they are all master social workers with
    licenses, they try to make the training appropriate. Most of
    our social workers are new, our new master's level. Most of
    them I would say do not have a lot of experience, but we do
    have a core in the agency of social workers who have
    experience.
        Senator DeWine. I know Senator Landrieu got into this a
    little bit in her questioning as well. In addition to the other
    questions I would like for you to respond to, we can either do
    it orally or in writing, but I would like the profile, if you
    could give me the profile, particularly of the experience
    level, how many years experience in this field, actually in the
    field working, what you average.
        Ms. Jackson. I would like to give you that in writing.
        Senator DeWine. That would be fine. Let me talk for a
    minute, or ask questions in regard to the training of foster
    care parents, and what you do in that regard.
        Ms. Jackson. We have regular training that goes with new
    foster parents, but we also have in-service training. We
    average about 30 foster parents attending that each month. I
    think there are probably around 16 courses that are provided.
        Senator DeWine. What is the minimum, or is there a minimum?
    I want to be a foster parent. What happens?
        Ms. Meltzer. The modified final order requires that the
    pre-service training for foster parents be a minimum of 30
    hours of training. The agency has been using the MAP
    curriculum, which is a fairly recognized curriculum for pre-
    service training for foster parents.
        The order also requires that there be a minimum of 15 hours
    of in-service training a year for every foster parent, and that
    that be actually tracked and monitored according to the needs
    of the foster parent.
        Senator DeWine. Is that taking place?
        Ms. Meltzer. What they have recently just begun is offering
    some courses, but from the standpoint of complying with the
    requirement that every foster parent knows that they have to do
    15 hours and gets 15 hours, my current assessment is no, it is
    not where it needs to be.
        Senator DeWine. Let me ask another kind of snapshot
    question, and that has to do with case load. What can you tell
    me about that? What is the average case load, or what is the
    range--both?
        Ms. Meltzer. We get case load figures monthly from the
    agency, and they are not very helpful because the range is
    quite large, so that in one unit, which is Family Services,
    they are pretty close, or they have been pretty close to
    complying.
        Senator DeWine. Family Services would do what?
        Ms. Meltzer. Those would be service to children and
    families where there has been a substantiated neglect, but the
    children are still at home, so in those units case loads have
    been running anywhere from 12 to 15 cases per worker, which is
    a family.
        Senator DeWine. Which is acceptable.
        Ms. Meltzer. Right, which is acceptable. When you go over
    on the foster care side, you have huge variability, so you will
    have some workers with case loads that are 15, 16, some workers
    with case loads of 50, and some uncovered--well, not
    technically uncovered, because what happens is, they do not
    have a social worker assigned, but a supervisor or somebody
    else is filling in.
        Senator DeWine. Why would you have such a variation with
    people who are doing basically the same work, or are they doing
    the same work?
        Ms. Jackson. No.
        Senator DeWine. They are not doing the same work. Let us
    take foster care, for example.
        Ms. Jackson. Foster care is a very difficult service right
    now, and so a lot of workers ought not to go to foster care,
    ought to get out of there after a period of time, so the degree
    of difficulty has a lot to do with the staffing patterns in
    those services.
        They are perceived as more difficult, and the teen services
    are even more difficult, so we have a very difficult time
    keeping our foster care staffed up. What we have done to
    address that is to give foster care cases to Family Services
    workers, and some of the areas in the agency where we have
    lower case loads, we are just giving them a few foster care
    cases to help out.
        Senator DeWine. So a case worker might have 12 or 13 cases
    in regard to neglect cases, for example, where the child is
    still in the home, and they might have three or four foster
    care----
        Ms. Jackson. That is what we are doing currently, yes.
        Senator DeWine. So it is hard to compare the statistics,
    because you are comparing apples and oranges to some extent.
        Ms. Jackson. We know how many children are placed in our
    home placement, but we just have had to move them to different
    workers when people leave. We hired 19 social workers
    yesterday. This is a good time for hiring social workers
    because the schools are graduating social workers.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Ms. Jackson. So what has happened is, we staffed up this
    summer, and we will begin to look at that, but I think the
    ultimate goal for the new Director would probably be to make
    more generic case loads, because you cannot have this imbalance
    where you feel punished if you have to work with these children
    all the time, runaways, and the more difficult child.
        Senator DeWine. In foster care.
        Ms. Jackson. In foster care, and then you feel like, if you
    are working with families you feel less stressful, or if you
    are working an adoption.
        Senator DeWine. So one of the issues is, you do have quite
    a variation in a case load.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. It is huge, and you said one person could
    have 50 different families to deal with.
        Ms. Jackson. Children.
        Senator DeWine. Children in that home, right. They are
    dealing with 50 kids who are in foster care. Each one is in a
    home somewhere, so 50 kids.
        Ms. Meltzer. My last estimate from the last data that I
    received, there are 50 vacancies, 50 line social worker
    vacancies in the agency.
        Senator DeWine. The last figure that I saw is either last
    year or the year before. You got a whole bunch of new people
    in, you lost a whole bunch of people. You were basically
    treading water, the last figures I saw.
        Ms. Jackson. We have 375 social worker positions, master's
    level social worker positions. We have probably 59 vacancies,
    but yesterday I hired 19, so that cuts that down, and we will
    have no problem--what we have got to really work on is how to
    retain, the retention issues.
        Senator DeWine. Well, I am very curious to know about your
    retention. Can you get me some statistics on that?
        Ms. Jackson. I will.
        Senator DeWine. It would be pretty easy to give you a
    statistic that said, the average length of service with the
    District of the people who you have, the 300-and-some people
    you have working today, what is it, what is the range? Those
    would be statistics that I assume are not very hard to get. It
    would tell you something about your turnover.
        Ms. Jackson. The turnover, yes. We can get a rate for you.
        Senator DeWine. Let us go through this again, then. What is
    the goal? How are you going to deal with the turnover? You are
    always going to have turnover, and it is a tough business, we
    understand that, but what are you going to do to have some
    consistency?
        It is a problem for two reasons, obviously, to state the
    obvious. One is experience level, and if you are always dealing
    with people who have got less than 2 years of practical
    experience, you have got a problem, the system has got a
    problem.
        The other problem is continuity. If you have a tremendous
    turnover, every family, every child is being jerked around from
    one case worker to another case worker--to state the obvious,
    these are problems. What is the plan to deal with this turnover
    issue?
        Ms. Graham. Mr. DeWine, we recently just a week or so ago
    introduced legislation for retention incentive and signing
    bonuses for new workers coming on board, so those are
    preliminary steps that have been taken. We are asking the
    candidates who we are interviewing for the directorship
    questions having to do with the retention strategies, proven,
    known about, and those that they themselves have, in fact,
    implemented, so that is an area of great focus.
        I believe that with the right legal support that we have
    got to put in place to support these workers when they go into
    court, and the other kinds of supports, moving the
    transformation or reformation in the courts that will allow
    these cases to move quickly through the system, those are the
    kinds of things that will ensure that we are able to augment
    and retain a good workforce in the system.
        Right now, these workers are pretty exposed when they go
    into court, and often go in unrepresented, and not certain of
    who the lawyers are there to represent, whether they are
    representing the LaShawn case that many of them feel they are
    still arguing, or whether they are representing the agency
    itself, and so these are young workers, many of them, coming
    out of graduate school, and feel very exposed in that
    environment. We have got to support them.
        Senator DeWine. It just seems to me that in this whole
    area, that continuity and consistency is certainly something
    that is very, very important, and I think not only important to
    get more lawyers, but you have to make sure that those lawyers
    have time to talk to the case worker more than 2 minutes before
    they walk into court.
        It is a perennial problem that anybody who has practiced
    law has had, or anybody who has been a case worker has had.
    There is never enough time, but if you are going to have that
    assurance that you are talking about, it is clear that there
    has to be enough time, which is a function of numbers, and
    there is some continuity in the relationship between that case
    worker and that individual lawyer.
        I would say, frankly, it is also important that there be
    continuity in the type of case that the judge deals with, which
    is the reason that I believe we have to have a family court
    system, and that the District absolutely has to move to this,
    and has to move to it I think very, very quickly. I think one
    thing is related to the other, and that shifting around and
    handing cases off and handing kids off throughout the system
    has to be absolutely minimized, certainly as much as possible.
        You have cited some statistics about the increase in
    adoptions. I want to make sure I understood what your testimony
    was about--which is where we left off before I went to vote--
    having to do with the fact the District only goes through an
    adoption and at the same time they simultaneously apparently
    are filing the motion to terminate parental rights, and you do
    not do it that way.
        Tell me what the plans are to change that. Are there plans
    to change that? When are we going to see that changed, do we
    know?
        Ms. Meltzer. I do not know the answer to that.
        Senator DeWine. I have got to ask somebody else? Okay, we
    will, because I just do not see how you ever do what you need
    to do. I know your adoption figures are up, but I do not know
    how you ever do what you need to do unless you do what
    everybody else does, which is make a decision when you are
    going to terminate the parental rights. You terminate the
    parental rights, and then the child is eligible for adoption,
    and then you can move aggressively.
        Ms. Meltzer. These additional lawyers that the Office of
    Corporation Counsel is hiring, some number of them are supposed
    to be in a TPR unit. Conceptually they are now making the
    commitment that they will file, that they will do this work,
    but one of the issues that we have been negotiating is whether
    that number is sufficient to deal with both the backlog of
    cases as well as new children being newly identified, so that
    is why that is still an outstanding issue in terms of the
    adequacy of the staffing.
        Ms. Graham. Mr. DeWine, let me say that the Office of
    Corporation Counsel is currently under the close supervision of
    the City Administrator, Mr. John Koskinen, who has looked at
    the Appleseed report that was done assessing that particular
    function in Government. Indeed, the report does identify a
    number of issues that the office must deal with, and this whole
    issue of the termination of parental rights in a timely manner
    will be focused on.
        I will indeed talk to Mr. Koskinen as soon as I get back
    about this and the committee's interest in this, and the need
    to do this as a part of just best practice in this area.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator DeWine. Well, because of the lateness of the hour,
    I am going to stop at this point. I will submit some written
    questions for you all, and who should those be submitted to?
        Ms. Graham. I will take them.
        Senator DeWine. We will submit them to you, and we
    appreciate it very much.
        I believe that the child protection system in the District
    of Columbia should be a model for the Nation, and I think that
    is what our goal should be. Clearly, it is not a model for the
    Nation. Clearly, it has huge problems. Clearly, there is some
    progress being made, but the progress that is being made, at
    least for this impatient person, is not fast enough. I suspect
    there is no one in this room who thinks it is fast enough. We
    want to make sure that we do what we can do from this
    committee's point of view and the subcommittee's point of view
    to be of assistance.
        If that assistance is sometimes prodding and using the
    bully pulpit of the Senate to talk about these issues, I am not
    adverse to doing that, and I will do that. If it is a question
    of trying to highlight where the resources need to be put, we
    will do that as well, but I intend to continue to spend a lot
    of time on this, my own time and my staff's time.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the witnesses for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                    Questions Submitted to Carolyn N. Graham

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. You testified that the District has drafted and is hoping
    to publish regulations for foster and group homes. In its study
    released this year, the Government Accounting Office found that despite
    orders, regulations and recommendations to the contrary, that there are
    still a significant number of children, particularly children under 6,
    are in group or un-licensed homes. Can you identify for me if and how
    these regulations address these concerns?
        Answer. The District has drafted regulations governing the
    licensing and monitoring of foster and group homes. These regulations
    will be published for the formal 30-day public comment period within
    the next month.
        The foster home regulations provide detailed requirements that
    foster homes and foster parents must meet in order to be licensed.
    Below is a selected list of issues covered in these regulations:
      --foster parent qualifications, characteristics and background (age,
            health, maturity, etc.);
      --criminal records and child protection register checks;
      --foster parent responsibilities (provide supervision, be sensitive
            to the child, participate in case planning, participate in
            training, etc.);
      --agency responsibility to foster parents (provide adequate
            information to foster parent about child, include foster parent
            in case planning, etc.);
      --foster home capacity (limits on number of children in foster
            homes);
      --general physical environment of foster homes (fire, safety, health,
            etc. requirements);
      --health care, education and transportation of foster children;
      --foster parent training; and
      --approval and re-evaluation of foster homes.
        Similarly, the group home regulations provide detailed requirements
    that group home providers must meet in order to be licensed. Below is a
    selected list of issues covered in these regulations:
      --required staff qualifications (educational background);
      --criminal records and child protection register checks for staff;
      --personnel policies;
      --general physical environment of group home (fire, safety, health,
            etc.);
      --health, education, transportation, mental health and other services
            for children in group homes; and
      --initial licensure and re-evaluation of group homes.
        These regulations will provide an important framework for ensuring
    the quality of foster and group home placements for children as the
    City moves forward to reform and improve the child welfare system.
    However, these regulations will not, in and of themselves, address the
    problems of children placed in unlicensed facilities and children under
    the age of six placed in group care. These problems occur due to a
    variety of factors including delays in processing ICPC (Interstate
    Compact on the Placement of Children) agreements, delays in lead paint
    inspections and lack of adequate numbers of placements for children.
        There are a significant number of older homes in the District that
    have lead paint and are thus not appropriate for younger children. CFSA
    is working to expedite lead paint inspections by contracting directly
    for these services. Ideally, we would like to establish a fund in order
    to provide families with small grants (approximately $3,000-$5,000) for
    lead paint abatement.
        CFSA is also spearheading a process to recruit more foster homes
    through the My Community, My Children initiative that is funded by the
    Annie E. Casey Foundation. As an adopted child himself, foster and
    adoptive parent recruitment has been an area of focus for the Mayor;
    thus, he created the Bring Our Children Home Campaign, which is a
    public education effort about the need for foster and adoptive parents.
    The recruitment of more foster and adoptive homes will continue to be a
    priority for the Mayor. This Administration will work closely with
    community and faith-based organizations to increase the number of
    placement resources for children in foster care.
        Question. One provision of the Emergency Plan is to transfer the
    responsibilities under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
    Children from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to
    the CFSA. When you say that staff is currently being trained to handle
    this new responsibility, which staff are you referring to? How does
    this transfer comport with your current struggles with staffing
    shortages and overburdened case loads?
        Answer. To clarify, the transfer of responsibilities for ICPC is
    from the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS) to
    the Child and Family Services Agency, NOT from the federal Department
    of Health and Human Services. Currently, CFSA staff--three staff and a
    supervisor--are being trained to handle the ICPC function. CFSA will
    assume this function on April 1, 2001.
        It should be noted that the ICPC function does not require licensed
    social workers. The staffing shortages discussed at the hearing are
    most prominent in the agency's foster care unit--the unit that manages
    the cases of children in foster care. To address staffing shortages,
    the Mayor and the City Council have approved a plan to provide hiring
    incentives and relocation allowances for staff recruited from outside
    the District. Current agency staff that recruit and refer new staff
    will also receive bonuses. In addition, a plan has been developed to
    utilize BSWs in certain social work functions previously performed only
    by MSWs. It is expected that the Monitor and the plaintiffs will
    approve this plan. The hiring of BSWs to serve some social work
    functions will reduce the staffing shortages.
        Question. I want to commend you for your work on what you call a
    system of ``neighborhood places''. Many experts believe that the key to
    providing more effective services to children and families lies in the
    ability to integrate these services across agency lines. Can you
    identify for me specific steps that have been taken to move in this
    direction?
        Answer. The Mayor has issued a paper on the Neighborhood Places
    concept, which is included in his 2001-2002 Policy Agenda. This
    document lays out a vision for an integrated human services system with
    a single point of entry--rather than having to access six different
    agencies to get needed services. Work to implement this concept is
    proceeding on a few fronts. We are currently working with a private
    contractor to conduct an assessment of all our social services programs
    and develop a prototype to align these services. This work will
    ultimately lead to the creation of a centralized intake system--one
    place where a resident can get information and apply for benefits and
    services in all health and social services programs. The notion is that
    these centralized intake systems will be located at Neighborhood
    Places.
        We are also developing the Safe Passages Information System which
    will combine data from all the agencies in the District that serve
    children--child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, schools,
    health, etc. This system will provide a comprehensive picture of all
    services provided to children and youth and will support and promote
    coordinated case management across agencies. We will need certain
    federal agency exemptions, e.g., HCFA, Department of Education, etc.,
    in order to link these databases at the local level. I would welcome
    the opportunity to talk with you and your staff further about this
    piece because it is so critical to tracking the health and safety of
    our children and facilitating early intervention. This information
    system will support our work as we increase the types of services
    provided in neighborhoods.
                                     ______

                     Questions Submitted to Sondra Jackson

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine

        Question. Please provide a breakdown by age of where children in
    the DC foster care system are currently placed. (In other words, where
    are children less than one year of age, for example, placed?)
        Answer. See the attached report ``Children Currently in Foster Care
    by Age and Placement Type'' (APPA 14051-1) that shows 2,723 children
    who are currently placed as of April 18, 2001.

                    CHILDREN CURRENTLY IN FOSTER CARE BY AGE AND PLACEMENT TYPE AS OF APRIL 18, 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Age In Years
                 Placement Type              ---------------------------------------------------------------  Total
                                                0-2      3-4      5-7      8-12    13-15    16-17     18+
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adolescent & Pre-Natal..................        1        0        0        0        0        1        0        2
    Correctional Facility/Non-Paid..........        0        0        0        0        0        1        0        1
    Hospital................................        0        0        0        2        0        2        2        6
    Independent Living Group Home...........        0        0        0        0        0        4      100      104
    Kinship Foster Care.....................        9       33       79      191       84       43       38      477
    Kinship Unlicensed (Non-Paid)...........        0        3        3        3        0        0        0        9
    Medically Fragile & Mental Retardation..        1        0        6       20       14        4        9       54
    Non-Relative Unlicensed (Non-Paid)......        0        0        0        2        1        0        0        3
    Pre-Finalized Adoptive Family...........        8        4        8        3        2        2        0       27
    Proctor Foster Care.....................        0        0        0        0        1        1        3        5
    Psychiatric Hospital....................        0        0        0        0        0        1        0        1
    Refugee Minor Foster Family.............        0        0        0        4        2        3        5       14
    Residential Treatment Facility..........        0        0        3       10       36       37       28      114
    Specialized Infant Care.................       31       26       31       19        7        0        0      114
    Teen Mothers Group Home.................        2        0        2        0        2        3       24       33
    Therapeutic Foster Family...............        0        6       35      160       86       63       53      403
    Traditional Foster Family...............       98      145      274      411      130       53       77     1188
    Traditional Group Home..................        3        4        5       18       50       50       38      168
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................      153      221      446      843      415      268      377    2,723
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What are the case goals for children in the DC foster
    care system? (What percentages of these children between the age of 12
    and 18, for example have a goal of independent living?)
        Answer. See attached report ``Children Currently in Foster Care by
    Age and Permanency Goal'' (APPA 14051-2): Although the following
    permanency goals (Family Stabilization, Legal Custody, Relative
    Placement and Independence) are currently allowed to be selected in the
    system, steps are underway to close them out and map them to other
    goals that closely comply with permanency goals as described by the
    Adoption and Foster Care Data Analysis System (AFCARS) regulations. Of
    the 2,723 children identified, 495 are recorded in the system without
    permanency goals. The Agency has prepared a listing of these children
    to be distributed to management for staff to update the records. As
    previously stated, the records counted with ``No Goal'' are being
    identified so staff can update the records appropriately.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Age in years
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           0-2                  3-4                  5-7                  8-12                13-15                16-17                 18+
                    Permanency goal               --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number               Number               Number               Number               Number               Number               Number
                                                      of    Percentage     of    Percentage     of    Percentage     of    Percentage     of    Percentage     of    Percentage     of    Percentage
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adoption.....................................       12        .44        85       3.12       218       8.01       420      15.42       131       4.81        31       1.14         7        .26
    Emancipation.................................  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........        2        .07
    Family Stabilization.........................        1        .04         5        .18        13        .48        17        .62        14        .51         4        .15         4        .15
    Guardianship.................................  .......  ..........        1        .04         4        .15        11        .40        10        .37         1        .04         4        .15
    Independence.................................  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........  .......  ..........        5        .18        68       2.50       276      10.14
    Legal Custody................................  .......  ..........        4        .15         7        .26        16        .59         6        .22         4        .15         2        .07
    Long Term Foster Care........................        1        .04   .......  ..........        4        .15        34       1.25        83       3.05       105       3.86        40       1.47
    Relative Placement...........................        4        .15         4        .15        14        .51        41       1.51        26        .95         3        .11         5        .18
    Reunification................................       30       1.10        60       2.20        96       3.53       181       6.65        83       3.05        21        .77        10        .37
    No Goal......................................      105       3.86        62       2.28        90       3.31       123       4.52        57       2.09        31       1.14        27        .99
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................      153       5.62       221       8.12       446      16.38       843      30,96       415      15.24       268       9.84       377      13.85
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             children in the system
        Question. How many children currently in Foster care have been in
    the system longer than 3 years; longer than 5 years, and longer than 8
    years?
        Answer. See attached report, ``Children Currently In Foster Care by
    Age and Number of Years Receiving Services (APPA 14051-3). The total
    number of children in the system longer than 3 years is 1,581 while the
    number of children in care longer than 5 years is 998 and the number of
    children in care longer than 8 years is 513. This information is
    detailed in the attached report and includes the number of children in
    care less than 3 years. In addition, three (3) individuals were
    excluded from this count (2,720) due to incorrect birth dates recorded
    in the system. Their calculated ages were less than the number of years
    receiving services.

          CHILDREN CURRENTLY IN FOSTER CARE BY AGE AND NUMBER OF YEARS RECEIVING SERVICES AS OF APRIL 18, 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Age In Years
            Years Receiving Services         ---------------------------------------------------------------  Total
                                                0-2      3-4      5-7      8-12    13-15    16-17     18+
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0-0.9 years.............................       83       40       67      108       48       27       16      389
    1-1.9 years.............................       55       55       77      126       53       30       27      423
    2-2.9 years.............................        9       63       72      108       38       20       17      327
    3-4.9 years.............................        0       61      147      172       92       47       64      583
    5-7.9 years.............................        0        0       79      203       67       48       88      485
    8+ years................................        0        0        0      128      121       90      174      513
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................      147      219      442      845      419      262      386    2,720
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the average number of different homes a child is
    placed while in the foster care system? (Please provide a comparison by
    age: In other words, are school age children placed in more or less
    foster homes than pre-school age children)
        Answer. See attached report ``Number of Placements and Average
    Number of Placements by Age from October 01, 1999 to April 17, 2001''
    (APPA 14051-4) that shows the number of placements and the number of
    children (by age) who had continuous placements during the report
    period. This total includes an unduplicated count of children who
    exited care during this period. The total placements for each age group
    divided by the total number of children in the specified age grouping
    was calculated to provide the average number of placements for each age
    group.

           NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS BY AGE FROM OCTOBER 01,1999 TO APRIL 18, 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Age In Years
         Number of Continuous Placements     ---------------------------------------------------------------  Total
                                                0-2      3-4      5-7      8-12    13-15    16-17     18+
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.......................................      176      236      442      793      319      191      238    2,395
    2.......................................       30       67      146      206      109       68      127      753
    3.......................................        3       20       50       65       27       21       34      220
    4.......................................        2        3       11       27       17        4       17       81
    5.......................................        0        1        6       18        9        1        2       37
    6+......................................        1        1        3       17        4        5        1       32
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................      212      328      658    1,126      485      290      419    3,518
                                             =======================================================================
    Average Number of Placements............     1.22     1.38     1.49     1.53     1.56     1.53     1.63  .......
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the average duration of time that children are in
    foster homes? (Please provide a comparison by age: in other words do
    younger children typically live with the same foster family for a
    longer or shorter duration of time than teenagers?) Please provide data
    on the age distribution of children currently in foster care.
        Answer. See attached report ``Length and Average Duration of Time
    in Foster Homes by Age'' (APPA 14051-5) that details the years a child
    resides in a foster home by age. Foster Homes are defined as
    Therapeutic Foster Family, Traditional Foster Family Kinship Foster
    Family (Paid), and Proctor Foster Care.

                   LENGTH AND AVERAGE DURATION OF TIME IN FOSTER HOMES \1\ BY AGE AS OF APRIL 18, 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Age In Years
           Length of Time in Placement       ---------------------------------------------------------------  Total
                                                0-2      3-4      5-7      8-12    13-15    16-17     18+
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0-0.9 years.............................       78       77      160      320      155      106       91      987
    1-1.9 years.............................       36       69       99      240       96       56       68      664
    2-2.9 years.............................        3       45       81      157       64       32       44      426
    3-4.9 years.............................        0       37      116      162       84       39       67      505
    5-7.9 years.............................        0        0       38      132       53       44       68      335
    8+ years................................        0        0        0       39       48       44       91      222
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................      115      208      423      810      376      234      347    2,513
                                             =======================================================================
    Average Duration of Time in Foster Home      0.73     1.64     2.13     2.53     3.00     3.44     4.62
     in Years...............................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Foster homes are Therapeutic Foster Family, Traditional Foster Family, Kinship Foster Care and Proctor
      Foster Care.

        Question. Once the goal of adoption is established, what is the
    average duration of time that children are in care before being placed
    in a pre-adoptive home?
        Answer. We have 931 children in foster care with the goal of
    adoption. The average number of years children are in care before being
    placed in a pre-adoptive home is 1.39 years while the average number of
    years children are in care awaiting pre-adoptive homes is 1.82 years.
    The two charts below provide details of the average number of years for
    children who are currently in pre-adoptive homes and those with the
    goal of adoption but have not yet been placed in a pre-adoptive home.
    Of the total number of children with the goal of adoption, twenty-eight
    percent (28 percent) are currently in pre-adoptive homes as detailed in
    Chart 6.1 below. The remaining seventy-two percent (72 percent) are
    awaiting placement in pre-adoptive homes as detailed in Chart 6.2
    below.

                   CHART 6.1.--CHILDREN IN PRE-ADOPTIVE HOMES
                        [Average Number of Years = 1.39]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Time from Adoption Goal is established to    Number
         child being placed in Pre-Adoptive         of       Percentage of
                     Placement                   Children       Children
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0-3 months.................................        46              17.49
    3-6 months.................................        40              15.21
    6-9 months.................................        30              11.41
    9-12 months................................        25               9.51
    1-2 years..................................        55              20.91
    2-3 years..................................        34              12.93
    3-4 years..................................        17               6.46
    More than 4 years..........................        16               6.08
                                                ----------------------------
          Total................................       263             100.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                CHART 6.2.--CHILDREN AWAITING PRE-ADOPTIVE HOMES
                        [Average Number of Years = 1.82]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Time from Adoption Goal is established to    Number
         child being placed in Pre-Adoptive         of       Percentage of
                     Placement                   Children       Children
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0-3 months.................................        83              12.43
    3-6 months.................................        75              11.23
    6-9 months.................................        73              10.93
    9-12 months................................        59               8.83
    1-2 years..................................       158              23.65
    2-3 years..................................        94              14.07
    3-4 years..................................        47               7.04
    More than 4 years..........................        79              11.83
                                                ----------------------------
          Total................................       668             100.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Once the goal of adoption is established, what is the
    average duration of time that children are in the foster care system
    before the adoption is finalized?
        Answer. There were 343 finalized adoptions during fiscal year 2000.
    The Average Length of Time Between Establishing Goal of Adoption and
    Adoption Finalization is 1.7 years and indicated in the chart below.
    (Based on Children Whose Adoptions Were Finalized in Fiscal Year 2000)

                         [Average Number of Years = 1.7]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Time from Adoption Goal is established to    Number
         child being placed in Pre-Adoptive         of       Percentage of
                     Placement                   Children       Children
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0-3 months.................................        87              25
    3-6 months.................................        12               3
    6-9 months.................................        19               6
    9-12 months................................        23               7
    1-2 years..................................        75              22
    2-3 years..................................        55              16
    3-4 years..................................        34              10
    More than 4 years..........................        38              11
                                                ----------------------------
          Total................................       343             100
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What percentages of children who are identified as having
    a goal of adoption have had parents' rights terminated (TPR)?
        Answer. The percentage of children with a goal of adoption who have
    had parents' rights terminated is seventy-three percent (73 percent).

    Chart 8.1

    Number of Children With Goal of Adoption and Both Parents' Rights
        Terminated....................................................   681
    Total Number of Children With Goal of Adoption....................   932

        Question. How many foster children are currently placed in homes
    without properly licensed foster parents?
        Answer. Children Currently Placed in Foster Homes Without Valid
    Permits or Licenses. The Agency is currently hiring additional staff to
    process Foster Home Licensing after Licensing Authority becomes the
    full responsibility of the CFSA.

    Chart 9.1

    Number Of Children................................................   895
    Number Of Facilities..............................................   529
                           caseworkers/social workers
        Question. What is the average length of time most caseworkers/
    social workers stay with CFSA?
        Answer. Of the 248 caseworkers currently employed, the longest
    service period is thirty four (34) years, and the shortest is that of
    the most recent appointee whose entrance on duty date was April 2,
    2001.
        Question. What is the range most caseworkers/social workers stay
    with CFSA?
        Answer. Information was compiled for 100 employees who separated
    during the period of July 22, 1999 through a projected resignation
    effective April 20, 2001. The range for the length of stay was three
    (3) months to nine (9) years.
        Question. How many years of prior experience as a caseworker or
    social worker did most caseworkers/social workers have when they
    started working at CFSA?
        Answer. Using the social worker selection criteria, it may be
    possible to extrapolate the information requested from the agency's
    current social work staff. For example, CFSA hires social workers as
    follows:
        DS-9 grade level.--Recent graduates of an accredited school of
    social work who are licensed graduate social workers (LGSW) and either
    have no professional experience or less than one year of professional
    experience.
        DS-11 grade level.--Social Workers with a minimum of one year of
    professional experience at the LGSW level.
        DS-12 grade level.--Social Workers who are Licensed Independent
    Clinical Social Workers (LICSW). To obtain the LICSW, a social worker
    must have approximately three years of professional work experience.
        Based on the agency's selection criteria and its present workforce
    of forty-two (42) social workers at the grade 9 level, one hundred
    forty-five (145) at grade 11 and sixty-one (61) at grade twelve (12),
    the data supports a finding that most of the social workers hired at
    CFSA have at least one year of prior professional social work
    experience in a case carrying capacity.
        Question. What is the retention rate for caseworkers/social workers
    at CFSA?
        Answer. During fiscal year 2000, CFSA experienced an attrition rate
    of twenty-seven and one-half percent (27.5 percent).
        Question. Please provide a breakdown of the reasons why social
    workers/caseworkers left CFSA in the past five years. (For example,
    what percentage of social workers cited poor supervision?)
        Answer. The primary reason cited for leaving CFSA was job
    opportunity/career change. For a detailed breakdown, please see the
    attached Exit Interview Report and the accompanying Social Work Staff
    Exit Report Key.
                       social work staff exit report key
    Reason for Leaving Codes
        I--No Reason Provided
        II--Terminated During Probationary Period
        III--Job Opportunity/Career Change
        IV--Transfer to Another DC Agency (DCPS, etc.)
        V--High Caseload
        VI--Poor Supervision/Management Issues
        VII--Stressed/Overwhelmed
        VIII--Court/Attorneys/Judges
        IX--Lack of Support and/or Appreciation
        X--No Involvement in Management Decisions
        XI--Family/Personal Reasons/Retiring

                         EXIT INTERVIEW REPORT SYNOPSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Number of employees included in this               100         100
     report.........................................
    Number of exit interviews completed.............          76          76
    Total Number of reasons for leaving submitted...         120     ( \1\ )
    Number of employees citing Job Opportunity/               34          34
     Career Change..................................
    Number of employees supplying no reason.........          18          18
    Number of employees citing Poor Supervision/              15          15
     Management Issues..............................
    Number of employees citing Transfer to another            11          11
     DC Agency......................................
    Number of employees citing High Caseload........           9           9
    Number of employees citing Stress/Overwhelmed...           7           7
    Number of employees citing Family/Personal                10          10
     Reasons/Retiring...............................
    Number of employees citing Lack of Support and/            5           5
     or Appreciation................................
    Number of employees citing No involvement in               4           4
     Management Decisions...........................
    Number of employees terminated during probation.           5           5
    Number of employees citing Court/Judges/                   2           2
     Attorneys......................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Many workers who left CFSA employment submitted more than one
    reason for leaving. As a result, CFSA received a total of 120 reasons
    from the one hundred people who left between July 1999 and April 2001.
    These 120 reasons have been reduced to eleven main reasons, which are
    identified in the ``Reasons for Leaving Codes'' chart above.
        The above percentages reflect the percent of employees from the
    total number who left (100), who identified one of the eleven reasons
    from the list in the ``Reason for Leaving Code'' chart identified
    above. For example, the number of employees citing court/judges/
    attorneys is two (2). These two employees are obviously reflected in
    the two percent appearing at the end of the ``Number of employees
    citing Court/Judges/Attorneys'' column. These employees may have also
    cited high caseload as another reason for leaving. That being the case,
    both employee would also be reflected in the ten percent at the end of
    the ``Number of employees citing High Caseload'' column on the ``Exit
    Interview Report Synopsis'' chart.
                          reporting and investigation
        Question. How many cases of child abuse and neglect were
    investigated per year in the last calendar year (2000)?
        Answer. The number of reported abuse and neglect allegations
    investigated are listed below by calendar years 1999 and 2000 is listed
    in Charts 10.1 and 10.2.

    Chart 10.1.--Number of Referrals for Calendar Year 1999

    Accepted for Investigation........................................ 4,934
    Not Accepted for Investigation (Screened Out).....................    85
                                                                      ______
          Total....................................................... 5,019

    Chart 10.2.--Number of Referrals for Calendar Year 2000

    Accepted for Investigation........................................ 4,156
    Not Accepted for Investigation (Screened Out).....................   203
                                                                      ______
          Total....................................................... 4,359

        Question. In 1999 and 2000, how many reported cases of abuse or
    neglect resulted in the removal of the child/children?
        Answer. Number of Reported Abuse/Neglect Cases That Were Accepted
    for Investigation and Resulted in the Removal of the Child(ren) during
    Calendar Years 1999 and 2000 are reflected in Charts 11.1 and 11.2

    Chart 11.1.--Calendar Year 1999 Investigations Resulting In Removals

    Investigations Resulting in the Removal of At Least One Child.....   117
    Investigations That Did Not Result in The Removal of Children from
        Their Home.................................................... 4,902
                                                                      ______
          Total Referrals............................................. 5,019

    Chart 11.2.--Calendar Year 2000 Investigations Resulting In Removals

    Investigations Resulting in the Removal of At Least One Child.....   544
    Investigations That Did Not Result in The Removal of Children from
        Their Home.................................................... 3,612
                                                                      ______
          Total Referrals............................................. 4,156

        Question. In 1999 and 2000, what was the average length of time
    between when an initial report was filed and when the actual
    investigation began?
        Answer. See report ``Average Length of Time Between Intake Date and
    Investigation Initiative For Referrals Created Between January 1, 2000
    and December 31, 2000'' (APPA 14501.12). (Note: The CFSA child welfare
    information system was implemented on Oct. 1, 1999, therefore only 2000
    data has been provided)

    Average Length of Time Between Intake Date and Investigation Initiation
    For Referrals Created Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000

                                                                   Number of
            Length of Time to Initiate                             Referrals

    1 Day.............................................................   516
    2 Days............................................................   155
    3 Days............................................................    64
    More than 3 Days..................................................   709
    Not Initiated \1\................................................. 2,712
                                                                      ______
          Total Referrals............................................. 4,156

    \1\ Not Initiated means not documented properly in the electronic
    record.

    Average time taken (for initiated referrals)--19.71 days.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. In 1999 and 2000, on average how many days did it take to
    investigate a case?
        Answer. The Average Number of Days to Investigate a Case is 57.2
    days as indicated in Chart 13.1. (Of Investigations Completed in
    Calendar Year 2000)

                        [Average Number of Days = 57.27]

            Num. Of Days to Num. Of Complete Investigation Investigations
    0-30 days......................................................... 1,431
    31-45 days........................................................   484
    46-60 days........................................................   296
    61 + days......................................................... 1,004
                                                                      ______
          Total....................................................... 3,215

    Note: Prior to the implementation of the Agency's information system,
    FACES, this information was not tracked and is unavailable for calendar
    year 1999. Implementation of the FACES system was effective October 1,
    1999.

        Question. What are the ``typical'' reasons for removal of a child/
    children following an investigation? (Example: Parental drug use,
    domestic violence, incest, etc.)
        Answer. The complete values for ``Reasons for Removal'' of a Child/
    Children following an Investigation are:

    1. Abandonment
    2. Alcohol Abuse (Child)
    3. Alcohol Abuse (Parent)
    4. Caretaker Ill/Unable to Cope
    5. Child's Behavior Problem
    6. Child's Disability
    7. Death of Parent(s)
    8. Drug Abuse (Child)
    9. Drug Abuse (Parent)
    10. Inadequate Housing
    11. Incarceration of Parent(s)
    12. Non-Committed Child of Teen
    13. Physical Abuse (Alleged/Reported)
    14. Relinquishment
    15. Sexual Abuse
    16. Voluntary

        Question. Please provide a summary of how the investigative process
    works. Typically, what does CFSA do when a child abuse or neglect
    allegation is made? What is CFSA's role in the investigation? Will this
    change as a result of the consent order?
        Answer. All reports are made to the single reporting hotline (202-
    671-SAFE). Subsequent to a child abuse or neglect report, the Hotline
    Supervisor assigns the referral to an Intake Unit, based on Wards in
    the District of Columbia. If the referral contains allegations of
    physical or sexual abuse, a worksheet is forwarded to the Metropolitan
    Police Department (MPD)--Youth & Preventive Services Division (YSPD).
    The hotline worker conducts a search to determine if the family has
    been previously known or is currently active with CFSA. This
    information is then relayed to the investigating unit. The Intake
    Supervisor then assigns the investigation to a licensed social worker
    in the unit to conduct the assessment. Prior to the initial assessment,
    closed case records and FACES (CFSA management information system) are
    reviewed if the case has ever been known to the agency.
        If the report contains allegations of physical or sexual abuse, the
    social worker will conduct a joint investigation with MPD-YSPD. An
    initial assessment is attempted within 24 hours or immediately if the
    referral is considered an emergency. Upon responding, the social worker
    conducts a safety and risk assessment (food, clothing, shelter,
    education, medical care, supervision, and parenting skills) to
    determine if the child can remain in the home or if removal is
    warranted. Reasonable efforts are made to prevent removal by providing
    crisis intervention, referrals, and emergency services. If the child
    cannot safely remain in the home, the social worker conducts a removal
    in conjunction with MPD. The child is medically screened through DC
    Kids (neglect) or at the Children's National Medical Center (physical
    or sexual abuse) and a foster care placement recommendation is made.
    The Placement Unit then searches for the most appropriate facility or
    home according to the child's needs. The removal of a child requires
    legal action within 24 hours, therefore, a Police Hold is requested and
    the case is presented before the DC Superior Court.
        If the child can remain safely in the home, but the allegations are
    substantiated, the social worker opens the case and transfers it for
    further assessment, supportive services, and ongoing monitoring. If the
    allegations are unsubstantiated, the social worker closes the
    investigation.
        The Consent Order is expected to create certain changes regarding
    the investigation process and the role of CFSA: the responsibility and
    authority for child abuse cases will be transferred form the DC
    Superior Court Social Services to CFSA and CFSA Intake staff will
    acquire direct legal services.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. Your written testimony stated that CFSA has achieved a 33
    percent increase in the availability of community based services to
    children, raising the number of children served from 987 to 1,316. What
    percentage of the total number of families ``eligible'' or ``in need''
    of such services does that number represent?
        Answer. As a point of clarification, there was a 33 percent
    increase in the number of families served by community-based partners
    (from 987 to 1,316). The actual number of children served during the
    same period increased from 2,220 to 3,677. 100 percent of the total
    number of children and families who came to the attention of the Child
    and Family Services Agency as eligible or in need of community-based
    services were referred and received those services.
        Question. In regard to your 97 percent success rate in safely
    protecting children within their families, how exactly is that number
    determined? What does it represent?
        Answer. Of the total number of children safely protected by the
    Agency within their own homes (7,641), 206 of these children had to be
    removed from their homes and committed to the Agency's custody
    following case intervention for a period of time in which the social
    worker attempted to prevent the out-of-home placement.
        Question. As to the length of time in care, how was this reduction
    in time achieved? Also, do you have any information as to the length of
    time children are in care before adoption is identified as the
    permanency plan? In other words, the total time in care?
        Answer. This reduction was achieved as the Child and Family
    Services Agency has continued to make a concerted effort to increase
    the number of internal permanency staffs to identify appropriate
    permanency goals for children in care. In addition, the Agency has
    increased the number of diligent search investigators who search for
    missing/absent parents earlier in the process so that a permanency
    hearing does not need to be delayed due to the lack of information
    regarding the child's birth parent(s). The Agency is also working very
    closely with the Adoptions Judge of the D.C. Superior Court to ensure
    adoptions are finalized as soon as practicable. Currently, the average
    length of time in care to the establishment of the permanency goal of
    adoption is 2.44 years (28.77 months). However, as I stated at the
    March 15th hearing, termination of parental rights does not typically
    occur in the District until an adoptive home has been identified.
        Question. Can you help to expose some of the reasons why the
    district is not able to obtain the full level of Federal reimbursement
    to which they are entitled?
        Answer. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the
    Department of Health and Human Services published 70 percent as the
    District's maintenance payment rate for the 1st quarter of fiscal year
    1998, and ACF Office of General Counsel questioned the interpretation
    resulting in a revocation of the initial interpretation. ACF then
    determined that the District is not entitled to 70 percent Title IV-E
    reimbursement.
        The Agency does not fee it is recovering the federal revenues to
    which it is entitled. We believe that Title IV-E should be reimbursed
    at the same rate as Medicaid, as it is in all other jurisdictions
    except the District of Columbia and Alaska.
        Question. You have increased the number of children in foster care
    homes to 507. Can you provide me with a breakdown in the types of
    placements for the remaining children. For example, what percentage are
    in group homes, congregate care, therapeutic facilities etc.
        Answer. The 507 figure actually represents an increase in the
    number of foster homes not children. Provided below is a breakdown of
    the number of foster care children by type of placement as of February
    2001.
                                                                     Percent
    Traditional Foster Care...........................................   -46
    Therapeutic Foster Care...........................................   -14
    Kinship Care Foster Care.........................................\1\ -17
    Group Homes.......................................................    -9
    Residential Treatment Facilities..................................    -5
    Special Infant Program............................................    -4
    Other.............................................................    -5

    \1\ The remaining kinship care givers are not receiving the foster care
    board rate.

        Question. Are the 2,545 children living with kin counted in your
    numbers of children in out of home placement?
        Answer. Yes, however of the 2,545 children placed with kinship care
    givers in fiscal year 2000 approximately 500 were in paid foster care
    placement status. In fiscal year 2001, approximately 1,907 children are
    placed with kinship care givers (both in paid and non-paid status).
        Question. The hearing highlighted the fact that the District is not
    in compliance with ASFA in some areas. There are two requirements
    regarding time that I am aware of (1) within 12 months a hearing must
    be held--how long is that time frame currently in the District? (2)
    that any child who is in care for 15 of the past 22 months must be the
    subject of a hearing to terminate parental rights--again, what is the
    time frame currently in the district?
        Answer. The Family Division of the Superior Court of the District
    of Columbia is the entity statutorily responsible for holding a
    permanency hearing after a child has been in care for 12 months. On
    April 28, 1998, Chief Judge Eugene N. Hamilton issued Administrative
    Order No. 98-13 which required all judges to review their neglect and
    abuse cases and to conduct permanency hearings for all cases where
    eighteen months had passed since the entry of the order of abuse or
    neglect.
        The Council for Court Excellence recently released a report
    describing the status of the Court's compliance with the new time
    frames under the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. A copy of that report
    is attached.
                                     ______

                      Questions Submitted to Eric Thompson

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine

        Question. What is your perception of the District of Columbia's
    child welfare system? Are the problems plaguing the DC child welfare
    system similar to those across the country?
        Answer. The problems in the District's child welfare system are
    similar to those in other troubled systems around the country but these
    problems were exacerbated for many years by the problems within
    District government itself and then by the government's resistance to
    working with the receivership that had been imposed by the federal
    court. We hope those more general problems are abating, with recent
    improvements within the government and with the transition plan to end
    the receivership. And although there are still significant problems in
    the District's child welfare system, the receiver has succeeded in
    making many structural changes that should lay the groundwork for
    better services. Nevertheless, many reform initiatives have up to this
    point been stymied by system-wide barriers both within and without
    CFSA.
        Within CFSA, there is a critical dearth of competent, experienced
    supervisory staff, so that many caseworkers are quitting as fast as
    they can be hired. Under the best of circumstances, child welfare is a
    demanding field. When there is a critical and chronic shortage of
    casework staff, as there has been now for years at CFSA, caseworkers
    covering inordinately high caseloads are bound to only perform
    emergency tasks, if that. This jeopardizes service delivery and child
    safety. Current initiatives to recruit and retain competent staff must
    be continued and fully funded, and non-performing supervisory staff
    should be aggressively replaced.
        Outside CFSA, there has been a lack of cooperation and coordination
    between CFSA and the many other District entities responsible for child
    welfare, including the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan
    Police Department, and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
    In many instances, these agencies have even been openly antagonistic to
    CFSA and its staff to the detriment of the LaShawn plaintiff class of
    children. As part of the recent LaShawn consent decree, the District
    has now agreed to the full staffing of Corporation Counsel for CFSA
    representation, which will be a first. Full funding for these
    additional positions will be necessary. The District has also agreed
    that abuse and neglect investigations and case management must finally
    be consolidated in CFSA instead of being artificially distributed
    between CFSA, the Police Department and the Superior Court. Reforms at
    the Superior Court will also be needed to assure the continuity and
    competence of judicial oversight over contested child welfare cases.
    Finally, the District has agreed that other child welfare functions,
    such as foster home licensing and caseworker hiring, be transferred to
    CFSA from other understaffed and underperforming District agencies.
    With full funding and staffing of these functions within CFSA, the
    Agency will no longer be at the mercy of unresponsive District
    bureaucracies for these critical child welfare functions.
        Question. What role has the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
    played in making systemic changes in child welfare and foster care
    systems throughout America? What are the positive and/or negative
    effects of this new law? Would you recommend any changes to the law?
        Answer. ASFA has forced child welfare agencies, the courts, and
    legal advocates to pay far more attention to children's best interests
    and safety in planning for children. In addition, by requiring that the
    states take action to free children for adoption after they have been
    in foster care custody for 15 out of the last 22 months, the
    legislation also puts the states on notice that children should not
    remain in foster care indefinitely, and provides advocates with an
    important new tool for combating foster care drift. Unfortunately, many
    of the states are out of compliance with the requirements of the
    statute.
        Children's Rights is doing a study on the progress various
    jurisdictions have made in improving permanency outcomes for children
    since the enactment and implementation of the Adoption and Safe
    Families Act. Specifically with regard to adoption, we have found mixed
    results so far. Some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia,
    have significantly increased the numbers of children for whom adoptions
    are finalized and have sustained the increase on a yearly basis (in DC,
    increasing from 47 finalized adoptions in 1992 to 279 in 2000). Other
    jurisdictions (such as Kansas and Connecticut), however, reported an
    initial increase in the number of finalized adoptions and a subsequent
    slowing in these rates. This trend suggests that the initial increases
    reflected success in finalizing the adoptions of children who were
    already placed with adoptive families and where legal steps were all
    that remained to finalize the adoptions.
        It may be that the current population of children in foster care
    waiting to be adopted is increasingly comprised of children with
    significant special needs and/or who are members of sibling groups. If
    so, these children are likely to need specialized and focused efforts
    to ensure that adoptive families are identified for them. Absent these
    efforts, compliance with ASFA provisions to file petitions to terminate
    parental rights and free children for adoption will lead to a new group
    of children for whom permanency has not been achieved--children who may
    become ``legal orphans.'' Efforts to free children for adoption must be
    accompanied by aggressive efforts to recruit and support permanent new
    families for them. In addition, another concern about the ASFA
    provision that requires the filing of petitions to free children for
    adoption is whether the states will direct all of their attention to
    that aspect of permanence, and neglect the other important aspect of
    permanence, that of reuniting children with their birth families
    whenever it is appropriate and safe to do so. So far, there is very
    little information about exactly how this statute is being implemented.
        The greatest strength of ASFA is that it requires timely state
    action to determine and implement a permanent goal of adoption for
    children who remain in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months, if
    an exception does not apply. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 675(5)(E). ASFA's emphasis
    on termination of parental rights provides support for the first
    critical step toward ensuring permanency for children who will not be
    reunited with their biological parents. ASFA also provides guidance to
    states in maximizing their use of resources to recruit adoptive parents
    for waiting children in foster care.
        One weakness of the current statute is that there is no explicit
    requirement that the election of an exception justifying the non-filing
    of a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition be contemporaneously
    made and documented. States can therefore defeat the provisions of 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 675(5)(E) by failing to pursue timely permanency and then
    seeking to justify their non-action years later with an exception that
    may only apply by then because of their previous non-action. For
    example, if a state does not file a TPR petition for a child in foster
    care for 15 out of the last 22 months who should be adopted at that
    time, the state may be able to justify years later that it is no longer
    in the best interests of the child to be adopted because they have been
    allowed to bond in an non-adoptive foster home for years. Unless the
    states are required to elect and document that an exception applies at
    the 15 month mark when a TPR petition is not filed as otherwise
    required, then the exceptions can swallow the rule by allowing the
    states to seek to justify their non-action years hence to the detriment
    of the children.
        Also, ASFA did not provide additional funding to states to expand
    their recruitment efforts for adoptive homes for the growing number of
    children who are being freed for adoption. Nor did ASFA address the
    post-adoption needs of families who adopt children with physical
    disabilities, mental health problems and developmental difficulties (a
    significant percentage of children in foster care). Research and
    practical experience have demonstrated repeatedly that successful
    adoptions of children in foster care depend to a significant degree on
    the availability of post-adoption services and supports for children
    with special needs and their adoptive families. Absent such support,
    the risk of adoptions disrupting and children returning to foster care
    is significant. To further ASFA's goal of ensuring permanency for
    children through adoption, emphasis must be placed on the development
    of and support for post-adoption services for children and their
    families.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. Both yourself and Ms. Jackson identified the lack of
    legal representation as a major barrier to improvement. While I
    understand that it is the intent to hire additional attorneys and have
    them be located within the agency itself, I am wondering if any thought
    has been given to ensuring that: (1) these attorneys are appropriately
    trained to handle these cases and (2) It is clearly established what
    their role as attorneys for the agency will in fact be?
        Answer. This question raises important questions because, as the
    Senator recognizes, simply having an adequate number of attorneys does
    not ensure adequate legal representation, and adequate legal
    representation is absolutely critical to ensuring protection for the
    District's children. In the past, the Office of Corporation Counsel in
    the District has been extremely resistant to either the question of
    additional numbers of attorneys, or to the role they play with regard
    to representing the Child and Family Services Agency. As a result of
    the negotiations concerning ending the receivership and returning the
    agency to the District's control, the District has agreed to
    appropriate staffing ``to assist CFSA staff to effectively present
    their cases in court,'' and the provisions concerning adequate equal
    representation will be carefully monitored, given how important they
    are and how much of a problem this has been. However, plaintiffs are
    not yet satisfied that the role of these lawyers, and their
    supervision, has adequately been addressed by the District. Therefore,
    our negotiations with the District on the details surrounding this very
    important issue continue, and plaintiffs will oppose an termination of
    the receivership until the details on legal representation are
    satisfactorily resolved.
        Question. As a lawyer, I am sure that you recognize that even the
    most perfect of social service systems can ultimately have their
    permanency and safety goals impeded by a overburdened and unspecialized
    court system? Can you expound for us the role of the courts in this
    transformation?
        Answer. We agree that the courts play a very important role in
    ensuring the protection of children. In the past, we do not think that
    the courts, CFSA and District government have worked together as
    collaboratively as necessary. The separation of responsibility for
    abuse and neglect has created a serious problem and the recently passed
    legislation to end that separation is a critical step toward improving
    services for children. We also believe that there are important steps
    toward reforming the courts themselves that should be taken. These
    steps include: better, more efficient scheduling of cases, so that case
    workers do not have to spend hours waiting in court, and not serving
    children, for brief court appearances; a specialized bench, as is the
    case in many jurisdictions, so that the judges will have the
    opportunity for specialized training, and have a better and more
    sophisticated understanding of the issues that are presented before
    them; and far better cooperation and liaison between the court and the
    administration of CFSA to address and resolve problems cooperatively
    that interfere with each system doing the best possible job for
    children. The court also needs greater expanded technology so that it
    can ensure accountability, track permanency for children and keep far
    better track of the cases.
                                     ______

                     Questions Submitted to Judith Meltzer

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. You have provided us with some startling numbers which
    demonstrate the depth of workforce issues facing CFSA. I am encouraged
    by your testimony that a plan is being developed to increase
    recruitment and retention of social workers. Are there any specific
    areas of the that plan you would like to highlight?
        Answer. As indicated in my written testimony, addressing the
    workforce issues is one of the most important challenges that the child
    welfare agency (CFSA) faces as it seeks to comply with the LaShawn
    Remedial Order requirements to operate a high quality child welfare
    system. Until fairly recently, the workforce problems were in part
    budgetary, in that (1) there were not enough budgeted positions to
    bring caseloads to required levels, and (2) social worker salaries were
    non-competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. This is no longer the
    problem. The biggest barriers have been the single reliance on MSW
    social workers for all of the frontline social work functions and the
    difficulties that the agency has had in retaining social workers.
        On the MSW issue, the LaShawn Remedial Order includes a requirement
    that all social workers be licensed MSWs unless the District develop
    and the plaintiffs approve an alternative plan. This requirement was
    put in the decree at the recommendation of District government in 1991
    because of a long-standing view that District licensing law requires
    anyone practicing social work to have an MSW degree. Plaintiffs and the
    Court Monitors' review of the District statute suggests that either a
    licensed BSW or MSW can provide social work services. However, for many
    years, the District's Social Work Licensing Board and the professional
    association (the Metropolitan Chapter of the National Association of
    Social Workers) have vigorously opposed any efforts by the Receiver to
    implement a plan to use licensed BSW staff. As Monitor, we have always
    indicated that we believe that such a plan needs to be developed and
    would be approved by plaintiffs. Given the current hiring crisis, I
    have strongly recommended that the agency move forward with a plan to
    immediately hire BSW as well as MSW staff. That plan is currently in
    the final stages of development by CFSA and assuming that it clearly
    identifies the functions that BSW staff will perform; how they will be
    supervised, and how they will be trained, both the Monitor and
    plaintiffs should approve it.
        Assuming the agency goes forward to aggressively recruit both MSW
    and BSW staff this spring, they should be able to hire a sufficient
    number of workers to fill all current vacancies. The Mayor and the
    District Council have finally approved a plan developed by the Receiver
    last year to allow the agency to provide hiring incentives and
    relocation allowances for staff recruited from other states. Bonuses to
    current staff who recruit and refer newly hired staff will also be
    provided. These incentives will help with the recruitment. In addition,
    I am encouraging the agency to over-hire, that is to commit to hire new
    workers at a level at least 10 percent above current vacancies, so that
    there is always a pool of available trained workers to fill new
    vacancies.
        The biggest issue facing CFSA is social worker retention. As
    indicated in my testimony, in the year 2000, the agency hired 132 new
    social workers and lost 128 workers, leaving a net gain of only 4
    workers. Resolving retention issues will involve a creative leader, who
    can increase the morale of workers at the agency. Also imperative are
    efforts to improve front-line supervision; to provide workers access
    needed resources for families and children, and to provide workers with
    continuous opportunities for job satisfaction and professional
    development. In addition, current efforts to improve the adversarial
    relationship with the Superior Court and the lack of effective
    representation for social workers by Office of Corporation Counsel
    attorneys should positively impact retention (assuming these problems
    are successfully resolved).
        Question. You mentioned that you are also faced with serious
    challenges in identifying prospective foster and adoptive placements?
    What are some of the specific barriers to securing these placements?
        Answer. As Monitor, I have continually expressed concern about the
    need to identify, recruit and support foster and adoptive parents. As
    is true with the staffing problems, the shortage of appropriate
    placement is as much a retention issue as it is a recruitment problem.
        The District faces difficult and special challenges in recruiting
    families because it is such a small jurisdiction in a large
    metropolitan area. Although the District is committed to intensifying
    its efforts to identify homes in the District of Columbia, the majority
    of children are currently placed in Maryland and Virginia. Recruiting
    and approving homes in the surrounding jurisdictions involves the
    District in the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC)
    process which makes an already difficult task more complex. As Monitor,
    we have advocated that the District enter into a ``Border State
    Agreement'' with Maryland and Virginia. This will allow the District to
    study, and approve homes within a 50-mile radius of the District
    without going through the ICPC process. Several states with cross-
    jurisdictional placement issues have ``Border Agreements,'' and it is
    clearly a sensible solution for the District of Columbia. However,
    until such time as the District is able to persuade Maryland and
    Virginia to negotiate such an agreement, the District must make sure
    that it devotes the necessarily resources to comply with ICPC
    requirements in a timely and professional way. In the past, this has
    not been done and this has made cooperation with the surrounding
    jurisdictions more difficult.
        One promising initiative is the work of the My Community, My
    Children project which is funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and
    which is supporting neighborhood-based foster care recruitment and
    support in the District. This work is being carried out by CFSA in
    collaboration with the Healthy Families/Thriving Communities
    Collaboratives. It is designed to recruit families from District
    neighborhoods and to put in place a range of community-based supports
    for foster and adoptive families so that these placements are
    successful.
        Experience across the country has shown that the ability to
    effectively support foster and adoptive parents through training,
    support groups, respite and day care, among other things, is essential.
    In addition, foster parents must have ready access to social workers
    when problems arise and must be respected for their work; foster
    parents must also be included as partners in appropriate case planning
    for the children in their care. Effectuating these changes will also
    help with recruitment and retention.
        Question. In your testimony you stated that the ASFA is not being
    complied with in the District. There are two requirements regarding
    time that I am aware of (1) within 12 months a hearing must be held--
    how long is that time frame currently in the District? (2) that any
    child who is in care for 15 of the past 22 months must be the subject
    of a hearing to terminate parental rights--again, what is the time
    frame currently in the district?
        Answer. I am unable to provide compete information to the Committee
    on the District's compliance with ASFA time lines. The agency's data
    system does not yet produce this information on a regular basis.
    However, as Court-appointed Monitor, CSSP last conducted a case record
    review of statistically valid samples of foster care and adoption cases
    in 1998. At that time, over half of the children in foster care with a
    goal of return home had had that permanency goal for over twelve
    months. In addition, the average length of time in foster care for
    children awaiting adoption was five years and only forty percent of the
    children awaiting adoption were legally free, either through
    relinquishment or termination of parental rights. More recent data
    compiled by the Council for Court Excellence suggests ongoing problems
    in meeting Court time frames for case fact-finding and disposition
    which will ultimately inhibit the system's ability to meet ASFA time
    lines.
        As part of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order governing transition
    of the LaShawn Receivership to District government, CSSP will conduct
    another case record review at the point of transition and again 6
    months later in order to determine if there is sufficient progress to
    warrant exit from a probationary status. There are several ASFA-related
    indicators and time lines that we will be assessing as part of those
    reviews.

        [Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee received the following
    letter from Carolyn N. Graham in response to questions posed in
    a letter of April 4, 2001, which will be inserted in the record
    at this point.]
                                                           May 9, 2001.
    The Honorable Mike DeWine,
    United States Senator, 140 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
            DC.
        Dear Senator DeWine: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on March 15, 2001.
    Below I have attempted to respond to the questions posed in your letter
    of April 4, 2001.
        As you may know, on April 30, 2001, Mayor Williams announced the
    selection of Dr. Olivia Golden as Director of the Child and Family
    Services Agency (CFSA). We are extremely pleased that Dr. Golden has
    accepted the position as she brings with her a wealth of experience in
    child welfare and human services more broadly. Dr. Golden will begin
    working at CFSA for transition purposes on May 14, 2001. She will
    assume full operating responsibility for the agency upon termination of
    the receivership which is expected to occur before the end of June
    2001.
        In your letter, you inquired about what accountability systems are
    being put in place to ensure proper implementation of child welfare
    functions and reforms. The Mayor and I will work closely with Dr.
    Golden to establish a high quality child welfare system. Specifically,
    there are a number of supports and checks and balances that are or will
    be put in place by the Mayor's Office including the following:
        Monthly Meetings.--I will meet with Dr. Golden once a month for the
    following purposes: (1) to receive a status report on agency progress;
    (2) to identify and troubleshoot any issues that present themselves;
    (3) to review Dr. Golden's achievement of goals identified in her
    performance contract (discussed below); (4) to review progress against
    the November 30, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the District
    and the Superior Court which lays out the process for transferring the
    child abuse responsibilities of the Court's Social Services Division to
    CFSA; and (5) to review monthly data on case practice, e.g.,
    investigations completed within 30 days, cases with current case plans,
    length of time children in foster care, etc.
        Among other data, I will review with Dr. Golden CFSA's monthly
    reports on the multiple performance measures included in Appendix A of
    the October 23, 2000 Consent Order in the LaShawn Case. Our review will
    be focused on measuring and tracking CFSA's compliance with the orders
    in LaShawn and with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). I will
    work closely with Dr. Golden and provide the necessary supports to
    improve the reliability of data contained in FACES, CFSA's automated
    information system. I will also review data produced by the Superior
    Court on compliance with ASFA.
        In addition to data on case practice, I will also request and
    review monthly data on social worker and foster parent training, social
    worker vacancies and social worker caseloads. I plan to work very
    closely with Dr. Golden to develop and implement effective social
    worker recruitment and retention strategies.
        Review of LaShawn Monitor reports.--I will review with Dr. Golden
    all reports issued by the LaShawn Monitor, including the Monitor's
    reports evaluating the agency's compliance with the performance
    standards set in Appendix A of the October 23, 2000 consent order.
        Integration of CFSA with other DC Health and Human Service
    Agencies.--Dr. Golden will attend the monthly meetings convened by my
    office of the Children, Youth and Families Cluster, which includes the
    directors of the Department of Health, Department of Mental Health,
    Department of Parks and Recreation, DC Public Libraries and the Office
    on Aging. The CFSA Receiver already attends these meetings. These
    meetings provide a forum to ensure that CFSA is fully integrated with
    and utilizing the services and resources of our other health and human
    services agencies.
        CFSA Director Performance Contract.--Dr. Golden will be required to
    develop a Performance Contract. A performance contract is required of
    all department directors and is used by the Mayor to assess and rate
    the director's performance. The performance contract will set
    expectations in several areas including, but not limited to, outcomes
    for children in CFSA, financial management of CFSA and responsiveness
    of CFSA to judicial orders. Dr. Golden will also be required to develop
    a ``scorecard'' which highlights three to five goals that she will work
    to achieve by the end of the year. All cabinet members have scorecards;
    these can be viewed on the web at www.washingtondc.gov.
        Integration with Mayor's Strategic Plan.--We are implementing a
    city-wide, interagency, strategic plan to strengthen children, youth
    and families. This plan is known as Safe Passages because the goal is
    to ensure that all children in the District experience a safe passage
    into adulthood. The Safe Passages plan includes and tracks
    approximately 100 specific performance goals to be achieved by the end
    of fiscal year 2001. Listed below are the performance goals included in
    Safe Passages that specifically relate to the child welfare system:
      --1. Reduction of children in out-of-state placements
      --2. Reduction of children in institutional settings
      --3. Reduction in disruption of kinship placements resulting in entry
            into foster care
      --4. Increase in children placed in relative custody
      --5. Reduction in children experiencing multiple foster care
            placements
      --6. Increase in adoptions
      --7. Increase in clients receiving substance abuse services
      --8. Increase in children receiving community-based support services
      --9. Increase in children maintained in their communities.
        Your letter also inquired about improving services at the ``front
    door'' when an investigation begins, identified the transfer of Court
    Social Services (CSS) to CFSA as one possible solution and inquired as
    to the Mayor's position on such as transfer. A few clarifications are
    necessary.
        Investigations of child abuse and neglect are conducted by CFSA and
    the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Court Social Services does
    not conduct investigations. Court Social Services case manages those
    families in which abuse has been substantiated, but children have not
    been placed in foster care. This function of CSS is already in the
    process of being transferred to CFSA as required by the October 23,
    2000 Consent Order in the LaShawn case and the November 30, 2000
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Mayor and the Superior
    Court, which lays out in detail the process for transferring CSS' child
    abuse responsibilities to CFSA by October 1, 2001.
        The American Humane Association Child Welfare Division has been
    retained by CFSA to coordinate and support the transition process,
    which involves transfer of cases, staff, resources and data. This work
    is proceeding on schedule.
        In addition to being legally obligated by the federal court to
    carry out this transfer, the Mayor fully supports this course of
    action, as it will put an end to the District's so-called bifurcated
    child welfare system in which responsibilities are split between CFSA
    and Court Social Services, contributing to a fragmented response to
    children and families.
        The District is also, in fact, taking steps to improve the ``front
    door'' of the child welfare system by moving to establish a state-of-
    the-art child assessment center which will co-locate and integrate all
    of the agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of child
    abuse and neglect. We are currently working to identify a physical site
    for the facility. In the meantime, in March 2001, an MOU was signed by
    the Mayor, the US Attorney, Children's Hospital, the Safe Shores
    Children's Advocacy Center, DC Public Schools, CFSA, Court Social
    Services, the Office of Corporation Counsel and the Commission on
    Mental Health Services. In this MOU, each of these agencies committed
    to working together to implement a coordinated and child-friendly
    process for investigating and prosecuting child abuse. As a result of
    this agreement, these agencies now meet on a regular basis to review
    cases and take steps to ensure that children are properly protected and
    receiving appropriate services and that investigations and prosecutions
    are proceeding as they should. My staff participate in these meetings
    and apprise me of issues that require intervention or resolution at the
    Mayoral level.
        Your letter inquired about the steps necessary for developing a
    stable and sufficient workforce. Indeed, this has been one of the
    greatest challenges faced by the child welfare agency. Assessments of
    the problem indicate that it is worker retention, not recruitment of
    new workers, that is the primary challenge. In addition to financial
    incentives for staff--which will continue--stabilization of the
    workforce requires that social workers have the resources they need to
    serve children and families as well as proper supervision and support
    from their superiors. Thus, our strategy to address the issue is multi-
    faceted and includes, but is not limited to, the following:
        Increasing legal resources.--CFSA will have an additional 25
    dedicated Corporation Counsel attorneys to process abuse, neglect,
    foster care and adoption cases as well as appropriate legal support
    staff. Legal staff will be located on-site at CFSA.
        Increasing staff resources.--The District is developing a plan and
    criteria for the hiring and use of staff with Bachelor of Social Work
    (BSW) degrees as well as paraprofessionals. These staff will support
    the work of those in CFSA with Master of Social Work (MSW) degrees.
        Increasing availability and accessibility of services for children
    and families.--CFSA has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
    the Department of Health's Addiction Prevention and Recovery
    Administration (APRA) to ensure that CFSA clients receive necessary
    substance abuse treatment. CFSA is also working closely with the
    Department of Mental Health to establish diagnostic and counseling
    resources for children and families on the CFSA caseload.
        Implementing Performance-Based Evaluations of Supervisors and
    Managers.--A significant number of CFSA supervisors and managers have
    elected to participate in the Mayor's Management Supervisory Service
    (MSS). Under this system, supervisors and managers are subject to
    performance-based evaluations and no longer benefit from civil service
    protections. I am committed to working closely with Dr. Golden to
    maintaining a rigorous performance review process as well as providing
    ongoing training and professional development opportunities for
    supervisors and managers.
        Your final questions related to the Mayor's position on the
    establishment of a separate family court and its potential impact on
    the investigation process and the stability of the workforce. The Mayor
    supports the general concept of the recent proposal by the D.C.
    Superior Court to Letter to the Honorable Mike DeWine Page Five augment
    and enhance the Family Division of Court (through extending the tenure
    of judges) rather than creating a separate family court which may
    ultimately suffer the fate of having to compete with other ``more
    prestigious'' courts for resources, as has happened in other
    jurisdictions. We have some concerns with the Superior Court proposal
    and are actively working with the Court to resolve them in order to
    ensure that CFSA and the Court can work effectively together to comply
    with local and federal law. Strengthening and rationalizing the Family
    Division will indeed have a positive impact on virtually all functions
    of the child welfare agency as the planned changes will serve to
    improve the working relationships between the Court and CFSA.
        Thank you for your commitment to the District of Columbia and its
    child welfare system in particular. I am available to discuss these and
    any other questions you may have.
                Sincerely,
                                                     Carolyn N. Graham.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator DeWine. We will hold additional hearings to monitor
    what is going on. Frankly, as a result of today's hearing I
    have got in my mind some additional witnesses that I would like
    to bring in and to further focus on what is going on.
        So we appreciate your testimony very much, we appreciate
    your patience with the crazy schedule of the U.S. Congress
    going back and forth with votes, and we look forward to working
    with all of you in the future. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Meltzer. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators DeWine, and Landrieu.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                              D.C. Superior Court

    STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, D.C.
                SUPERIOR COURT
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HON. REGGIE WALTON, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY DIVISION, D.C.
                SUPERIOR COURT
            HON. DAVID E. GROSSMAN, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUVENILE COURT
                DIVISION, CINCINNATI, OHIO

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

        Senator DeWine. Good morning. Let me welcome you all today
    and welcome Delegate Norton, who is here. Always glad to see
    her, and also members of the D.C. bench and the D.C. Bar who
    are here. We would like to welcome them as well. Thank you very
    much for coming. Good to see you. Let me begin by thanking
    Ranking Member Mary Landrieu for joining me in holding today's
    hearing. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity for us to
    learn, learn and discuss the District of Columbia Superior
    Court Judge's proposal for the Family Court Division. I
    certainly appreciate the Judge's efforts, and I know they have
    spent a great deal of time and effort on this, and I believe
    that our hearing today will be constructive and will give us
    the opportunity to ask a lot of the questions, and find out
    what we can do, what this subcommittee can do, what this
    Congress can do to help bring about reform in the District's
    court system.
        As I said at the first hearing of this committee, and I'll
    probably say it at every hearing of this committee, there are
    many things going on in the District of Columbia. There are
    many areas where this committee has jurisdiction, but there is
    nothing that is more important than the children of the
    District of Columbia, and we will continue to spend our time
    and concentrate on this, and our goal is to be as helpful as we
    can in the areas where we have some responsibility.
        Let me also thank and acknowledge Judge King and Judge
    Walton for their work in putting together this proposal. Let me
    also thank Judge Grossman, who I have known for many years who
    presided over the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati
    in 1976, until he retired in 1998. His extensive experience
    with juvenile courts will add considerably to our hearing
    today.
        Let me also remind all of our witnesses that the full text
    of your statements will be made a part of the record. Without
    objection, we will do that. We would like to limit your opening
    statements to about 5 minutes. We are not going to hold you to
    that completely, but if you could aim for 5 minutes, then that
    will give us a good opportunity to have some questions. Without
    objection, the record will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on
    Thursday, May 24th for the submission of any additional
    testimony or responses to questions that members have for our
    witnesses.
        All of us who are here today know that family court judges
    are making tough, life-changing decisions every day. These are
    very, very difficult under the best of circumstances. I learned
    this firsthand nearly 30 years ago, when I was serving as an
    assistant county prosecuting attorney in my home county in
    southwest Ohio, Green County, and my job was to represent the
    local children's services, and we have some very, very
    difficult and very heart-wrenching cases. I witnessed then that
    frankly too many of the cases drag on and drag on endlessly and
    needlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary foster care
    placements which often entail multiple moves from foster home
    to foster home to foster home for years and years and years.
        Such multiple placements and the lack of permanency for
    these kids is abuse really in its own right. And while children
    in the social welfare system come in contact with many
    individuals from social workers, lawyers, probation officers,
    and many others, it is really the judges who ultimately are
    responsible for the safety and security of these children. It
    is the court system. It is the judges, who have the ultimate
    responsibility. And they really are the key player, the player
    that has to bring all the other elements in the system
    together.
        And one of the things that we are going to look at in this
    plan is that particular aspect, and whether or not the judges
    will have the ability to be the dominant player to pull
    everybody together and to get good results. Judges certainly
    have an obligation, an obligation to make sure that no child
    ever becomes entrenched in the system, that no child is
    reabused by the very system designed to protect him or her.
        We, too, in Congress have an obligation, and that is to
    ensure that these judges are trained properly and have the
    resources to do that, and that they can feel confident about
    their decisions. That is one of the reasons we are holding this
    hearing today. We are here to examine the judges' proposal to
    determine what they see as best practices, and to find out more
    about the resources that they need to do their jobs and improve
    the Family Division of the court.
        Nothing illustrates more vividly the need for a properly
    functioning child welfare system and court process than the
    tragic case involving Brianna Blackmund. This is a familiar
    case and illustrates the persistent problem plaguing the
    District's child welfare system and the court division. Could
    this tragedy have been prevented? Well, we think it could have.
    In the aftermath of Brianna's death, D.C. Superior Court judges
    told The Washington Post about the agony they feel in making
    child welfare decisions. One of the judges quoted in an article
    said this, and I quote, ``These cases are for me the most
    difficult thing we do. We feel the least trained and skilled at
    it.''
        We have to do something about that. We must do whatever it
    takes to make sure that the District has the best court system
    possible so that Brianna's death is not in vain. One of the
    reasons I fought so hard to get Senate passage of the Adoption
    and Safe Families Act, which became law in 1997, was to ensure
    that the safety and interest of children in the court system,
    like Brianna, are always paramount.
        While this law represented a fundamental change in the
    culture of child welfare law as we knew it, we also knew at the
    time that this law was not a quick nor a complete fix. We knew
    that a law that simply tells judges that the health and safety
    of children must be paramount and that sets certain time frames
    would not necessarily mean that every decision would be a
    correct decision, and we knew that to get the right decision,
    the judges would have to have the right resources.
        To get where we wanted to go, proper training must be
    available, so the law can become an effective part of a judge's
    decision making process. That is why last year I introduced the
    Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act which is also now
    law. This new law invests in computerized case tracking systems
    and programs to reduce pending backlogs of abuse in neglect
    cases. The law also allows judges, attorneys, and court
    personnel to qualify for existing training programs, and would
    expand the CASA program to underserved and urban areas, so that
    more children are able to benefit from its services.
        Today, part of our oversight responsibility as members of
    this subcommittee is to determine if the District has the
    resources necessary to meet its training needs. Does the
    District have what it needs so that the courts cannot only
    comply with the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
    but also can have the ability to make additional changes in the
    Family Division? That is the question for us.
        It is my hope that we can answer that question today, and
    discuss whether current budgetary resources are sufficient, and
    if they are being used effectively and appropriately to get the
    job done. We must review the District's proposed budget with
    close Congressional scrutiny to ensure that any dollars that
    flow into the Family Division are used for the proper
    protection of the children involved.
        Ultimately, I believe that we all share, we all share the
    common objective ensuring that children and families in contact
    with the judicial system are not traumatized by this
    experience. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus
    on rehabilitation. More importantly, the rehabilitation of
    families. Where there are families going through a divorce or
    dealing with a troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or
    bringing in a new family member through child adoption, the
    Family Division must have the resources and the expertise to
    address all issues in a timely, accurate, and supportive
    manner. In the process, we must never, ever lose sight of our
    responsibility to the children involved. Their needs and their
    best interests must always come first. And today I believe we
    are putting children first in taking a step forward on their
    behalf.
        Let me thank our witnesses and let me turn now to the
    Ranking Member of our subcommittee, Senator Landrieu.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
    all of our panelists and to Congresswoman Norton and I want to
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your--for your focus and your work
    in this area. I don't know if everyone here gathered realizes
    that besides being the chairman and most able member, he is
    also a father of eight children, which is quite, by any
    standard, a large family, and continues in his work in the
    Senate, to be so focused on these issues that help not only his
    own State, but all of our States, and the District. So I really
    appreciate your leadership, Mike, and look forward to working
    with you on this.
        I also want to especially recognize the leadership of
    Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is here this morning,
    and Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who have dedicated a tremendous
    amount of time and passion to this issue. Their combined
    efforts have helped to move us a great deal toward achieving
    our common goal, protecting the best interests of our children
    here in D.C., and I want to thank them for their outstanding
    leadership on this issue.
        I also want to recognize that the shadow Senator of D.C. is
    here, Senator Strauss. We welcome you and with your background
    as an attorney who practices family law, I know that you will
    have a great deal to offer in this endeavor, so I want to thank
    you for being here.
        It is my hope that we can continue to move forward with the
    help of the District. We must attempt to fashion a plan that is
    built upon some of the best practices in the country on family
    courts throughout the country. This is not to say that what
    works elsewhere must also work in D.C., because D.C., like
    every other State, is unique. Their residents, their system,
    their challenges, their strong points, make them distinct from
    other jurisdictions in the country.
        Recognizing this, Mr. Chairman, and members here, I think
    we should attempt to use examples set by other jurisdictions as
    a blueprint, not a boilerplate, for effective reform. It is
    also important to note that there is more than one approach to
    court reform. Successful family courts have been found
    incorporated within the jurisdiction of trial courts, as well
    as stand-alone family courts. Instituting reform should take
    into account the varied examples in other cities, the needs and
    desires of the District and the critical needs of the families
    in D.C.
        The court must have thoughtful practices and support
    mechanisms in place to provide for the newly created family
    court branches. This, the judges' proposal, and I thank you all
    for being here to present that proposal today, marks an
    important step in this process. Having reviewed this proposal,
    I believe it reflects a genuine interest in doing what's right
    for the children of D.C. As an enthusiastic adoption advocate,
    and believe me, the chairman and I are both in that category, I
    commend the court for its focus on permanency for abused and
    neglected children in the District, and want to reiterate my
    strong support for the Adoption and Safe Families Act as a co-
    sponsor of that act and again recognize the chairman's
    leadership.
        As the number of abused and neglected cases filed in the
    court increase, it is imperative that the infrastructure, staff
    support and expertise be in place to ensure that children and
    families are supported throughout the process. I appreciate
    that the courts are working with the Council for Court
    Excellence to develop reform consistent with best practices,
    and I look forward to the possibility of hearing from the
    Council in the future. I encourage you all to reach out to as
    many experts as possible, as we continue to help shape this
    reform.
        In speaking with other jurisdictions, it is also important
    that we not only look at their success, but that we also look
    at the continuing challenges. I am concerned that judges in
    family court sometimes tend to have less resources and as a
    result, can sometimes be neglected. I don't want to see that
    happen here as we shape this reform. We must have the right
    resources to back up whatever we do.
        Further, the court's request for substantial capital funds
    to renovate existing courthouses is notable. You have got to
    have the facilities that help us to carry out these reforms.
    But I also want to stress that it is more than just adequate
    facilities that are going to make this reform successful. The
    court's proposed target, reform target, resources--the court's
    proposed reform targets resources as some of the key areas
    identified by the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, and
    the Center on Court Excellence.
        I am particularly interested in attempts to alleviate the
    stress on staff by hiring more personnel and training all staff
    to the unique challenges of dealing with children and families
    in crisis. Additionally, I think that a significant investment
    in the court's facilities, as I said, is also necessary in
    balance with the above.
        I also believe it is important that judges, and this might
    be the most important thing to me, that the system that we
    create, that the judges self-select, or enthusiastically
    volunteer to do this service. I think it is important, Mr.
    Chairman, that we have people that really want to do this
    because when you want to do something, you do it very well, and
    are willing to spend whatever time it takes. So I hope that
    whatever reform, we most certainly would put an emphasis on the
    judges being enthusiastic about that role. It is the judges who
    are charged with some of the most difficult of life's decisions
    in these cases. If we do not do all that we can to ensure that
    they have the necessary training and support to help them make
    these decisions, then we are not meeting our obligations
    together trying to help the children that we all want to serve.
        I also think it is important, whatever reform effort that
    we shape, that the court be established in such a way so that
    the cases have consistency of jurisdiction, so that the same
    cases appear before the same judges for as much or as long as
    possible so that the judges have become more and more familiar
    and the cases do not find themselves bumped between judges and
    between courts, which is a problem in my home State, as well as
    in other places.
        Finally, I am glad to see that the court's proposal
    addresses many of the difficulties outlined during this
    subcommittee's first hearing with the child and family services
    agency. Staff shortage, inefficient data tracking system, and
    the challenges for social workers. Let me also reiterate my
    strong support for CASA, Court Appointed Special Advocates, how
    effective I find them to be, visiting with many members of the
    Senate and the House in various jurisdictions. Regardless of
    the way the courts are structured, CASA workers seem to be able
    to do a pretty good job, Mike, wherever they find themselves,
    so I want to be very supportive in our reforms of that
    particular organization.
        So again, I am pleased at the progress of this effort. I
    think that there are many strong points in this proposal, but
    Mr. Chairman, I most certainly look forward to working with you
    in a bipartisan way, in a bicameral way to create the kind of
    reform that will be meaningful for the children that we all
    hope to serve. Thank you all.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Let me invite our
    three witnesses to come up and as you come up, I will introduce
    you. Judge King, Rufus King, was designated Chief Judge of the
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia in September, 2000.
    He was appointed to the Superior Court in 1984, where he served
    in all divisions of the court. Among his many other D.C. bar
    and core activities, Judge King has chaired the Domestic
    Violence Coordinating Council in the Superior Court Child
    Support Guidance Committee.
        Judge Reggie Walton was appointed to the District of
    Columbia Superior Court bench in 1981. He currently serves as
    the presiding judge of the Superior Court's Family Division.
    Judge Walton has actively worked with the youth of both the
    District and the Nation. He has served as a Big Brother and
    frequently speaks throughout the Nation on problems of drugs,
    crime, and personal responsibility.
        Judge David Grossman, retired May 31, 1998 as presiding
    administrative judge of Hamilton County Juvenile Court,
    Cincinnati, Ohio, where he was a judge since 1976. He is past
    president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
    Judges. He is past President of the Ohio Association of
    Juvenile and Family Court Judges. We welcome the three of you.
    Thank you very much, and Judge King, why don't we start with
    you, and we have your opening statement, which will be made a
    part of the record. And we will ask you to proceed for 5
    minutes or so.

                     STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING, III

        Judge King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Landrieu and
    members of the subcommittee, I am Rufus King, Chief Judge of
    the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and I am
    joined, as has been noted, by Judge Reggie Walton, presiding
    judge of the Family Division. Thank you for calling this
    important hearing to discuss the issue of the Court's plan for
    reforming the Family Division to enhance the safety of abused
    and neglected children. I am aware that both the chairman and
    the Ranking Member have a special concern for the safety of
    children, and families, and I welcome your interest. The
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia was established as a
    unified court by the District of Columbia Court Reform and
    Criminal Procedures Act of 1970. By statute, the court is
    comprised of 5 major divisions, Civil, Criminal, Family,
    Probate, and Tax.
        Several of the Court's divisions have received national
    recognition. The Civil Delay Reduction project has served as a
    national, and more recently international, model for expediting
    civil cases. The Court's domestic violence unit, combining
    family, civil and criminal cases in one set of calendars was
    awarded the Council of Court Excellence's Justice Potter
    Stewart Award. The Family Division has been selected as a model
    unified court program by the National Council of Juvenile and
    Family Court Judges. Since before taking office as chief judge,
    I have stressed that reform of the Family Division would be the
    highest priority.
        In January, I asked Judge Walton to set up working groups
    to examine the best practices and use around the country for
    serving families, and to consult experts in the field and
    develop recommendation for the Family Division of the Superior
    Court. These working groups consist of members of the bar,
    social workers and other stakeholders. In the mid-1990s,
    neglected and abused children began entering the District of
    Columbia child welfare system in alarming numbers, three times
    higher than a decade earlier, despite a decline in the
    District's population. This disturbing trend is continuing with
    new filings now projected at over 1,600 per year, a 15 percent
    increase over even last year. In addition, the Court is
    responsible for more than 4,500 children in existing cases.
        In addition to reforming the Family Court, we look forward
    to strengthening our working relationships with the new
    director and staff of the District of Columbia Child and Family
    Services Agency, and Mayor Williams, as he assumes control of
    that agency and seeks to improve its performance. The plan we
    are developing calls for a strengthened, unified Family Court
    Division with a new Permanency Branch. This branch will be a
    separate unit located in one part of the courthouse where all
    cases involving abused and neglected children will be heard and
    retained.
        Judges who are now assigned for 1-year terms will be
    assigned for minimum terms of 3 years with the option of
    extending their service indefinitely. Magistrate judges will be
    hired for four-year assignments to the Permanency Branch, again
    with the option of extending indefinitely. We believe this
    structure best addresses the need for extended terms while--
    while strengthening our ability to attract lawyers of the
    highest caliber to enter this field of work.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        With the support and resources of the Court and the city
    agency, I believe this approach will encourage the emergence of
    leaders in this field who choose to make it their life's work
    and whose efforts are so essential to enhancement of the
    Court's ability to safeguard children and families in trouble.
    The full plan and list of required resources are included with
    my extended remarks for the record. Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Landrieu, thank you for the opportunity to address the Court's
    Family Division reform plan. Judge Walton and I will be happy
    to answer questions in greater detail.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Rufus G. King, III

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, members of the Subcommittee: I am
    Rufus G. King, III, and I am appearing in my capacity as Chief Judge of
    the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am joined today by Judge
    Reggie B. Walton, Presiding Judge of the Family Division.
        Thank you for calling this very important hearing to discuss the
    District of Columbia Superior Court's plan for reform of the Family
    Division to enhance the safety of abused and neglected children. I am
    aware that both the Chairman and Ranking Member have a special
    sensitivity to the matter we are about to discuss, and I welcome their
    interest.
        The Superior Court of the District of Columbia was established in
    its current configuration as a unified court by the District of
    Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970. Statutorily,
    the Court is comprised of 5 major divisions: Civil, Criminal, Family,
    Probate, and Tax. Several of the Court's divisions have received
    national recognition. The Civil Delay Reduction Project has served as a
    national model for expediting civil cases. The Court's Domestic
    Violence Unit, combining family, civil, and criminal cases in one set
    of calendars, was awarded the Council of Court Excellence's Justice
    Potter Stewart Award. The Family Division was selected as a model
    unified court program by the National Council of Family and Juvenile
    Court Judges of the National Judicial College.
        At the time of my investiture as Chief Judge, I indicated that
    reform of the Family Division would be one of my highest priorities.
    Subsequently, I appointed Judge Walton presiding judge of the Family
    Division and asked him to set up working groups to examine the ``best
    practices'' for serving families around the Nation, to consult experts
    in the field, and to develop recommendations for the Family Division at
    the D.C. Superior Court. These working groups consist of members of the
    bar, social workers and other stakeholders. The purpose of my testimony
    today is to relate to you various aspects of the Family Division Reform
    Plan that arose from these working groups. The plan has also been
    presented to the Mayor and the City Council.
        In the mid 1990's, neglected and abused children began entering the
    District of Columbia Child Welfare system in alarming numbers; three
    times higher than a decade earlier, despite a decline in the District's
    population. This disturbing trend is continuing. In addition, in over
    60 percent of cases now being filed, the child is over the age of
    seven, making adoption less likely and the need for special services
    more pressing. Last year, 1,500 children's cases were filed and this
    year a 15 percent increase in new cases is expected. The Court is
    responsible for more than 4,500 children in existing cases.
        The magnitude of this caseload compels me to take steps to address
    the problem as soon as possible. I have therefore determined that some
    steps, which I will discuss shortly, can be taken immediately, within
    existing law and resources.
        In addition to reforms within the Court, we look forward to forging
    new working relationships with the staff of the District of Columbia
    Child and Family Services Agency and Mayor Williams, as he assumes
    control of that Agency and seeks to improve its performance.
                          family division reform plan
        The Reform Plan takes a team management approach, which is proven
    highly successful in other jurisdictions. The teams include
    professionals who will monitor each child's case and expedite its
    progress through the Court. The Reform Plan emphasizes using
    alternative dispute resolution, where safe and appropriate, to place
    each child in a permanent home within ASFA time limits and in a non-
    adversarial setting. The Reform Plan also stresses increasing
    accountability on the part of judicial officers for the results in each
    child's case.
        Key elements of the Reform Plan include----
      --Family Court Within a Unified Superior Court.--Comprehensive
            information about a family, including criminal cases, civil
            cases, and probate cases is essential for the judge or
            magistrate to make the best possible decision for each child.
            Maintaining a unified court optimizes the flow of this vital
            information, alleviates the judicial burnout that can affect a
            separate family court, eliminates the costs for duplicative
            administrative functions, and enhances the Court's ability to
            provide comprehensive services for the child.
      --Judicial terms in the Family Court.--Voluntary service and
            renewable three year terms are essential to ensure that Family
            Court judges are and remain truly interested in family issues
            and want to dedicate significant time to children. Judges who
            wish to renew their terms may remain for many years, but those
            who desire a different assignment may rotate after three years
            without sacrificing judicial continuity and enhanced
            specialization within the family court. The ABA stresses that
            no one model is best for all jurisdictions, and we are aware
            that court systems in many States provide different terms. The
            three year, extendable terms in our plan optimize increased
            specialization and appeal to lawyers considering service as a
            judge on the Family Court in the District of Columbia.
      --Training.--Enhanced training on abuse and neglect ``best
            practices,'' case management, and related areas will develop
            the specialized knowledge base and up-to-date skills judges,
            magistrate judges, and staff must possess to make the best
            decisions for each child.
      --Accountability.--Standards will be implemented for case management
            and for attorney practices. The standards will be based upon
            leading court performance standards now in use throughout the
            Nation.
      --Technology.--Critical to the success of the Reform Plan is the
            establishment of an automated Integrated Justice Information
            System (IJIS). IJIS will provide comprehensive information on
            each child's family, including, for example, a parent's (or
            household member's) pending drug charges. It will also permit
            the Court to implement more effectively the ``one family, one
            judge'' concept (assigning all family cases involving a child
            and his or her family to the same judge) by linking existing
            cases to new ones related to the same child.
      --Child Protection Mediation.--When mediation is safe and
            appropriate, involving parents in discussions about their
            child's future produces better results for the child. Parents
            are often more cooperative with parenting classes or
            rehabilitation efforts in a permanency plan that they have
            helped negotiate. Our preliminary mediations have enjoyed a
            very high success rate, and the Council for Court Excellence is
            assisting with grant funds for a larger project.
      --Staff.--The team approach requires additional judges, magistrate
            judges, special masters, case managers, courtroom clerks, and
            other support staff with the expertise to work together to make
            prompt decisions in the best interests of each child.
        We are continuing to refine the Reform Plan. A copy of the current
    draft is attached. A preliminary cost estimate has been transmitted to
    the Committee. It involves approximately $45 million at the outset,
    including $32 million in one-time renovations and equipment purchases
    and a continuing level of funding of $13 million and 74 personnel on an
    annual basis.
    Immediate Steps
        Unfortunately, as children age, the possibility of adoption becomes
    increasingly remote. Accordingly, I have taken the following several
    steps, which can be accomplished within existing resources, to expedite
    the Court's Family Division Reform Plan:
      --Judicial Terms
        --I have asked sitting Superior Court judges to volunteer for
                minimum three-year terms in the Family Court. As volunteers
                come forward, I will rotate them into the Family Division.
        --I have assigned an additional judge to the Family Division,
                effective June 11, following specialized family training at
                the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
      --Training in May, 2001
        --Superior Court judges attended two full days of training on child
                abuse and neglect law. Numerous experts participated,
                addressing topics such as assessing risk of abusing
                parents, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and
                child development.
        --Family Division staff attended training on meeting ASFA standards
                and child protection and welfare.
      --Technology.--I have modified the plan for the IJIS system to fully
            automate the Family Division in the first year of
            implementation and redirected technology grant funds to support
            this project. Once funding is available, implementation can
            begin immediately.
      --Family Waiting Room.--I have directed that space within the
            Courthouse be reconfigured to provide a child-friendly area for
            waiting families and social worker conferences.
      --Attorney Practice Standards.--I have directed the development of
            Attorney Practice Standards for abuse and neglect cases; the
            standards are under review by the Bar, and after their input
            has been addressed, they can be implemented within 90 days.
      --National Model Court Project.--I have secured assistance from the
            National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges Model
            Court Project of the National Judicial College. As a
            participating model court project, the Superior Court will
            receive technical assistance with case management techniques,
            training, and strategic planning.
    Children Already in the System
        Most of the 4,500 children for whom the court is responsible are
    unlikely to be adopted, and it will be very difficult to place many of
    them in permanent homes. The majority of children enter the system at
    age seven or older, when adoption is increasingly unlikely. Children
    with special needs (health problems such as neonatal drug addiction and
    HIV, emotional or behavioral issues) and, often, minority children are
    difficult to place in permanent homes at any age.
        The Court's Reform Plan calls for three teams of special masters to
    review all pending children's cases to determine whether a permanent
    placement is possible. Other jurisdictions that have reformed their
    family programs have been able to reduce pending caseloads by about
    half. We will certainly strive for similar results in the District of
    Columbia. In the meantime, their number requires that they be assigned
    to judges who are not in the family division. Many judges have come to
    feel that they are the only constant in the children's lives and want
    to continue to maintain responsibility for their cases. However, in
    order to assure the most effective management and closure of these
    cases, only judges who ask to retain the cases and who are willing to
    take ongoing training will be permitted to do so. The Court believes
    this arrangement will best meet the needs of those children with
    existing cases for whom a permanent home cannot be found.
        In Summary, we believe the Reform Plan will enable the Court to
    better fulfill its role in the safeguarding of children and families.
    The plan will require a substantial increase in resources devoted to
    the Family Court to best provide the attention and supervision of
    services that all District of Columbia children and families need and
    deserve and that are essential to breaking the cycle of abuse and
    neglect, juvenile delinquency, adult criminal behavior and abuse and
    neglect in the next generation. Pending the availability of additional
    resources, the Court will proceed with improvements that can be
    implemented using existing funding and other resources.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for the opportunity to
    explain the Court's Family Division Reform Plan. Judge Walton and I
    would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
      superior court of the district of columbia family court reform plan
                                    (draft)
                              unified family court
        Maintain and enhance separate, specialized Family Court as a
    division within unified Superior Court to: (1) respond to serious
    concerns recently expressed about tragedies affecting children, (2)
    achieve permanency for children expeditiously and (3) ensure cost
    efficiency by utilizing existing courtwide infrastructure and
    administrative staff.
                                  assignments
        Assign judges who volunteer for service in the Family Court for
    three year, extendable terms
        Stagger terms to ensure continuity and expertise
        Appoint magistrate judges to serve four years, which is the
    duration of their term of office, and permit reappointment
        Fill judicial vacancies in Family Court immediately with volunteers
    from other divisions of the Court.
                                 specialization
        Establish holistic, team-based approach to abuse and neglect cases
    to secure continuity of care and swift permanency placement: Form three
    case management teams within the Permanency Branch, each consisting of
    one judge and three magistrate judges with expertise in child welfare,
    and assisted by attorney advisors, a psychiatrist or child
    psychologist, law clerks, administrative personnel and special masters.
        Provide space for an office within the Court staffed by
    representatives from District of Columbia agencies which provide needed
    services to abused and neglected children and their families.
        Permanently assign all new abuse and neglect cases to the Family
    Court to enhance family case coordination, quality control and case
    scheduling.
        Support and work with a coordinating council which brings together
    all child welfare stakeholders (including CASAs and bar members) on a
    regular basis to ensure open channels of communication and resolve
    issues regarding the delivery of services to the children and
    community.
                               magistrate judges
        Appoint magistrate judges with expertise in family law and trained
    by court-appointed experts, to be responsible for initial hearings,
    assessing the needs of the children and families, and resolving cases
    assigned to them by the judges presiding over the teams.
        Under the supervision of the judge, oversee the work of case
    management teams and ensure the delivery of court-ordered support
    services.
                  4,500 cases currently under review by judges
        Return to the Family Court all cases not retained by judges for
    distribution to special case management teams during transition.
        Divide cases under review into three groups for those judges who
    volunteer to retain their current cases during the transition. Review
    groups to be staffed with special masters and case coordinators to
    assist the judge in achieving ASFA compliance and permanency for the
    child.
        Schedule reviews into specified time periods to accommodate CFSA
    social workers.
                                    training
        Require quarterly training for all judges, magistrate judges and
    support professionals on abuse and neglect issues, including ASFA
    compliance, and additional specialized training for those assigned to
    the Family Court.
        Enhance training for court-appointed guardians ad litem (GAL) and
    parents' attorneys by child welfare and trial practice experts.
                           child protection mediation
        Implement expanded child protection mediation among parents, the
    Office of the Corporation Counsel, the District's child welfare agency,
    the GAL and all other relevant parties and representatives, where safe
    and appropriate, to achieve early case resolution.
                             system accountability
        Increase management capability, accountability and reporting
    through enhanced access to data and case outcome information, and the
    adoption of appropriate standards for case resolution.
        Implement integrated case management system to track and monitor
    cases involving family or household members across all court caseloads
    to permit judges and team members access to comprehensive information
    before making placement decisions.
      superior court of the district of columbia family court reform plan
        Growing caseloads, new mandates applicable to courts through the
    passage of the landmark Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and
    recent developments have made it incumbent on the Superior Court to
    improve the management, supervision and resolution of cases involving
    children and families in the District of Columbia. The Superior Court
    has developed a comprehensive plan for reform of child abuse and
    neglect cases.
        Abuse and neglect case filings at Superior Court have risen
    steadily over the last two decades. On average, 1,500 cases are filed
    with the Court each year. Moreover, based on case filings since January
    2001, the Court expects an increase of 15 percent this year in the
    abuse and neglect area. In addition, 4,500 cases are subject by law to
    review and represent a substantial workload of the Court.
        This proposal provides an outline of the major components of the
    Superior Court's reform initiative. The Court is committed to achieving
    timely permanency for abused and neglected children. Reform, however,
    is a multi-year process that requires sustained commitment and adequate
    resources.\1\ The Court looks forward to working with Congress and the
    District in implementing needed reforms for the welfare of children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ According to a recent report of the Council for Court
    Excellence, successful family court reform efforts in Cincinnati, Ohio
    took 10 years and those in Chicago, Illinois have taken six years to-
    date.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unified Family Court
        The existing Family Division will be redesignated as the Family
    Court, a division of the Superior Court. The Family Court will consist
    of the following branches: Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch
    (hereinafter ``Permanency Branch'') (covering abuse and neglect,
    adoption and termination of parental rights (TPR) cases as well as the
    Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect (CCAN) and a Family Drug Court);
    Domestic Relations Branch (addressing divorce and custody and including
    the Marriage Bureau); Juvenile Offender Branch (juvenile delinquency
    court and Juvenile Drug Court); Mental Health and Retardation Branch;
    and Paternity and Child Support Branch. A Presiding Judge, Deputy
    Presiding Judge and Director will oversee the Family Court for
    administrative purposes.
        The Permanency Branch will be organized into six (6) calendars:
    three (3) for abuse and neglect cases; one calendar for adoptions; one
    for TPR cases; and one calendar for permanent custody and guardianships
    for abused and neglected children (in order to allow these cases to be
    filed and resolved expeditiously, as required by law). A judge and team
    of magistrate judges \2\ will be assigned to each calendar.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Currently, Court positions of this type are referred to as
    ``Hearing Commissioners.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Assignment of Judges
        Judicial assignments to the Family Court will be a minimum of three
    years. This represents a substantial increase in the duration of a
    current assignment to the Superior Court's Family Division. Preference
    will be given to judges who volunteer for the assignment. Judges may
    volunteer to extend their service in the Family Court beyond their
    initial three-year assignment. As resources and support for judges in
    the Family Court are put into place, it is anticipated judges will
    volunteer to serve extended terms, thereby ensuring the involvement of
    those judges most committed to presiding over child welfare matters.
        The Chief Judge retains discretion to re-assign judges in and out
    of the Family Court when extenuating circumstances require and it is in
    the best interests of the children.
        The three-year assignment will be staggered to maintain a
    complement of experienced judges in the Family Court.
    Specialization
        Abuse and neglect cases will be assigned to teams of judges,
    magistrate judges and other professionals. Each of the three teams in
    the Permanency Branch will consist of the following individuals with
    expertise in permanency case resolution: the judge, three (3)
    magistrate judges, a special master and a case coordinator.
        The teams will be further assisted by permanent attorney advisors
    and specialized law clerks (to maintain compliance with ASFA, the
    Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) and other Federal
    and local statutes), a psychiatrist or psychologist from the Superior
    Court's Child Guidance Clinic, and an appropriate number of
    administrative support personnel (e.g., law clerks, secretaries and
    other clerks). The team approach has been used in other jurisdictions
    as a best practice and has resulted in expedited case resolution,
    improved case monitoring and oversight, and improved communication with
    parties.
        Support professionals assigned to each team will be responsible
    for: (1) monitoring the progress of each abuse and neglect case towards
    permanent resolution; (2) serving as liaisons with CFSA social workers;
    (3) monitoring and verifying compliance with court orders; (4)
    reviewing all court actions for compliance with ASFA and other
    statutes; and (5) filing compliance reports in consultation with
    attorney advisors.
        When a judge's assignment in the Family Court is completed, he/she
    may volunteer to continue in the assignment. If the judge is reassigned
    outside of the Family Court, all cases assigned to him or her will
    remain in the Permanency Branch, except in an extraordinary
    circumstance as approved by the Chief Judge and consistent with ASFA.
    In each such case, the judge will remain part of the original case
    management team in the Permanency Branch.
    Magistrate Judges
        Magistrate judges, with expertise in family law and appointed for
    four-year, renewable terms, will be responsible for intake of new cases
    and resolving cases assigned to them by the presiding judge of the
    team. Where agreements cannot be reached, trials will be conducted by
    the judge or magistrate judge, depending on the complexity of the case
    and other circumstances.\3\ Magistrate judges should have the power of
    contempt, which would give them the authority to enforce their own
    court orders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Currently legislation governing the authority of hearing
    commissioners requires the consent of the parties before such an
    individual may try a case. The Court recommends that this be changed to
    allow magistrate judges to conduct trials of less complex neglect and
    abuse cases.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the supervision of the judge, magistrate judges will oversee
    the work of case management teams and ensure the delivery of court-
    ordered support services.
        Until permanency is achieved, the judge, magistrate judges and
    other members of the case management team will hold periodic case
    conferences at least quarterly.
    4,500 Cases Currently Under Review by Judges
        During the transition, the pending caseload will be screened to
    identify barriers to permanency and to develop a strategy and timeline
    for resolution. Three (3) special case management teams will be
    established, with each group having approximately the same number of
    cases. If a judge does not volunteer to retain review cases, they will
    be returned to the Permanency Branch and assigned to a case management
    team for resolution.
        Each case management team, consisting of a special master and case
    coordinator, will perform similar functions as are performed for the
    abuse and neglect teams working in the Permanency Branch. Each team
    will be assisted by two attorney advisors and appropriate support
    professionals. They will provide expert advice and support to judges by
    monitoring compliance with ASFA, other applicable laws and court
    orders.
    Training
        The Court will expand training for judges, magistrate judges and
    case management personnel who will participate in Court-sponsored, in-
    service training on abuse and neglect issues at least quarterly, in
    order to stay abreast of the current state-of-knowledge in the field of
    child welfare, including neglect and abuse. Additionally, judges will
    be encouraged to remain updated in that field through professional
    reading, training at the National Judicial College and other relevant
    workshops. The assistance of expert trainers, such as individuals from
    the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the ABA's
    Center for Children and the Law, and the National Model Court Project
    (of which the Superior Court has been selected as a member), will be
    sought to plan and facilitate the training. The Court will participate
    in joint training with CFSA workers, the Office of Corporation Counsel
    and managers.
        Similarly, the Court will assume a leadership role in enhancing the
    court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) and parents' attorney training.
    Training will be required of all attorneys who practice in this area
    before the Family Court. It will be given by child welfare and trial
    practice experts, and experienced judges. The training will include
    substantive legal areas in the field of neglect and abuse as well as
    the law of evidence and other trial practice issues.
        If funding is available, payments to attorneys will be increased in
    order to retain competent counsel and prevent attrition in the CLAN
    Bar. In an effort to expand the pool of available attorneys, a
    recruitment effort will be undertaken, targeting attorneys with
    expertise in family law, particularly in the area of abuse and neglect.
    The Court will coordinate training programs with area law schools and
    legal clinics in the child abuse and neglect area. In addition, the
    Court will implement a requirement that all attorneys who wish to be
    appointed to a separate panel of GAL attorneys, must first have
    represented parents in a designated number of cases or must have
    completed specified training.
    Coordination
        To ensure that information about services is readily available, the
    Court will provide space on site to be staffed by representatives from
    District of Columbia agencies that provide needed services to abused
    and neglected children and their families. This may include, at a
    minimum, representatives of the Office of Corporation Counsel, District
    of Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing Authority,
    the Child and Family Services Agency, Court Appointed Special Advocates
    (CASA), District of Columbia Commission on Mental Health and the
    Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration, or their equivalents.
        Where applicable, a judge or magistrate judge from the Superior
    Court's Domestic Violence Unit will be included on the abuse and
    neglect team in order to enhance the Family Court's multi-disciplinary
    approach to case resolution and to permit better coordination of cases
    involving a family unit.
        Coordination of case management will also occur with the Juvenile
    Offender Branch and a liaison will be developed between the team
    magistrate judge in the Permanency Branch and the Court's Social
    Services Division, (the District's juvenile probation department). The
    purpose is to coordinate all cases in which a child is before both the
    neglect and juvenile systems. This will allow the Family Court to
    choose among the alternatives in both systems.
        The Court will support and work with on a regular basis a
    coordinating council which brings together all child welfare
    stakeholders (including representatives of the Mayor's office, CFSA,
    CASA, and bar members). The Court will work to replicate the success of
    the District's existing Domestic Violence Coordinating Council and the
    Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
    Child Protection Mediation
        To encourage early settlement of dependency cases, the use of child
    protection mediation will be considered for use in all cases, where
    safe and appropriate. The process will include parents, the Office of
    the Corporation Counsel, the District's child welfare agency, the GAL
    and all other relevant parties and representatives.
    System Accountability
        To foster informed and effective decisions concerning a child's
    welfare, the Court must have the ability to coordinate information
    concerning a child's status in the juvenile and neglect system with the
    criminal and mental health status of a parent or other person residing
    in the household or with any pending child support or domestic violence
    cases involving either the custodial or non-custodial parent. Such
    interfacing capacity does not currently exist at the Court and has been
    identified as a critical need in a recent extensive study of the
    Superior Court's infrastructure conducted by the National Center for
    State Courts.
        ccordingly, the Court will implement an integrated justice case
    management system (IJIS) to properly track and monitor family and other
    cases in which a family member may be involved in order to ensure that
    all decision-makers within the Court have access to comprehensive
    information to make decisions about placement, child safety and well-
    being.
        The needed integrated justice information system also would be
    capable of responding to requests for aggregate information for various
    quality assurance and management reports concerning caseloads and
    workflow.
        The Court will use the National Center for State Court's Trial
    Court Performance Standards (e.g., Access to Justice; Expedition and
    Timeliness; Equality, Fairness and Integrity; Independence and
    Accountability; and Public Trust and Confidence) to guide practice in
    the Family Court. The Court will also examine the use of time standards
    set forth in existing Federal and local law and differentiated case
    management techniques to optimize case processing timeliness and
    effectiveness.
        The Court will establish a working Implementation Committee
    consisting of representatives from the Family Court, Office of the
    Corporation Counsel, CFSA, and the attorneys who represent parties in
    abuse and neglect cases. The Committee will be responsible for
    implementation and oversight of the Court's reforms initiatives.
    Scheduling
        To improve calendaring practices and scheduling, the Court will
    work with CFSA to schedule review hearings on days and at times that
    will maximize social workers' time in the field and minimize their time
    in court.
    Improved Facilities
        The Court is committed to allocating sufficient space to family
    matters and will request the funding necessary to do so. The Court
    seeks to establish a child-friendly waiting room for families and
    social workers, increase the number of courtrooms for family
    proceedings, and will seek to consolidate all family-related offices
    and functions to a centralized court location (including the Court's
    existing Child Care Center for litigants and witnesses, the Supervised
    Family Visitation Center and the Crime Victims Compensation Program).
    Other Initiatives
        The Court will continue to seek funding, under the U.S. Department
    of Justice's Family Drug Court Planning Initiative and Grant Program,
    among other sources, to establish a Family Drug Court to address the
    substance abuse problems which are increasingly associated with parents
    and children involved in abuse and neglect cases, and which serve as a
    barrier to achieving permanency expeditiously for children.
    Resources
        A preliminary analysis indicates that a full range of budget
    resources will be needed to institute these reforms. The additional
    resource needs of the Court are outlined in Attachment A.

    Attachment A.--Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch
    Reforms

    Staffing (Recurring Costs):
        Judges and Support Staff:
            3 Judges (i.e., for additional calendars for:
              Neglect, Guardianships and Permanency in
              Neglect; TPR/Adoptions).......................        $539,772
            3 Law Clerks....................................         149,865
            3 Judicial Secretaries..........................         164,988
            3 Courtroom Clerks..............................         136,359
            3 Calendar Clerks...............................         111,474
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (15)....................................       1,102,458
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Magistrate Judges and Case Management Teams (3
          teams):
            9 Magistrate Judges.............................       1,489,770
            3 Special Masters...............................         326,853
            3 Case Coordinators.............................         164,988
            2 Attorney Advisors.............................         156,764
            3 Law Clerks....................................         149,865
            6 Secretaries...................................         272,718
            9 Courtroom Clerks..............................         409,077
            9 Calendar Clerks...............................         334,422
            3 Calendar Coordinators.........................         150,165
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (47)....................................       3,454,622
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Family Court and ADR Support Staff:
            2 Family ADR Case Managers......................          99,910
            2 File Clerks...................................          53,626
            1 Calendar Clerk................................          37,158
            1 CCAN Reappointments Clerk.....................          37,158
            1 CCAN Eligibility Clerk........................          37,158
            1 ADR Secretary.................................          45,453
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (8).....................................         310,463
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        IT and Other Support Staff:
            1 Database Administrator........................      \1\ 92,624
            1 Applications Manager..........................          78,382
            1 Database Support/Programmer...................      \1\ 78,382
            1 Statistical Data Analyst......................          54,996
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (4).....................................         304,384
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total Staffing (74) (Recurring)...............   \2\ 5,171,927
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Contractual and Other (Recurring Costs):
        CCAN Rate Increase..................................     \1\ 797,000
        IRS Database Support and Maintenance................     \1\ 275,000
        Mediator Stipends ($100 per session; 2 sessions per
          case; 2,500 cases)................................     \3\ 500,000
        Mediator Training (Initial training for 30 new
          mediators per quarter)............................          50,000
        Training ($12,500 judicial and $3,500 staff per
          quarter)..........................................          60,000
        Rental Space for Staff Offices......................       6,074,000
        Security............................................         284,000
        Supplies, Postage and Phone ($2,762 per employee per
          year).............................................         204,388
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total Contractual and Other (Recurring)...........       8,244,388
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal, Recurring Costs.........................      13,416,315
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $1,263,006 Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts'
        fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.....................      12,153,309
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring Costs):
        Construction of Courtrooms, chambers, in Building B.      14,450,000
        Capital Improvements in Buildings A & B.............  \1\ 10,705,000
        Relocation Costs (e.g. furnishings, moving, cabling)       1,200,000
        Renovate space for Family Waiting Room ($23,750
          financed with fiscal year 2001 funds).............................
        Chambers/Office Furnishings and Equipment ($3,000
          per employee).....................................         222,000
        Equipment:
            5 Photocopiers at 10,000 each...................          50,000
            5 Fax Machines at $750 each.....................           3,750
        IJIS (Family Module: $2,600,000; Complete System:
          $7,100,000; minus $1,200,000 in grants)...........   \3\ 5,900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
            Total Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-
              Recurring)....................................      32,530,750
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $15,305,000 Non-Recurring Costs included in D.C.
        Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.............      17,225,750
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Grand Total.......................................      45,947,065
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $16,568,006 included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year
        2002 Budget Request.................................      29,379,059

    \1\ Included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.
    \2\ Staffing costs reflect fiscal year 2001 salary plus fringe benefits
    at 24 percent of salary.
    \3\ Portion included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request:
    $20,000 for Mediator Stipends and $4,600,000 for IJIS (of which
    $1,500,000 plus grant funds are to be obligated in fiscal year 2002 for
    the Family module).

        Senator DeWine. Judge King, you set a new record here. You
    are 3\1/2\ minutes. Judge Walton.
        Senator Landrieu. Excellent. Got us off to a great start.
        Senator DeWine. I was shocked. I don't know what to do. Try
    and beat it, Judge.

                           STATEMENT OF REGGIE WALTON

        Judge Walton. Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, it is an
    honor to have the opportunity to be here today to talk about
    the problems confronting all too many of our children here in
    the District of Columbia. I have served as a Superior Court
    judge for over 17 years. When Judge King called me into his
    office and told me he wanted me to take over the position as
    the presiding judge of the Family Division, the assignment was
    not on my radar screen. However, when I thought about the
    importance of what occurs in the Family Division, I had the
    opportunity to serve in the division on a number of occasions,
    I readily concluded that what we do in the Family Division is
    the most important work of the Court, and therefore, more than
    willingly accepted the challenge that Judge King gave to me.
        I proceeded immediately with a plan of trying to assess the
    operations of the division, and to develop reforms. Admittedly,
    the interest and the scrutiny that the Congress has directed at
    us increased the need to move expeditiously with those reforms,
    and I do thank the Congress for that. I will restrict my
    comments to the major components of our reform plan.
        Obviously, there are a lot of different components to it,
    but the major component is the creation of the team approach,
    and I think that is the hallmark of our reform plan. We have
    talked to a lot of experts, not only in the District, but also
    throughout the entire country to try and test what is the best
    practice for handling neglect and abuse cases, and the team
    concept is what we decided would best serve the children and
    families in these cases. I think it ensures that there will be
    one judicial officer responsible for handling these cases, and
    in the event that judge becomes unavailable for some reason,
    for example, for example, illness, death, retirement or
    whatever, with a team approach, our hope is that the other team
    members will be equally aware of that case, and be able to step
    in for that judge and continue the effort to move towards
    permanency and closure of that case.
        Also, we know that it is important to have judges who are
    well qualified to handle these cases, not only well qualified,
    but as has been indicated, who have a desire to handle these
    cases. So the one thing that we obviously will do is to ensure
    that judges who serve in this Permanency Branch are individuals
    who want to be there, and individuals who have an expertise in
    the area, and individuals who have been trained to do the best
    job in this area. The team will consist of one judge, who will
    be in charge of the team.
        There will be three separate teams. Each judge will have
    three magistrate judges working with him or her. Those
    individuals will be specially trained to handle these
    particular types of cases and we also will have support staff
    who will assist the Court in ensuring that we move our cases
    expeditiously through the system with the obvious desire of
    ensuring that we are in compliance with Federal and local laws.
        I will be more than happy to comment further in reference
    to the team approach, but I think it is essential that we
    implement this effort because I think it is the best way to
    ensure that children are appropriately serviced in the system.
        One of the major problems that we have to confront are, is
    the number of older cases that we have. We have approximately
    45 older cases in the system, and we are going to----
        Senator Landrieu. Hundred.
        Judge Walton. I am sorry. 4,500 cases in the system, and we
    are embarking on a process at this time already to try and make
    an assessment as to how we can close those cases, how we can
    bring those cases to some degree of permanency. We already have
    a special master who is looking on those cases, providing
    recommendations to the judges as to how those cases can be
    better addressed and how we can bring closure to those cases.
        Our plan calls for three special masters to be hired by the
    Court, along with a team working with them in order to assist
    the judges in trying to bring closure to those cases. We have
    made an assessment that, while it would be obviously desirable
    to have those cases placed into the Permanency Branch, for the
    time being, it would be important to leave those cases with the
    judges who currently are handling them because many of those
    judges are acutely aware of the particular circumstances in
    those cases. They have a desire to keep those cases. And we
    believe it would be most efficient in trying to resolve those
    cases to leave those cases in their current posture.
        I again, as Chief Judge King indicated, welcome any
    questions you have in reference to the plan. I believe that the
    plan has been well thought out and that it will in fact
    significantly improve the plight of children and families who
    come into the Family Division of the Court.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, thank you very much. Judge Grossman.

                         STATEMENT OF DAVID E. GROSSMAN

        Judge Grossman. Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, it is a
    pleasure to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. As you said, Senator, I have long been in the trenches
    in this affair of juvenile and family courts. I started back in
    1959 as a magistrate and spent 16 years as a magistrate and
    then 24 years as a judge. One of the most serious issues that
    we faced in our town and in our jurisdiction was this issue of
    children languishing in foster care, languishing in the system
    and like Washington, D.C., we had about 4,500 in a backlog when
    we first attacked the problem.
        I don't think any of us are on a different page when it
    comes to the necessary things that have to be done and the need
    to do it, so I am not going to spend any time presenting the
    need. We all know what that is. I have some points I would make
    quickly, and then open the matter, of course, to questions for
    all of us. There are four essential pieces, I think, that need
    to be addressed if a court is going to attempt to deal with
    this problem of a number of children who are in foster care
    drift.
        Number one, the court must have sufficient staff and
    sufficient personnel and sufficient magistrate or judge time in
    order to accomplish the task. And I was pleased to hear Judge
    King mention a point that I find is applicable across the
    country when it comes to this problem. A court must concentrate
    a laser-like focus upon the issue of foster care drift in the
    children that are in the system. They can't spread it out
    across a broad section of a court. They have to focus and I
    heard Judge King say he is going to have a permanency unit,
    which will be the dependency unit, and that is an extremely
    important concept and step. If you don't have that, the thing
    tends to get lost.
        In that unit, you must have, as I said, sufficient
    magistrate and sufficient judicial personnel to accomplish the
    task before it. And I hear a large number of filings coming
    into the Washington, D.C. court, an unusual number, considering
    the size of the Washington, D.C. population. It is an unusual
    problem.
        The second thing that needs to be concentrated upon, and I
    heard Senator Landrieu mention this, you need to have space.
    This permanency unit must have a space that is suitable for the
    practice before it, so that families are comfortable there.
    Children can be brought there. There is enough security and
    enough space for lawyers, CASAs and others to consult and
    enough dignified hearing rooms that they can handle these cases
    properly, and these courts, this section again should not be
    spread out in the system. It should be concentrated.
        The third thing that is very important, and I know all of
    us are aware of it, there must be a good information management
    system. There must be a process by which the court, who will
    generate this system, can handle its cases in a careful and
    responsible fashion, knowing the playing field. If you do not
    know the numbers and you do not know the profiles, you cannot
    do anything except rescue emergencies. And with other services
    agencies--but I would stress the point that the system must be
    under the authority of the court and generated by the court for
    the court's purposes.
        And the fourth leg of the whole process, which is one that
    all of us know, you have to supply the court with the resources
    for dispositional purposes to handle the cases before it. If
    you want a court to burn out, a judge to burn out, a magistrate
    to burn out, do not give him the resources. Make him or her
    come to the court every day knowing what the answers ought to
    be when he can't fill them or she can't fill them. That is a
    recipe for frustration, for bitterness, for burnout. I can tell
    you it will happen, so you must give them that, and that
    involves other agencies, service delivery people, placement
    people, all kinds of agencies and services to help the court do
    its job.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        Those are the four legs. Those must be in place. They are
    generic. They can be handled in different ways in different
    jurisdictions, but they all must be there. Thank you.
        [The statements follow:]

                    Prepared Statement of David E. Grossman

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, thank
    you for this opportunity to testify before you here today. I am David
    E. Grossmann, Retired Presiding Administrative Judge of the Hamilton
    County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am here on behalf of the
    National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, where in 1995-
    1996, I served as President. I currently serve as Chairman of the
    National Council's Adoption Committee. Honorary Chair for the National
    Council's Adoption Committee is former United States President Gerald
    R. Ford. Ex-Officio member of that Committee is Dave Thomas, CEO of
    Wendy's International.
        We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are
    pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Family
    Division reform of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I
    commend the Subcommittee for their commitment to improving family court
    practice and improve outcomes for children and families in the District
    of Columbia.
            the national council of juvenile and family court judges
        For over 25 years, the National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges has recognized the need for judicial oversight of child
    abuse and neglect cases. Pointing to rising numbers of children in the
    nation's foster care system and recognizing that thousands of children
    were being raised without the benefit of permanent homes, Congress
    passed key legislation in 1980 to reduce the number of children
    experiencing ``foster care drift'' in the nation's foster care system.
    The passage of Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child
    Welfare Act of 1980, heralded the need for improved practice in
    handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Courts and child welfare
    agencies were given the mandate to place strict 18-month time limits on
    resolution of dependency cases. The system as a whole was required to
    make ``reasonable efforts'' findings and to ensure: (1) Unnecessary
    separation of children and families be avoided; (2) Reunification of
    families when safely possible to do so; and (3) When reunification was
    not feasible, moving forward in finding adoptive or other permanent
    placement alternatives for children.
        As a result of that legislation, courts and child welfare agencies
    nationwide began to examine practice; identify barriers to permanency;
    plan for change; and implement changes in policy, practice and court
    rules. However, soon after the Adoption and Safe Families Act was
    passed, the nation's foster care system began to experience a new
    crisis. Soaring drug use, violence in families, child abuse awareness
    campaigns, and poverty rates began to bring more children into the
    child welfare and court systems than ever before. As a result of
    burgeoning caseloads and limited resources, court and child welfare
    agencies were struggling to meet the new demands placed upon them.
    Numbers of children in the child welfare system once again began to
    rise.
        Thanks to the foresight of Congress, including Senator DeWine and
    many members of this Committee, additional legislation was passed in
    November 1997, which once again required court and child welfare
    agencies to improve practice. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of
    1997 (Public Law 105-89) shortened time frames for dependency cases
    from 18 months to 12 months, and focusing practice on three specific
    outcomes for dependent children: (1) Safety; (2) Permanency; and (3)
    Well-Being.
        In order to implement the Federal legislation in the spirit in
    which it was intended, state courts and child welfare agencies
    refocused their efforts on improving practice in handling of child
    abuse and neglect cases. Several national initiatives to improve
    practice gained new momentum. The Court Improvement Program of the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services provides support through state
    supreme courts for states to gather key stakeholders and examine
    practice. Court Improvement Program resources include funding for
    training and technical assistance, and are under way in all 50 states
    and the District of Columbia.
        In 1992, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
    initiated a project which would break new ground in guiding courts and
    child welfare systems through their reform efforts. With support from
    the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S.
    Department of Justice, the National Council formed a committee of
    judges, child welfare agency administrators, attorneys, court appointed
    special advocates (CASAs), and others to develop a document which would
    outline best practice for handling of dependency cases. The result of
    this three-year effort was the RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court
    Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases, published in 1995, and
    endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the American Bar
    Association. This document, which outlines key components of complete
    and fair hearings, is being used as a blueprint for change by Court
    Improvement Programs and individual courts nationwide. Since its first
    printing, over 22,000 copies of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES have been
    disseminated nationwide, with hundreds of additional copies being
    distributed every month.
        Also groundbreaking in its efforts to improve practice, the follow
    up work in development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was initiation of the
    Victims Act Model Court Project. In 1995, the National Council began
    work in a number of courts nationwide to put the RESOURCE GUIDELINES
    into practice. Criteria for selection of Model Courts was developed.
    Courts under consideration were asked to make a commitment to change,
    and to implement the RESOURCE GUIDELINES in their change efforts.
    Courts were asked to select a lead judge' whose task it would be to
    guide court improvement efforts in his or her jurisdiction. The lead
    judge' was to select a committee of key stakeholders, who would work
    collaboratively to examine practice, identify barriers, strategically
    plan for change, and implement improvements. Each court was asked to
    sign onto the project for the long term, recognizing that systems
    change is a lengthy and time-consuming process. And, finally, each
    court, as a laboratory for change, was asked to commit to mentoring
    other courts engaged in their own court improvement efforts.
        Since 1995, the number of Model Courts has risen from the original
    four to a current total of 23. Courts range in size from the largest
    metropolitan courts in the nation--Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago,
    Newark, and Miami--to many mid-sized and smaller jurisdictions,
    including Cincinnati, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, El
    Paso, Honolulu, Des Moines, Charlotte, San Jose, and Reno. Just last
    week, the first Tribal Court, Zuni Pueblo of New Mexico, agreed to
    participate in the project.
        Model Court achievements over the past six years have been many,
    and in some cases, remarkable. The Cook County Juvenile Court--Child
    Protection Division--through leadership of then lead judge, the Hon.
    Nancy Salyers, and in close collaboration with Jess McDonald, Director
    of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, implemented
    court and child welfare system reforms. This resulted in a reduction in
    the number of children in out-of-home care in that county alone from
    over 58,000 to under 27,000 in little over three year's time.
        Specific improvements accomplished in many of the Model Courts
    which have resulted in moving dependent children more effectively
    through the child welfare system include the following:
      --Expanded initial, or preliminary protective hearings
      --Focused effort to reduce case backlogs
      --Implementation of one family/one judge court calendars
      --Implementation of front-end diversion programs, including family
            group conferencing and mediation
      --Scheduling hearings at a time certain
      --Implementation of strict continuance policies
      --Implementation of continuous hearings and trials
      --Setting the next hearing date at the end of the current hearing
      --Distributing copies of orders to all parties at the end of the
            current hearing
      --Focusing on reducing the number of children in the child welfare
            system whose parental rights have been terminated and who are
            awaiting adoptive or other permanent placements
      --Development of court-based data information systems for case
            tracking and reporting, reporting on aggregate data and trends,
            calendaring and court records, tracking compliance with the
            Adoption and Safe Families Act and State mandated time lines.
        In 2000, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia became one
    of the newest Model Courts in the Victims Act Model Court Project.
    Committed to improving practice, the Washington, D.C. Court began to
    identify areas in need of change, and to draw key stakeholders into the
    planning process. The Washington, D.C. Model Court early-on focused on
    a variety of challenges to be addressed: judicial rotation, timely case
    processing, the need for resources both in judicial personnel and court
    personnel, the need for a court-based data information system,
    addressing case backlogs, and development of an effective working
    relationship with the District's child welfare agency were among the
    priorities set by the Family Division of the Superior Court.
        We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have
    supported the improvement efforts of the Family Division of the
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia since that court's
    initiation into the Model Court project, and we are supportive of the
    efforts of Chief Judge Rufus King III and Presiding Family Court Judge
    Reggie Walton. We have committed to providing resources in terms of
    training and technical assistance to enhance the court's ability to
    achieve its goals. We note that there are several issues to be
    addressed which invite further comment.
                                judicial tenure
        Rotation.--The law, social science, and practice issues involved in
    dependency practice are the most challenging of those faced by any
    court today. This is a specialized field, which requires specific
    knowledge and expertise of judicial officers beyond that required of
    many other areas of practice. Throughout the National Council's
    experience in working with Model Courts, and as cited by the
    aforementioned RESOURCE GUIDELINES, it is critical that a judge who
    hears dependency cases be expert in the law, in issues related to child
    development, in current practice, and in the placement and treatment
    resources available within his/her specific jurisdiction.
        In order to gain this critical knowledge and to maintain a
    knowledge of the families within the child welfare system, it is
    extremely important that judicial officers be retained on this bench
    for lengthy periods, and that length of time between judicial rotations
    be increased. One family/one judge, a key component of best practice
    can best be achieved when judicial officers serve for a significant
    period of time.
        Commitment.--A commitment to this case type by judicial officers is
    critical. In order to achieve best practice in this area, it is helpful
    for judges to self-select to this bench. Those who have a desire to sit
    on this bench should be allowed to do so, even beyond the rotation
    schedule set, if requested. Many states currently require that judges
    rotate off the dependency bench, in spite of the desire of judges to
    remain in this work. This does a disservice to the committed judges who
    wish to stay, and to the families whom they serve.
                         judicial officers/magistrates
        The Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati has successfully
    operated a magistrate system for a number of years. Early in the last
    decade, when we were first setting about systems reform, we identified
    the need for judicial officers who would be committed to the dependency
    bench and who would make a career of hearing child abuse and neglect
    cases.
        In Hamilton County there are two full-time judges, who oversee the
    work of a number of magistrates. This has led to best practice as
    recognized by the American Bar Association in its publication
    ``Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform: One Court That
    Works.'' \1\ Cases are held timely, parties are held accountable,
    families and children are represented, and permanence for children is
    achieved well within mandated time frames.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform: ONE
    COURT THAT WORKS,'' ABA Center on Children and the Law, National
    Conference of Special Court Judges, Chicago, 1992.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 case backlogs
        In a system with ever-growing case loads and limited resources, it
    is critical for courts to identify a date from which to implement new
    systems reforms, and to begin reviewing and hearing cases which have
    languished in the system for a variety of reasons. Clearing of case
    backlogs has been achieved in different ways in a number of
    jurisdictions.
        Following passage of that state's child welfare reform legislation
    in the mid-1990s, Utah's state legislature funded a number of special
    judge positions with the specific task of clearing case backlogs. Other
    jurisdictions have cleared backlogs by assigning volunteer judges to
    commit to the additional work necessary to review and hear ``old''
    cases.
        The Strengthening Child Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000
    (Public Law 106-314), introduced by Senator Mike DeWine and supported
    by many members of this committee, will provide some resources to
    courts nationwide to address case backlogs. This type of concerted
    effort will be necessary if the Family Division of the Superior Court
    is to clear backlogs as they now exist.
                                   resources
        It is critical that the Superior Court receive the resources
    necessary to achieve success in its court improvement efforts. As noted
    by the Conference of Chief Justices, these courts require adequate
    resources.\2\ These include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Resolution 21, ``Statement of Principles Regarding Children and
    Families,'' adopted as proposed by the Courts, Children and Family
    Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, Baltimore, Maryland, at
    the 24th Midyear Meeting on January 25, 2001 States:
        ``. . . we will seek to assure those [juvenile and family] courts
    and judges the facilities, resources, and statute among their
    colleagues that they need and deserve to have . . .''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Judicial Officers and Staff.--In order to achieve outcomes
    necessary, it is critical that funding for adequate personnel be made
    available to the court. Staff will include judicial officers, clerks,
    case managers, and other system professionals.
                      court-based data information system
        In order for the court to hold itself, and all system players
    accountable, it is critical that the court have a state-of-the art data
    information system in place. Such a system will allow the court to
    track individual cases, aggregate information, record trends in
    practice, record performance of system professionals, improve
    calendaring, more efficiently develop and disseminate court orders, and
    most importantly track ASA time lines.
        The Hamilton County data information system was critical to that
    court's success in identifying barriers to permanency, how effectively
    the system was addressing problem areas, and how successful the system
    was in improving practice.
                                   facilities
        It is critical that the Court have access to facilities which will
    provide a safe and efficient working environment for court staff, but
    most importantly provide a respectful and enhanced environment for the
    families it serves. This can include an adequate number of courtrooms,
    family-centered waiting areas, rooms for client/attorney consultation,
    family resource centers, child care services, and secure areas for
    handling of inmates required to appear during dependency hearings.
                                    training
        Regular in-service training for judicial officers, case management
    personnel and others, as well as interdisciplinary cross-system
    training is critical in order to facilitate court improvement efforts.
    As a jurisdiction, the District of Columbia should focus on in-house
    training of judicial officers and other court personnel, and also
    gather key stakeholders, including attorneys, child welfare personnel,
    treatment providers, and others to develop strategies for systems
    change.
        Finally, may I comment that even the best efforts of the Family
    Division cannot achieve systems change alone. It is critical that all
    key system personnel be included in this effort. The Bar, the Office of
    Corporation Counsel, the child welfare system--including those assigned
    to handling the ICPC, Court Appointed Special Advocates, service
    providers, treatment providers, and others involved in handling of
    child abuse and neglect cases--must all be brought to the table. Only
    with commitment from all system professionals to improve practice in
    handling of child abuse and neglect cases can better outcomes for the
    families and children in the District of Columbia be achieved.
        In closing, on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and
    Family Court Judges, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    inviting me to participate in hearings on this important legislation.
    We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges believe
    that with adequate resources, commitment of the judiciary, commitment
    of key system players, and a focus on improving practice, that better
    outcomes for families and children can be achieved. We look forward to
    continuing to assist the Family Division of the Superior Court of the
    District of Columbia in its efforts to improve practice in handling of
    child abuse and neglect cases.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this
    time.
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Paul Strauss

        Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the District of
    Columbia Subcommittee on Appropriations, I am Paul Strauss, the shadow
    United States Senator elected by the voters of the District of Columbia
    and an attorney who practices in the family court division of our local
    courts. In that capacity I have made approximately 5 hundred
    appearances in our family court, representing children and families in
    the Abuse and Neglect System.
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement on behalf of
    my constituents in the District of Columbia. The subject of this
    hearing is extremely important to me and to my constituents of
    Washington, D.C. It involves the physical, emotional and psychological
    health and welfare of our children and their need to be protected by a
    strong, well-structured and experienced judiciary. I testify today in
    support of the Family Division Reform Plan, developed by the Chief
    Judge and the Associate Judges of the Superior Court of the District of
    Columbia. Let me add for the record that I personally oppose the
    creation of a totally separate family court, which has been called for
    by the House Majority Whip.
        The issue before this committee is two-fold in nature. The first
    issue surrounds the need to adhere to home rule principles in governing
    the District of Columbia. These principles pertain to the respect for
    local control and decision making maintained under the umbrella of the
    District's home rule charter, and to respect the decision making
    process apparent in our local judiciary. The second issue of even
    greater importance concerns the protection of our community's most
    vulnerable members. These issues involve a choice between the
    strengthening of the District of Columbia's current court structure
    rather than its complete deconstruction.
        As is apparent today, the State of Ohio has developed arguably
    well-managed family court programs. Let me first take this opportunity
    to thank those Judges from Ohio who have traveled to Washington DC to
    share their experiences with us. These beneficial models, which work
    well in given States, will provide valuable guidance to the District of
    Columbia. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the exact same
    structure will serve the specific socio-demographic and economic needs
    of the diverse population situated within the District of Columbia. As
    you know, the District contains an overwhelmingly urban population, and
    we are not provided the same level of resources bestowed upon State
    governments. Due to the current political status of the District, any
    change to our judiciary, such as the proposed Family Court, must be
    carefully implemented by the local professionals who understand and
    appreciate the needs of the population.
        The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
    most vulnerable citizens--its children, as well as provide countless
    other, more mundane, legal functions common to every jurisdiction. The
    safety of children should not and will not be compromised due to
    political agendas.
        Let me state for the record that there have been many times when
    the Republican majority, particularly in the U.S. House of
    Representatives, has attempted to substitute its personal and political
    judgments for the democratically expressed wishes of the District of
    Columbia citizens. I have spoken out against those efforts, and
    criticized those who would violate our democratic rights for the sake
    of political expediency. I have no such criticism today.
        It is clear that the House Majority Whip, and his colleagues who
    are pushing the idea of an independent and separate family court, do so
    not to impose any particular ideology on our judiciary, but based on
    their own good faith belief on the best interests of our children and
    legal process.
        There is no Democratic or Republican way to adjudicate cases of
    child abuse and neglect. The District of Columbia's non-State status
    makes it a necessity that any reform must come from this body. While I
    have often resented the actions of a D.C. sub-committee, which
    appropriates money both from and for the District of Columbia in the
    absence of a member from the District of Columbia, I welcome today your
    input and involvement. Our legitimate desire for self-determination
    does not mean that the U.S. Senate should ignore this important issue.
        An important component of this proposal offers judges of the Family
    Court a fixed three-year term with the option of continuing service
    beyond that time period. It is my belief, based upon my own experience,
    that judges who hear nothing but child abuse and neglect cases are
    susceptible to an unusual amount of emotional stress due to their
    exposure to the horrific nature of these cases, which often involve
    great brutality visited amongst helpless innocents. I can appreciate
    and sympathize with these hardships because I too found that after
    years of litigating multiple trials involving abused and neglected
    children, the emotional toll could be quite significant. The Court's
    present proposal allows judges the opportunity to volunteer for such
    assignments, thus allowing them to seek out the special challenges in
    one or more of the family court sectors, but also involves a plan to
    avoid burn-out and frustration.
        The Family Division Trial Lawyers Association of the District of
    Columbia opposes separating the Family Court from the rest of the
    judiciary. All of the major components of the Superior Court's reform
    initiative depict sound modes of achieving enhanced protection to
    abused and neglected children. The comprehensive plan demonstrates the
    most efficient and effectives means of implementing a Family Court.
    Rather than duplicate administrative efforts, the plan concentrates
    upon team management tactics, continual training procedures, judicial
    specializations, and a multi-disciplinary approach to case resolution
    which emphasizes coherent lines of communication. Even more
    importantly, it has the appropriation envisioned to provide real
    reform. Without the requested additional resources, any plan will
    surely fail.
        I urge you in the strongest possible terms to support the Court's
    restructuring plan and to allocate the financial support to make it a
    success. A strong Family Court, united within the existing Superior
    Court, will improve the quality of life and enhance justice.
        On behalf of the citizens of the District of Columbia, I thank you
    for the opportunity to make these comments; I would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statements of James J. Roberts, President, and Betty E.
     Sinowitz, Co-Vice President, Family Division Trial Lawyers Association

        Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, Members of the Subcommittee of
    the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations. We are
    James J. Roberts and Betty E. Sinowitz, and we have prepared this
    statement in our capacities as President and Co-Vice President
    respectively, of the Family Division Trial Lawyers Association (FDTLA).
    Previously, we had communicated by letter to Members of the Senate and
    House of Representatives who are most concerned with the District of
    Columbia.
        Thank you for initiating this very important hearing to address the
    District of Columbia Superior Court's plan to reform its Family
    Division to ensure the protection of our abused and neglected children.
    As officers of FDTLA and as citizens of the District of Columbia, we
    fully support the Family Division Reform Plan authored by Chief Judge
    Rufus G. King, III and the Associate Judges of the Superior Court of
    the District of Columbia. We welcome the special interest of both the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member in these matters.
        The Family Division Trial Lawyers Association (FDTLA) is a
    voluntary association of court-appointed attorneys who represent abused
    and neglected children and their family members, juveniles, and
    mentally retarded and mentally ill adults in Superior Court of the
    District of Columbia. Our clients are the District of Columbia's most
    defenseless and vulnerable citizens in need of professional legal
    services.
        FDTLA strongly advocates the maintenance and improvement of the
    unified Family Division that currently exists within the construct of
    the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. FDTLA vigorously
    opposes the establishment of a separate Family Court. FDTLA officers
    and members are working with the Superior Court to suggest reforms,
    some of which have already been implemented.
        Since our members practice every day in the Family Division of the
    Superior Court, FDTLA has a keen interest in current efforts to bring
    about positive changes in the Family Division. We are working with the
    Court, the legal community, Congress, and community groups concerned
    with abuse and neglect and foster care issues, examining both positive
    and negative aspects in the current system.
        Chief Judge Rufus G. King, III brings commitment, intelligence, and
    energy to his recent appointment. Under Chief Judge King and Presiding
    Judge Reggie Walton of the Family Division, FDTLA representatives, as
    well as judges, hearing commissioners, government attorneys, social
    workers, and administrative court personnel have met over the past
    several months to scrutinize the Family Division's current operations
    and embark on an intensive effort to develop a program that will
    rectify problems which had developed.
        FDTLA supports Chief Judge King's reform plan and the appropriation
    of additional and sufficient financial resources to change the existing
    Family Division. An increased budget will enable Chief Judge King to
    implement his plan in the following ways:
      --Adding additional judges and magistrates for adjudicating abuse and
            neglect cases and termination of parental rights and adoption
            matters, as well as for the domestic relations, paternity and
            child support, mental health and mental retardation branches of
            the current Family Division.
      --Increasing the terms for judges and hearing officers or magistrates
            in the Family Division to three years, with at least one year
            per calendar.
      --Utilizing a collaborative team approach, whereby judges,
            magistrates, court staff attorneys, court staff social workers,
            and better trained support staff would provide a new approach
            to case management and the ongoing review of abuse and neglect
            matters.
      --Enlarging the use of court mediation services for abuse and neglect
            and other family law cases, as appropriate.
      --Implementing a better coordination system for scheduling hearings,
            trials, and reviews of open cases in order to cut down court
            waiting time, so that both attorneys and social workers can
            spend more time monitoring their cases and securing services
            for their clients.
      --Modernizing the computer system to enable more effective tracking
            of cases and coordination of all cases involving the same
            families in the court system, the child welfare system, the
            police department, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, and
            other agencies
      --Providing extensive and ongoing training in abuse and neglect law
            and policy for judges, magistrates, attorneys, social workers,
            and administrative personnel.
      --Allocating larger courtrooms and hearing rooms; providing family
            friendly waiting rooms for witnesses, parties, and children
            involved in family law cases; and assigning designated
            conference meeting rooms for attorneys, social workers, and
            mediators who work with families and children.
      --Filling vacant file room positions in the clerks' offices and
            adding more administrative support staff for file rooms and
            courtrooms.
      --Increasing pay rates for court-appointed lawyers and investigators.
        FDTLA strongly asserts that children already traumatized by abuse
    and neglect deserve the full and serious attention of the most
    experienced, committed, and competent judges who have acquired
    expertise and perspective handling a wide range of cases in many areas
    of jurisprudence. The current system of rotating judges should be
    continued, albeit with changes made less frequently. Determinations
    concerning the removal of children from their parents, placements of
    children with relatives or foster parents, return of children to their
    birth parents, termination of parental rights, and adoption;
    institutionalizing children; and the other difficult decisions must be
    made by judges who are not experiencing burnout resulting from their
    exclusively hearing cases involving human tragedy.
        The present inclusion of the Family Division within the Superior
    Court is the best model. It has much merit. This model integrates
    family matters into the overall structure of the court system, thereby
    maintaining equality of commitment with the criminal, civil, and
    probate divisions. Judges rotate among all divisions giving equal time,
    attention, and commitment to whichever division they are assigned.
        Currently, each of 59 Superior Court judges, regardless of their
    current court assignment, conducts periodic reviews 75-90 cases per
    year, thus presiding over approximately two abuse and neglect matters
    per week. If a separate family court were created, each of some
    thirteen judges on such a court would need to review nearly 400 abuse
    and neglect cases per year, in addition to presiding over initial
    hearings, status hearings, trials, show cause hearings, and emergency
    hearings. This is an unworkable and unrealistic proposal.
        In other jurisdictions with separate family courts, the family
    court is frequently referred to as the ``kiddy court.'' Such courts are
    frequently staffed with new judges who are learning the ropes before
    they are assigned to the ``real'' court. Other jurisdictions have found
    it convenient to cut costs in their budgets by staffing this ``kiddy
    court'' with magistrates and commissioners, rather than with judges,
    thereby saving the ``real judges'' for the ``real court'' with ``real
    problems.'' Jurisdictions, such as New York, which have separate family
    courts, are now advocating the establishment of unified courts similar
    to the one existing now in the District of Columbia. Congress will be
    better advised to study this similar metropolitan jurisdiction prior to
    introducing legislation creating a separate family court.
        Although many government leaders decry big government and call for
    less bureaucracy and lower taxes, the proposed creation of a separate
    and distinct ``Family Court'' will cost tens of millions of dollars in
    the first year alone.
        FDTLA opposes the creation of a separate stand-alone family court
    entity for the following reasons:
      --Merely creating a separate family court will not address the
            important need for systemic reform in the operations of the
            Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), the Metropolitan
            Police Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Office
            of the Corporation Counsel. These government agencies are in
            transition and are in need of further reforms.
      --In addition to the massive additional costs to establish and
            maintain a separate family court, a separate court is likely to
            have difficulty in recruiting and retaining highly qualified
            judges and hearing commissioners to work in what is likely to
            be regarded a ``lesser'' or ``kiddy'' court.
      --A separate entity will add massive construction costs and
            duplicative administrative expense for personnel, equipment,
            and maintenance.
      --A separate family court may siphon already limited judicial
            resources from the Superior Court.
      --The time involved in the establishment of a separate court would
            serve to defer the closure of long-standing, pending cases.
      --A separate court would interfere with the operation of the existing
            domestic violence branches' its innovative, unified approach to
            civil and criminal proceedings involving intrafamily violence.
        FDTLA recognizes that there have been problems in the protection
    and permanent placement of children in the child abuse and neglect
    system. It is important to note that it is the Child and Family
    Services Agency (CFSA), not the D.C. Superior Court, that failed to
    adequately protect children, properly monitor temporary placements for
    children, recruit adoptive parents and place children in permanent
    homes. CFSA is the agency under a Federal court receivership, not the
    D.C. Superior Court.
        Now, however, the Superior Court, under the leadership of Chief
    Judge King, is taking a leadership role in developing long-term
    solutions to the difficulties that trouble the Family Division, and
    FDTLA trusts that the Court's reforms will result in a less expensive,
    quicker, more flexible, and more comprehensive response to meeting the
    pressing legal needs of the District of Columbia's most vulnerable
    citizens than would be possible if a separate Family Court were
    established. Addressing complex management issues, limited judicial
    resources, and working with other branches of government will do more
    to meet these needs.
        On behalf of FDTLA, we urge you and your congressional colleagues
    to continue your interest in resolving the problems of the D.C.
    Superior Court and in providing it with adequate financial resources to
    accomplish the reforms planned for the Family Division of the D.C.
    Superior Court under its current leadership.
        On behalf of our clients who are citizens of the District of
    Columbia, we thank you for the opportunity to present our comments. We
    would be happy to provide answers to any questions that you may have.
    We additionally request an opportunity to testify at any public hearing
    regarding any congressional proposals concerning either a stand-alone
    or a unified family court.

        Senator DeWine. Great. Great testimony from all three of
    you. Thank you all very much. I really do not know where to
    start. Let me start, I guess, with you, Judge King. Judge King,
    you and I talked about this issue the other day, and I want to
    explore it just a little bit more. I think we all agree that
    one of the objectives has to be to develop the expertise in the
    judge, and the point has been well made, and I think correctly,
    that you have to have people that want to do this. You do not
    want someone in there who you have to pull kicking and
    screaming into the courtroom. You want a judge who wants to be
    there, who wants to do it, and wants to handle this type of
    case. Explain to me a little bit how you envision this working
    with the new change. Let us start with how many judges you
    think are needed in this unit, and what are we calling this
    unit? I want to make sure I get the terminology.
        Judge King. It would be the Permanency Branch of the Family
    Division, or Family Court Division of the Superior Court. But
    it is the Permanency Branch we are focusing on.
        Senator DeWine. Permanency Branch. And how many judges?
        Judge King. The way we look at it within the Permanency
    Branch, we are looking at, as we now see it, 3 judges and 9
    magistrates, divided in teams, so there would be a total of 12
    judicial officers.
        Senator DeWine. Now, let me make sure and again, these are
    some real basic things, and I apologize, but I want to make
    sure I understand. What does the Permanency Branch do?
        Judge King. These are cases involving abused and neglected
    children primarily. And by having the Family Division as a
    unified family court, if you will, when there is a related
    divorce or other support issue and that type of thing, all
    would be before a cadre of judges who are doing this work and
    are talking to each other and working with each other, but the
    Permanency Branch would address the children who have either
    been abandoned or abused or----
        Senator DeWine. So if you have got----
        Senator Landrieu. How many judges are in the big section?
        Senator DeWine. In the Family Division?
        Senator Landrieu. In the Family Division.
        Judge King. In the entire Family Division, we see a need
    for 15 judges.
        Senator DeWine. Total.
        Judge King. And we currently have 11 judges, including what
    will later become the Permanency Branch.
        Senator DeWine. But Judge, excuse me, you envision 15
    total?
        Judge King. 15 judges.
        Senator DeWine. Which means----
        Senator Landrieu. Total.
        Judge King. We now have eight hearing commissioners, two of
    whom I believe, and if I can, if need be, I will correct the
    record before it closes, address these cases now. So there are
    some magistrate judges who would be needed for other things.
    For example, child support is an area that is handled by
    magistrate judges. And that would need to be continued. So we
    see ultimately--ultimately 15 judges and then the existing, and
    the nine new positions.
        Senator DeWine. I am lost.
        Senator Landrieu. I am lost. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. Yes. State--tell me where you want to go.
    Do not tell me what you've got now. We will get to that in a
    minute.
        Judge King. 15 judges.
        Senator Landrieu. You want 15 total?
        Senator DeWine. Total.
        Judge King. In the Family Division.
        Senator DeWine. And three of those 15 are in the Permanency
    Branch?
        Judge King. Correct.
        Senator DeWine. All right. And then you have got nine
    magistrates in the Permanency Branch, and you are going to have
    how many magistrates in the total?
        Judge King. We are going to have, the total would be an
    additional six, I believe, which will cover paternity and
    support.
        Senator DeWine. Now I am lost.
        Judge King. I think you asked about going outside the
    Permanency Branch.
        Senator Landrieu. How many magistrates for the
    nonpermanency family judges?
        Judge King. Six.
        Senator Landrieu. Not six new. How many total? How many
    would you have?
        Judge King. Outside the Permanency Branch.
        Senator Landrieu. You have three times more magistrates
    than the Permanency Branch. Can we assume you need three times
    more magistrates for the other branches? Because that would be
    45.
        Judge King. No. I don't believe that follows.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. How many would we need?
        Judge King. I believe eight, if I may supplement the record
    to be sure that I have got that exactly right.
        Senator DeWine. Well, but that means then there is a total
    of 17 actually then.
        Judge King. That's right.
        Senator DeWine. Seventeen. I mean the totals for the Family
    Division which includes the Permanency Branch is 15 judges, 17
    magistrates.
        Judge King. That's correct.
        Senator DeWine. Total. And then after that you take out of
    that three judges who go in the Permanency Branch and nine
    magistrates?
        Judge King. Correct.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. Tell me, tell me, explain to me, and
    Judge Grossman, I'd like your input on this as well, how it
    works between the judge and the magistrate. Hamilton County,
    for example, had just a few judges, how many did you have?
        Judge Grossman. Two.
        Senator DeWine. Two. So your ratio was phenomenally
    different. And I am not saying one is right or one is wrong. I
    am just curious how it works with the magistrate. I am curious
    how it worked with your system and Judge King, I am curious to
    know how you see it working with your system. Who does what?
        Judge Grossman. In Hamilton County, we have some 29
    magistrates and two judges and the judges act as the reviewing
    authority for those magistrates. But the magistrates have
    rather broad authority to handle their cases. And particularly,
    in the permanency system in our court, the magistrate can take
    the case from start to finish. With the ability to appeal to
    the judge, but that magistrate becomes a tenured person. He is
    a professional who remains with the system for many years. And
    as such, has that ability to carry a case on.
        Senator DeWine. So in reality, with that ratio, in almost
    every case, that is the final?
        Judge Grossman. Yes. Yes. But these magistrates are almost
    as judges, so that you understand.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge Grossman. That when they say they have got 15 judges
    and 17 magistrates, that is, that is the same type of thing,
    and they have more business considering their population than
    we have.
        Senator DeWine. Is that right?
        Judge Grossman. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And how are the magistrates appointed,
    just to clarify while we are on the subject?
        Judge Grossman. In our court the judge appoints them.
        Senator Landrieu. Judge appoints the magistrates.
        Judge Grossman. The courts control their own magistrates.
        Senator Landrieu. And under your plan, how would you----
        Judge King. The Court, and ultimately the Chief Judge, but
    with the recommendation of a committee which reviews the
    applicants and presents them to the Board of Judges, and then
    all the judges are consulted and then ultimately the Chief
    makes the pick.
        Senator DeWine. Judge King, tell me a little bit about how
    it works.
        Judge King. On your, on your question, we see a slightly
    different alignment for the District of Columbia plan. We see
    the teams as being comprised of a judge and three magistrates.
    All of them will rotate through the intake court and take in
    cases, so that a magistrate, for example, would cover a week of
    intake. We call them new referrals in our system. That case
    then becomes that magistrate's case for the life of the case.
        Senator DeWine. Is that----
        Judge King. It is much like the magistrate in Ohio.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. But that is just in the--for example,
    so that magistrate, he is not taking in criminal cases?
        Judge King. No. Absolutely not. That magistrate is hired up
    front because the open position will be a magistrate in the
    Permanency Branch. People who apply for that job are people who
    want to do that work.
        Senator DeWine. What has been your experience and your
    ability to attract, is there anything comparable now? The
    question is if you had the challenge of going out there and
    seeking out lawyers who want to do this full time----
        Judge King. No. Up until now, the application has been as a
    hearing commissioner whose responsibilities are plenary. We
    want people to come in and be qualified as plenary magistrates,
    but these positions will be what's up for--what's up for
    filling is a position.

                            Filled as a Family Court

        Senator DeWine. When you interview for that job, you know
    that is what you are going to do. If you do not want to do it,
    you shouldn't interview for the job.
        Judge King. Exactly.
        Senator DeWine. Now, you anticipate the ability to fill
    these nine. Let us stay on the magistrates for now.
        Judge King. Yes. I do. I anticipate that with a--first of
    all, as Judge Grossman said so aptly, with, with enough
    resources, this work begins to get very, very satisfying, in
    addition to being challenging and difficult and everything
    else.
        Senator DeWine. Sure. Sure.
        Judge King. It becomes as satisfying as anything a judge
    can do. And I do not anticipate a difficulty in finding people
    who want to do it. If we enter this period and enter these
    reforms without adequate resources, then yes, there will be a
    problem filling those positions.
        Senator DeWine. I think that is a good point. Let us go--
    well, let us go back to the, to the 3 judges, and you told me a
    little bit about this the other day in the office. But these
    would be, you envision, these would be terms of 3 years?
        Judge King. Three years as a minimum with an extension by--
    --
        Senator DeWine. Self-extension?
        Judge King. That's right. And the reason that I look at 3
    years is for a couple of reasons. The culture here has always
    been 1-year rotations. That obviously is going to have to
    change. We want to change it so that we encourage people who
    are genuinely interested in this area to stay. Yet, we do not
    say up front that you have to know now that you are going to
    commit to 8, 10, 12 years in this area, because we would miss
    highly qualified judges. An example is Judge Walton sitting
    next to me, who is doing terrific work in this area, and might
    not have signed on for a 10-year term. With 3 years, I believe
    that very highly qualified lawyers and then judges will be
    interested in coming on the Court and doing this work. I
    believe the leaders that we need will emerge in that process.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, as a practical matter, how do you
    deal with this situation? These are Presidential appointments,
    correct?
        Judge King. They are.
        Senator DeWine. And how do you make sure the White House
    understands that you are looking for a few good people who want
    to worry about kids all day?
        Judge King. We need a few good men and women. I have
    actually already done that. As you may know, the structure is
    that a local commission selects three candidates for each seat,
    and then the White House has to pick from among those three. I
    went to the commission during the discussion of this process as
    we have been developing this plan, and indicated to them that
    we really needed their support in using interest in family law
    as an important criteria in who they select.
        Senator DeWine. What kind of reception did you get?
        Judge King. We have three names pending at the White House
    now, two of whom have a significant interest in family law and
    family background.
        Senator DeWine. Good. Good.
        Judge King. I believe that process, when we reach a point
    where we need to add some judges, I believe that that process
    can be made to work in the same way. I believe the Commission
    will recruit for applicants. They will get them and I think
    that we will be able to----
        Senator Landrieu. Can I ask a question while we are on that
    point? Do you mind if we go back and forth a little?
        Senator DeWine. No. You go right ahead. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. While we are on that point can you all
    clarify for us and for the record how many vacancies there are
    now of the 58?
        Judge King. Fifty-nine is the total.
        Senator Landrieu. Fifty-nine total authorized, how many
    current vacancies there are today, and how many do you
    anticipate, let us say in the next 18 months?
        Judge King. I believe it is three now, and one of the facts
    of life for us, I think it is probably just a fact of the
    numbers if you take any cohort of 59 people, somebody is always
    going to another job, retiring, getting sick, doing one thing
    or another. We always have one or two vacancies. I don't
    think----
        Senator Landrieu. A year. One or two a year?
        Judge King. Or at any one time.
        Senator Landrieu. But there are three current openings now?
        Judge King. But now, let us see, there is one pending at
    the White House. Two I believe are pending here in the Senate,
    so they are in the pipeline.
        Senator Landrieu. They are in the pipeline, but there are
    three vacancies?
        Judge King. Correct.
        Senator Landrieu. But these I understand are 15-year terms?
        Judge King. That's correct.
        Senator Landrieu. So we could surely get a list of those
    whose terms are expiring in the next 18 months. Do we know what
    that is? Do we know how many?
        Judge King. It isn't always indicated because many times we
    can renew in a less formal process than the initial
    appointment. There is a judicial tenure commission which
    reviews applications to review the term. So often you'll get
    judges to renew. I have indications that there are two
    retirements that are likely to occur.
        Senator Landrieu. But could you just for the record--I
    think it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if just for the record
    we had the absolutely official information.
        Judge King. Absolutely.
        Senator Landrieu. About how many of these terms----
        Judge King. Numbers and terms and when they expire.
        Senator Landrieu. There has got to be an expiration date
    for every judge currently serving, and I think for the record,
    we need to have that so that we can help make the best
    decisions here and if you could provide that for the record not
    today, because you do not, I am sure, have all those details.
    59, but I thought that would be helpful.
        Senator DeWine. That would be great.
        Judge King. Be happy to do that.
        [The Information follows:]

        At the hearing, you also inquired as to the number of
    judges authorized for the Superior Court, the current number of
    vacancies, and the number of judges whose terms expire this
    calendar year. The District of Columbia Code, Section 11-903,
    authorizes 59 judges on the Superior Court. The Superior Court
    currently has 3 judicial vacancies. The Senate confirmed two of
    the three candidates nominated by the President in late May.
    They will be sworn in this July. It is not unusual for there to
    be one or more vacancies on the Court.
        Judge Queen is the only judge whose term will expires this
    calendar year; she is retiring this month. The President's
    nomination to replace Judge Queen is now pending before the
    Senate. In addition, Judge Wynn recently announced her decision
    to leave the bench in October, 2001.

        Senator DeWine. Before we move away from this particular
    issue, let me make sure I understand. Your goal in the
    Permanency Branch is to have three judges, nine magistrates.
    The nine magistrates would basically be hired with the
    understanding that this is what they are going to do. I will
    let you read your notes.
        Judge King. I am--I am pointing out that we have been
    focused on the neglected and abused children in the Permanency
    Branch. There is, of course, also an adoptions calendar,
    termination of parental rights calendar, and a custody
    determination calendar. Those would each have judges. So they
    are actually----
        Senator DeWine. That would be a separate branch?
        Judge King. No. Would be within the permanency branch, but
    they are all related to the neglected and abused children. In
    other words, to achieve permanency, you have to get to adoption
    or----
        Senator DeWine. Right. Right. You couldn't separate those.
        Judge King. Or TPR or you have to do one of those other
    things.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, could we clarify, though, then how
    many total judges we are talking about?
        Judge King. It is still 15 judges and 17 magistrates in the
    Family Division.
        Senator DeWine. How many in the Permanency Branch?
        Judge King. In the Permanency Branch, six judges and then
    the nine magistrates.
        Senator DeWine. Six judges.
        Judge King. Six judges because of these other calendars
    that I frankly wasn't thinking of.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. Wait a minute now. I got the numbers,
    but take a case through for me. Are we switching judges here in
    the middle of the stream here? I mean, Permanency Branch
    covers, give me the list of what you cover. You cover----
        Judge King. Permanency branch is abuse.
        Senator DeWine. Abuse. Adoption. Neglect.
        Judge King. Then have you an adoption calendar. A
    termination of parental rights calendar.
        Senator DeWine. Well, now wait a minute now. The
    termination. You say calendar.
        Judge King. That means a judge presiding over those cases.
        Senator DeWine. Well, how could--why would, why, you mean
    you would have a different judge--let us say a case comes in,
    allegation of a child has been abused, okay. Judge makes a
    determination, got to take the child out of the home for a
    while. Takes the child out of the home. Comes up every so much,
    you review the case. You are working with children's services.
    That judge, Judge X is doing that. Okay. Now, are you saying
    that at some point when you are getting ready to terminate
    rights and that goes to a different judge? I must be confused.
        Judge Walton. It might.
        Senator DeWine. Well, why in the world would that happen?
        Judge Walton. For legal reasons. A party may believe and
    may file a motion for a judge who has handled that matter
    throughout the process to recuse him or herself in reference to
    the termination issue because they may believe that the judge
    has already formed opinions about the parents and therefore the
    parents may feel that they may not receive a fair adjudication
    before that particular judge, so they may move to have that
    judge----
        Senator DeWine. Well, are those automatically granted?
        Judge Walton. They would not automatically be granted.
        Senator DeWine. I would hope not. I mean, it is the one
    person in the court system who knows what's going on. You have
    lived with this mom and dad, who are no good for 4 or 5 years
    and you finally come to the conclusion based on all the
    evidence that they are never going to be any damn good. And
    this kid never can live there.
        Judge Walton. That is very true.
        Senator DeWine. Now, we are going to get another judge. I
    am not blaming you, Judge. I just think it would be absurd if
    they do that.
        Judge Walton. We would hope, we would hope that would not
    be the case. But we also have a Court of Appeals that we have
    to answer to. And we have due process.
        Senator DeWine. But what you are telling me is that would
    not automatically switch over?
        Judge Walton. It would not.
        Judge King. No. The notion of----
        Senator DeWine. So the one judge could take that case
    basically all the way through.
        Judge Walton. We would hope that would be the norm.
        Judge King. That is the desired response.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. I get it.
        Senator Landrieu. Could I jump in here too, and I really
    appreciate the chairman's leeway. Normally we kind of do
    questions 10 minutes and 10 minutes.
        Senator DeWine. It is a lot easier this way.
        Senator Landrieu. It is a lot easier this way. And he and I
    have so many similar views. But I just want to say how
    concerned I am about the statements about--that were just made
    about children moving from either abuse judges then to adoption
    judges, then to termination judges. I think that as we work
    through this process, if we could get back to what Judge
    Grossman said, regardless of whether we have it integrated or
    separated, or how it is established, the most important, one of
    the most important pillars that I understand reform, and I
    could be wrong, but I have done this a lot around the country
    in my own State, is that it is so important for the same case
    to be handled throughout its entire many different stages by
    the same judge. But frequently, there will be cases of abuse
    that turn into cases of adoption or cases of abuse that turn
    into cases of reunification or cases of abuse that turn into
    termination of rights plus adoption and then post-adoption
    services.
        So I hope that we could think, and I know you have spent a
    lot of time thinking about your proposal, but I just have to
    say, Mr. Chairman, that that is worrisome to me. I just have to
    say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope we can revisit the issue of the
    structure so that one goal we reach, whatever the numbers are,
    whatever the training is, whatever the term time of the judges
    and magistrates, is that we try to keep the children in the
    same, before the same judge--the families before the same judge
    so that that 18 months that we have put into effect as law, and
    I want to say to the chairman, I know he feels this way, but I
    have every intention as a co-sponsor of that legislation of
    making that 18 months the outside limit of what a child has to
    go through to be outside their biological family. So they are
    either going to be back with their family and we are going to
    hopefully have services around the country to support it, or
    they are going to be with a new family.
        Senator DeWine. And let me just add, I totally agree with
    your comments. The continuity is absolutely vital in my
    opinion. And I must also, Mary, comment about the time limit. I
    mean, my experience, well, what I have seen is unfortunately
    the time limit is becoming, it flips and instead of being, the
    maximum as we intended it to be, it is sort of like everyone
    says, well, we have got 18 months. And that is just, I am not
    talking about the District. I am talking about around the
    country, and it is a problem and I do not know how we are going
    to deal with that, but I think this Congress frankly has to
    revisit that.
        Judge King. If I may?
        Senator DeWine. It is just becoming, I have seen too many
    counties in my home State of Ohio where it is just, oh, that is
    just 18 months and whatever the time period is, we got that
    long, let us not worry about it.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King. If I may address, because the concern I
    understand is very real. I do not want to leave here with a
    misunderstanding. Our vision is that a magistrate picks up a
    case and that is, that case belongs to that magistrate until it
    is closed by a permanency decision. But we can't abandon due
    process. We can't abandon the law, and that will require
    sometimes a contested trial.
        Let me also make sure that everybody understands, TPR is
    when you have a contested situation where you may already have,
    for example, an incipient adoption ready to go. You have made
    all those services, but you need to deal with a contested
    termination of parental rights situation.
        Senator DeWine. Right.
        Judge King. Where you may be unable to do it by consent.
    That has to be done and sometimes due process is going to
    require that that be done outside one magistrate. But the
    design is not to have people going from magistrate to
    magistrate or judge to judge.
        Senator Landrieu. So the case would stay with the
    magistrate. It would not be moved, regardless of whether it is
    abuse or neglect, termination, reunification, adoption.
        Senator DeWine. It is the same kid.
        Senator Landrieu. Same kid. Same magistrate. Same family.
    But under your plan, you are proposing they may see a different
    judge at a different calendar, like an adoption calendar.
        Judge King. Yes. If it is necessary for due process reasons
    or because----
        Senator DeWine. But that will not show up automatically.
    That won't flip over automatically?
        Judge King. No.
        Senator DeWine. That would have to be a motion in court.
    Somebody is coming in and saying----
        Judge King. Exactly right.
        Senator DeWine. Obviously Judge King is prejudiced, he has
    ruled against me 18 times in a row, obviously he hates me.
        Judge King. Then if it does go over, far better to have
    that in the Permanency Branch, where you have got judges who
    are still in the work and up to speed and knowing what's going
    on.
        Senator DeWine. Judge Grossman? Just jump in here, all of
    you, Judge Walton, we are pretty informal today.
        Judge Grossman. One thing that will help this Permanency
    Branch concept is if there is one judge who is in fact the
    presiding administrative judge of that branch, one of these six
    is one judge who is in charge and probably envisions being
    there for the long pull.
        Senator DeWine. Why does that matter?
        Judge Grossman. Well, that will add stability and
    responsibility to that section. I hear Judge King saying well,
    you are going to have to have some contested cases that will
    move to a judge. That isn't necessarily the law. You know,
    across the country, we have this same problem, and in fact,
    again, in my own court, the magistrates handle contested,
    uncontested, you name it. It doesn't matter. It is a matter of
    what you clothe them with in the way of authority. So you can
    do this in different ways, but you need to look carefully at
    the authority you have given to the magistrates here in
    Washington, D.C.
        Senator DeWine. Well, let us talk about that a minute. That
    is an interesting question. How much authority do the
    magistrates have? Can they take this case all the way? Is there
    something to stop that from happening? Is there something in
    the law that is written or----
        Judge Walton. We would have to change the law to the extent
    that there would not be a requirement of consent by the parties
    for the magistrate to handle certain matters.
        Senator DeWine. The law is now what? Explain to me what it
    is now. What do you have to have consent for?
        Judge Walton. There has to be consent of the parties for
    the magistrate to handle certain types of matters.
        Senator DeWine. What would those be, Judge?
        Judge Walton. Clearly there would have to be a consent in
    reference to adoption and termination.
        Senator DeWine. What would those--do you know what those
    are, though? Where you have to get, the magistrate can't hear
    the case unless there is consent of the parties?
        Judge Walton. I have to go back specifically and look at
    the legislation.
        Senator DeWine. Judge King?
        Judge King. It would include a contested adoption trial or
    TPR trial. It would include other things unrelated to the civil
    trials and criminal trials.
        Senator DeWine. Let me ask, well, what's your opinion about
    that?
        Judge King. For the Permanency Branch, our expectation is
    we would change so that the magistrate would have full
    authority without consent. Parental consent. I think what Judge
    Grossman has in mind and what we have in mind is very much the
    same.
        Senator DeWine. I mean, quite candidly, I know I will shock
    the judges in this room, but I would assume that the
    magistrates can handle these cases as well as the judges can.
        Senator Landrieu. Do not tell the judges that.
        Judge King. That is probably true.
        Senator DeWine. I mean in all seriousness, if they have got
    the expertise. You hired them. They got to be good.
        Judge Grossman. Mr. Chairman, in my court, that is true.
    The magistrates know their stuff.
        Senator DeWine. I mean that is what they are going to do
    every day. I mean quite frankly, Judge, one of the things that
    I like about this is I get to understand it better, the
    permanency of the magistrates and the expertise of the
    magistrates. It seems to me that that is going to be the saving
    grace even if you have trouble keeping--if it turns out under
    your proposal that no judge can stand it for more than 3 years.
    I mean even assuming you get a lot of movement up here which
    you do not want, but the saving grace is going to be you got
    the magistrates sitting down there who are going to do that
    every day and they are going to develop the expertise and they
    are going to be able to do it, so I guess as we look at what
    you are planning on doing, it seems to me that the more
    flexibility you can give yourselves--I mean, there is nothing
    to stop you from pulling the case up, I guess, but you know, it
    seemed to me that you would want to be in a position where that
    magistrate can handle just the bulk of this stuff, if not all
    of it, and then if you decide that is not working, you want to
    pull some of these up, you can, I suppose, do it. But I would
    let that magistrate have an awful lot of authority.
        Judge King. That is exactly what we have in mind, and in
    fact, what I see, and I think we are still, some of this, you
    understand, we are still refining and looking at and developing
    as we go on.
        Senator DeWine. That is why we are talking.
        Judge King. I appreciate that. What I see is the magistrate
    would ordinarily take the case and we would need the law
    changed to make sure that the magistrate had full authority to
    do that. The judge would take selected cases where there were
    unusual--maybe contempt issues or systemic issues with the
    agency or something like that. But otherwise the magistrate is
    the beginning and end of that case.
        The other thing I did want to point out, if a case did go
    out to a separate adoption or TPR calendar, it doesn't leave
    the magistrate. It goes out there for that contested
    proceeding, but the magistrate remains responsible for the
    supervision of the case. Is the child in the right placement or
    are the right educational services in place, or the right
    counseling services and the like. That all continues under any
    circumstances with the same magistrate.
        Judge Walton. And this would be a new system where the case
    would be handled by one judicial officer from beginning to end,
    and at some point we are going to have to test the waters and
    see what the Court of Appeals will sayif we have an objection.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge Walton. And that objection is overruled, to what
    extent the Court of Appeals is going to take a contrary
    position if the judge keeps the case.
        Senator DeWine. Right. I guess my only point is that you
    know as you draft this, the law should be as flexible as
    possible. You always have the Court of Appeals who can look
    down and say well, you know, obviously there is prejudice here
    and there is appearance and they should have gotten a new
    judge. That is life. But you are right. It seems to me to get
    as much flexibility as you can so these cases can remain right
    with that magistrate. Mary, do you have anything else on this?
        Senator Landrieu. No.
        Senator DeWine. If we are done, I want to move to another--
    I am very much appreciative of one's indulgence, and I think
    that it looks to me as if with the caveats that I have stated,
    I think that by and large it makes sense, your approach here
    with the magistrates and with the way you have it set up with
    the permanency unit. I mean, obviously what our goal is,
    everyone's goal is to get the continuity and get the expertise.
    It is continuity and expertise.
        Let me talk a little bit or ask you a little bit about
    training. The training that you talk about in the plan, is that
    cross-training? In other words, are you involving the other
    disciplines at the same time?
        Judge King. Yes. In fact we, in fact we just----
        Senator DeWine. I mean all the different players.
        Judge King. That's right. And actually, one of the things
    that we have talked very preliminarily about with some of the
    agency people, and one of the things as you understand, Olivia
    Goldman was just selected as the new head of Child and Family
    Services. She actually assumed her duties yesterday morning, so
    I have not yet had time to set up the lunch that I intend to
    set up to explore with her how we can work together in a way
    that gets us off on a footing to let us do our planning
    together. We have some separation of powers, demarcation lines.
    We'll honor those, but that doesn't prevent us from rolling up
    our sleeves and figuring out how we can do this together.
        Senator DeWine. Do you have the money to do that in this
    proposal?
        Judge King. Some of it will be needed, additional money. We
    have it in the proposal.
        Senator DeWine. You have included that in the----
        Judge King. Yes. That's correct. I particularly picked up
    on your point, on cross-discipline training. We just completed
    training on the psychology and sociology of persons at risk for
    abuse--for abusing children. I think judges and others working
    with children in this context need to have not just legal
    training. We, of course, do need that, but we also need to
    understand the profiles of the human beings who are involved in
    this system and how we can better understand what the dynamics
    are.
        Senator DeWine. Judge Grossman, any comments on training in
    your experience in Hamilton County? Anything to do or not to
    do?
        Judge Grossman. Well, your comment, Mr. Chairman, of cross-
    training is extremely important. And the bringing in to this
    process the people that are going to be assisting the court in
    their handling of these cases is very important. There is no
    closer connection that needs to be made between the judges and
    human services than sitting down together on a regular basis.
    We did it in Cincinnati once a week for a long time and now we
    don't have to do it quite so often.
        Just working through the problems of getting the systems to
    mesh, and the only way to do that effectively is for the tops
    on both sides to sit down together and talk frankly about
    what's holding the train up. And then, of course, the training
    will follow under that, and by the way, in the training
    process, as you are going to also develop a sense of who might
    be a good recruit for your court staffs or your court
    magistrates or your court people. You are going to find that,
    you are going to find some good people in that process.
        Senator Landrieu. Could I just jump in and say that this is
    a really, I think it strikes me as a wonderful opportunity with
    Ms. Goldman now coming in as a new leader on basically the
    District side and once, Mr. Chairman, we hopefully will move
    forward and identify the senior judge over this permanency and
    family--to have their chief administrative officers identified
    and work as a team to help us really implement the reforms that
    we hope will be passed and reflected in this legislation,
    because as you know, it is more than just drafting and passing.
    It is the implementation where the rubber really hits the road,
    and I hope we would just keep that in our minds as we move
    forward. That strong administrative support, working together,
    just as you said, to make this new system really come to life
    more quickly, sooner than later because literally lives are at
    stake and we do not have a lot of time. So I am very encouraged
    by that.
        Judge Grossman. Senator, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,
    there is another advantage. One of the things we found in our
    court when we started our, our pathway to fixing our system is
    the problem of placing blame, and the court had to admit its
    own faults. You cannot try to get other people to do things
    right.
        Senator Landrieu. The blame game doesn't work.
        Judge Grossman. Right. If you are not willing to say look,
    we are part of the problem. And when you get together, you get
    the chiefs together and you say look, it isn't just you that is
    doing it, we are all in this, so the blame game drops out, and
    you start saying hey, we are all in the same track. We need to
    work together. We all have enough problems that we need to look
    at, and that process is helped immeasurably by that.
        Judge King. If I might mention the, current buzz word co-
    location; we contemplate providing space for representatives of
    all of the city agencies that would be involved in providing
    necessary services to children and families. That way when you
    are in court deciding, for example, we need an educational
    assessment, instead of saying go talk to a social worker some
    indefinite time in the future, can you say step out of the back
    of the courtroom. If you will turn left the second door on your
    right, go in there, there is a person who will sign you up. Go
    in and get the appointment you need and get the change going.
    We plan to do that with the CFSA, Public Schools, the
    Department of Housing, all of the agencies that are critical.
        Senator Landrieu. That would be excellent if we could
    fashion something like that. How do you want to do the vote?
        Senator DeWine. Well, how much more----
        Senator Landrieu. Why don't you go vote and I stay.
        Senator DeWine. There are 2 votes. Why don't we push ahead
    here for another 5 minutes, see how we can cover----
        Senator Landrieu. I do have a few questions, but go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. Tell me a little bit about the IJIS. Judge,
    you used it in Hamilton County, the system, is that right? And
    Judge, you are into it now?
        Judge Grossman. That's right.
        Senator DeWine. How should it work? What's it do for you?
        Judge Grossman. Our information system?
        Senator DeWine. Yes. What's it do for you?
        Judge Grossman. Well, not only does it keep docketing
    systems in order, it also has case histories and the whole
    background of the individual child, the individual family that
    stands up in front of the sitting magistrate or the sitting
    judge on his screen.
        Every court has computers in it. We are now at the point
    where we actually have cameras in the court where we can
    actually tape the whole process, and get everybody's on a
    videodisc, you know. And I would invite all of you to come and
    kind of look at what we have got because it might be helpful as
    you set up. They are not cheap to start with, about $40,000 a
    courtroom to get everything you need put into it in the way
    that you need in the way of an information system, but once you
    got it, you got it.
        Senator Landrieu. But is this something unique to Ohio, Mr.
    Chairman, or is this a system that has been developed that is
    off the shelf software, pretty much, that many courts are
    using?
        Judge Grossman. No. No. Every court is sufficiently unique,
    every jurisdiction, that they cannot just take it off the
    shelf. You are going to have to do some development on your own
    now. Obviously, you can use some systems as a guide or as a
    base to start with, but do not try to put in a system that is
    going to be one size fits all. It won't work. You need to let
    the Washington, D.C. courts really take the lead in developing
    their system.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, where are you on this?
        Judge King. We are at the point where we actually have had
    a needs analysis done for our entire court system. We are like
    many State courts, we have a patchwork of systems so we have
    got 18 different database systems that do not communicate with
    each other and many of them are difficult to use and outdated.
    We have done a study to set out the parameters, what it is we
    need. The recommendation coming out of that is that we do just
    what Judge Grossman says, take advantage of the off the shelf
    items, which have come a long way, to the extent possible and
    then build on that platform.
        And my commitment from the beginning has been that as soon
    as we are given any funding to proceed with that--we patched it
    together and sort of strung along on grant money, but as soon
    as we are given the serious, I think it is between $1.5 and
    $2.6 million that we need for the Family Division piece of it,
    that is where we will get started. We will get this platform
    built. Ultimately, what I want to see is a system that
    encompasses the entire court system so that a magistrate
    sitting in an abuse case will be able to immediately and easily
    figure out, well, is there a landlord/tenant issue that's
    holding things up here that could be resolved in a way and that
    type of thing.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, Congress did appropriate $2.5
    million for this. Where is that?
        Judge King. It had a--this was, I think a couple of years
    ago. We were zeroed out last year.
        Senator DeWine. 2000 budget.
        Judge King. That's right.
        Senator DeWine. 2000 budget, $2.5 million.
        Judge King. The language said, this is before my tenure, so
    I do not know all of the details, but as I understand it, the
    language read ``up to $2.5 million''. It didn't say 2.5, and
    because we were faced with other emergencies in the CJA
    funding, did not use the money at that point.
        Senator DeWine. Okay, so that money, that $2.5 million was
    never used?
        Judge King. That's right. And it said ``up to'', though,
    and that is the problem. I would hope that in this we would
    have a clear sense of what's earmarked and what's not. If there
    is something earmarked for technology, then that is my wish.
        Senator DeWine. Your total request for this is what,
    though?
        Judge King. For the entire system courtwide is $7.2 million
    from where we are now. Minus some grant money, which I think
    brings it down to maybe $5.9 or $6, somewhere in there.
        Senator Landrieu. But this piece of it is----
        Judge King. Family piece is $2.6 million total, and I think
    we have some grants which will bring that down a little bit in
    order to complete the Family piece, and you understand what I
    want to do is build the----
        Senator Landrieu. Family piece first.
        Judge King. Piece of the platform, but the platform has to
    be consistent with what we are later going to do, so we will
    build the Family out so that is complete and ready to go, but
    we will do it in a way that we can then add on in a consistent
    fashion so that we then end up with the entire system.
        Senator DeWine. We have two votes. I think we better come
    back. What do you want to do? We have got--I have got some more
    questions. Can you all hang with us for a while?
        Senator Landrieu. About 15 minutes. We will take a 15-
    minute break.
        Senator DeWine. Mary is a lot more optimistic than I am,
    but----
        Judge King. I have testified, please take your time.
        Senator Landrieu. We will vote fast and we will try to come
    back.
        Senator DeWine. We will see you all in 15 or 20 minutes.
        Senator DeWine. We will get started. Senator Landrieu is on
    her way. I just have a few more questions. Just so I
    understand, Judge, your understanding is that that, the facts
    are that $2.5 million just was never spent at all then?
        Judge King. One thing--it slipped my mind, and in fact I
    was engaged, I was one of the slowdown guys. Part of the reason
    we didn't spend it is we weren't ready. We didn't have the
    planning in place and I have always been an advocate of advance
    planning, we aren't going to spend this money until we can
    spend it wisely, so it was partly we weren't ready to go in
    that direction. We did do some of it. I think we ultimately
    ended up spending $350,000 or something that year. But it was
    spent--I think we had a, an emergency need in the CJA funding,
    for good or ill. Again, this wasn't my decision.
        Senator DeWine. CJA is what?
        Judge King. I am sorry. Criminal Justice Act. Compensating
    lawyers for indigent defense. We had to cover that, and so we
    did.
        Senator DeWine. That is how you did it.
        Judge King. And that is how we did it. So the money was
    spent properly and we apparently misread the intent of the
    language that said ``up to'', and one of the things I am very
    hopeful is that as we go forward from here, now it is my watch,
    and I want to be sure that we stay in touch enough so that if
    there is an intent that we spend that type of money----
        Senator DeWine. But you would be ready to roll fairly
    quickly?
        Judge King. That's correct. We are ready now.

                                    BACKLOG

        Senator DeWine. Let me talk about the backlog. I think
    Judge Walton and Judge King, I think you both talked a little
    bit about the backlog, at least in your prepared statement.
    What do you mean by backlog? I mean, what constitutes a backlog
    and what are you going to do about it? But what is it, first of
    all?
        Judge Walton. We do not call it a backlog. The older cases,
    the cases that are currently in the system post-disposition
    that are currently being supervised and reviewed by judges, and
    as I indicated, that number is about 4,500 cases. That is a
    real difficult problem for us to deal with, and we believe that
    to transfer those cases back to the newly created Permanency
    Branch would impede the ability of the new Permanency Branch to
    handle new cases that are coming in.
        Senator DeWine. Give me an example, though. Just make up
    one example.
        Judge Walton. Of a case that is difficult?
        Senator DeWine. Well, of a--Judge King in his prepared
    statement said, let me read it to you. ``Most of the 4,500
    children for whom the court is responsible are unlikely to be
    adopted. It will be very difficult to place many of them in
    permanent homes. The majority of children enter the system at
    age 7 or older, when adoption is unlikely.'' Are these the kids
    we are talking about in this?
        Judge King. If I can jump in, since that is my statement, I
    realized after, as you know, we have been on a very fast track.
    I do not mean by that, that every effort wouldn't be made to
    get them adopted. We certainly go in with the attitude that
    in--any case as far as we are concerned--this case is going to
    reach a permanency closure in a reasonable time. What I meant
    by that statement is that we do need to be realistic that some
    of these cases do have real challenges in them and we shouldn't
    plan on or build a structure that would be overwhelmed if our
    expectation of a very rapid drop in the caseload weren't
    realized because some of the cases are problemmatic.
        I can give you an example of a child who had severe
    learning disabilities who was Hispanic speaking. There was a
    very good foster care situation. The readily available
    resources included a Hispanic school and a special school, but
    not the two together. And so there had to be a very expensive
    private education option taken which could not have been done
    under the existing adoption subsidies.
        So now we are stuck with these foster parents who would
    love to adopt that child and close the case and be on with
    their lives, but out of love for the child, they cannot do that
    because the best interests of the child would be frustrated if
    they did that. So it is that kind of situation where there are
    just issues that aren't necessarily going to neatly get
    packaged up and resolved quickly. But we need to. Obviously
    with more resources, I hope the caseload will drop in half in a
    reasonable period of time. But we do not want to build a
    structure which would have no safety valve or no ability to
    cope with a situation where the caseload didn't drop right
    away, and that it took some time to get it worked out.
        Senator DeWine. Judge Grossman?
        Judge Grossman. I think when you speak about backlog or the
    current cases that are in the pipeline, it will be important,
    first of all, to elect a date upon which your new process
    begins, so that the backlog or the old cases are not simply
    added to it. You do not push more over in that direction, so
    that is the first important step. Set a date. Move your new
    system forward at that date with the new filings.
        The older cases, it has been the experience across the
    country where you start looking carefully at all of those older
    cases and as Judge King says, you start trying to solve them.
    Each one may have a little different glitch in it or little
    different problem, but you try to solve it and work at it, and
    the experience has been that in fact the shrinkage occurs in a
    relatively, I do not want to say fast way, but in a relatively
    efficient way. Those cases are not nearly as intransigent in
    general as the number would seem to indicate. You'll find that
    you can work them to get into some form of permanency, to get
    them into some form of stable situation where they come off the
    court's calendar.
        Senator DeWine. In the example that you gave, are you
    saying that basically the permanent situation is that this
    child is going to be in this home, he is going to be--for
    economic reasons cannot really be adopted, and that child is
    going to be in that home until he or she leaves?
        Judge King. That's right. And now that might be listed as
    an extended foster care situation, but in fact, there is
    bonding, and the child is part of that family.
        Senator DeWine. In fact, you have resolved that case as
    best as you can.
        Judge King. As best as we can. That's correct.
        Senator DeWine. What do you do with it then? You put this
    over in a different category?
        Judge King. Under law, as long as it is in foster care, we
    have to review it twice a year under supervision.
        Judge Grossman. You need a category, like some people call
    it permanent guardianship, some people call it permanent
    custody. There is a system in many States, in ours and many
    others, where you simply have a category that says to this
    family with whom this child has bonded, it is your child. You
    have authority over that child. You have custody permanently,
    and you cut off the court's review.
        Judge Walton. I have a case almost exactly like Judge King
    described. The problem is that the money is available to
    provide the educational resources for this child who also is
    severely learning disabled and in the foster care process, but
    if we went to guardianship or if we went to some other type of
    arrangement, funding at that level would not be available so
    the child could not remain in the most appropriate educational
    setting.
        Senator DeWine. Which also tells those of us in Congress
    that we got a problem with the law, but that is long-term. We
    do.
        Judge King. My thought is that if the different options,
    whether it is permanent guardianship or permanent custody or
    adoption, if they could be rendered revenue neutral, so that
    whatever is available, whatever you do and you close it, the
    revenue is the same for people who step in.
        Senator DeWine. I mean the reality is the local
    jurisdiction ought to have the option to make the decisions,
    whether it is, you know, however you label the child shouldn't
    be the determining factor. The child should be the determining
    factor. We are not going to solve that today, but that is
    obviously the problem.
        In the area of adoption, that really is not your, you are
    not the moving force in that, though? You are the receiving
    player. I mean, in other words, in the D.C. system, it is not
    your responsibility, is it, to go out and find adoptive homes
    for these kids?
        Judge King. No. Of course, it is our responsibility to see
    that that effort is being made.
        Senator DeWine. Well, but what do you do in this area? What
    is your responsibility? Where are the lines drawn? I mean,
    obviously you have to hear the case, but--but what do you do
    beyond that?
        Judge Walton. At the review hearing, we will instruct the
    social worker to advise us as to what efforts have been taken
    to find an appropriate adoptive or preadoptive home for the
    child, and that is really the best that we can do. But we
    cannot initiate adoption proceedings. We cannot go out, as you
    say, and find adoptive parents.
        Senator DeWine. I mean, at the last hearing we did hear
    some statistics about what the District has been doing, but
    that really is not, you are not the moving people there.
        Judge Walton. No. But we do play a role. I mean, we have
    increased the number of adoptions significantly within the
    court system, so the court system does play a role in
    expediting those cases that are actually brought before us for
    adoption. I think we have done a fairly good job at doing that.
        Senator DeWine. Anything else that any of you would like to
    make us aware of today? I think it has been a good hearing, and
    I thank you for coming in. I thank you for your patience. You
    know, we obviously want to work with you, and we obviously want
    to help you try to get the funds to try to get the job done.
    Judge?
        Judge Grossman. Mr. Chairman, I would offer the good
    offices of the National Council of Juvenile Family Court Judges
    for the model courts projects, for all of the work that we have
    done in the area of technical assistance. We stand at the ready
    to help the Washington courts. We stand at the ready to do
    anything we can to be of assistance in furthering this process.
    I know, Senator, you are well aware of that work. I just want
    to make that known.
        Senator DeWine. Well you are a great resource, Judge. You
    are personally. And the organization is, too. But we--we will
    utilize the expertise that you have.
        Judge Walton. I would just like to say publicly that we do
    thank Judge Grossman for his efforts. He has always been
    willing to speak to us and provide us with sound assistance in
    trying to solve our difficulties, and I also want to thank you
    personally, because change sometimes is difficult, and
    sometimes it is painful to reach that point, but I think the
    scrutiny that you have shown to this issue has forced us to
    look critically at what we are doing, and I think ultimately it
    will result in a better product.
        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu?
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And he was much
    better getting back from this vote than I was. Let the record
    reflect that. But I am glad I was here just to personally thank
    you all for your good work and say how much I look forward to
    working with you, as I said, in my opening statement, I think
    that the document that you have presented is a good working
    document. It is a good step, and as we negotiate this between
    the House and the Senate, and Democrat and Republican, looking
    at this, I think there is a lot of common ground into how we
    will shape this reform.
        We intend, though, for it to be very meaningful, very real,
    have as an immediate impact as possible. I want to assure you
    that with every step of reform that we work with you on, I will
    do my very best to help provide, and I know the chairman will,
    the resources to make that real. And Judge Grossman, I want to
    thank you for giving us some help and expertise and for your
    testimony about there is no magic way, but there are some magic
    principles that need to be adhered to for the courts to work,
    whether it is D.C. or Ohio or Louisiana, and as much as we can
    adhere to those magic principles, I think that those children
    and families of Washington will be well served. And I would
    just hope, Mr. Chairman, we will have some follow-up time.
        But in the record I want to just reiterate my strong
    support for the role of CASA and the workers and the
    volunteers. I wanted to say because I didn't get my questions
    about how important I think it is for mediation by the courts
    and the system to facilitate families, extended families making
    the best decisions for the children and families as possible.
        And I think sometimes across the country, we have used a
    very adversarial approach unnecessarily, and that this is a
    chance for us to create and pioneer in some aspects a new model
    where we are facilitators of helping to strengthen and
    encourage families to make the best decisions for the long-term
    benefit of the children in their care and for the parent or
    parents or guardians involved. So I just think the chairman
    raised some excellent questions about the role of training and
    the role of the magistrates and compensation and term limits of
    the judges and look forward to working with you all in the
    process.
        Judge King. Thank you both, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
    Landrieu. I think the focus by the Congress has been a critical
    element in accelerating the pace, and in extending the depth of
    the reform effort that we are going to be able to undertake,
    and I particularly welcome the signals that you seem to be
    sending that you recognize the importance of resources to do
    this work right. And----
        Senator DeWine. Well Judge, we intend to try to get you the
    resources.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Judge King. I very much appreciate that, and I appreciate,
    I also want to say I appreciate the informal ``give and take''
    of this hearing. I think it is been a very constructive
    dialogue, and I hope we have been able to clarify some of your
    questions.
        Senator DeWine. Good. We will continue to work together.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Judge.

                 Questions Submitted to Judge David E. Grossman

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine

             reduction in caseload and length of stay for children
        Question. What court practices and resources have had the biggest
    impact on both the caseload reduction and length of time children spend
    in the child welfare system?
        Answer. In the 1980's the Hamilton County Juvenile Court created a
    dependency department and implemented numerous reforms to reduce the
    number of children in agency foster care and their lengths of stay. We
    are not able to empirically separate the impact of individual reforms
    to determine which had the greatest impact. The court, however, views
    the following reforms as foundational to the success achieved.
        The 1980's also marked a major change in the role of the court in
    handling child abuse, neglect and dependency cases. Prior to
    implementing reforms, the court largely rubber-stamped agency requests
    and reviewed cases infrequently. The court played a minor,
    insignificant role in the management of these cases.
        The court shifted from playing a passive role to actively managing
    cases and accepting responsibility to hold itself and other
    stakeholders accountable for achieving the goal of timely permanence
    for children. This was achieved by holding early, substantive hearings
    as well as scheduling frequent and thorough reviews of the cases. The
    purpose of more rigorous court oversight was to make certain that cases
    were adjudicated in a timely manner, that appropriate services were
    provided, and that cases were moved through the system expeditiously.
        With these changes, the court also implemented a system of
    assigning one magistrate to hear each case from beginning to end. The
    principle of ``one family-one magistrate'' was, and continues to be, a
    crucial component of our system. It allows one magistrate to thoroughly
    understand the facts of a case and the needs of the parents and
    children over a series of hearings. It gives each magistrate a sense of
    ownership and accountability for the handling of the case. It also
    allows the court to speak with a single voice and convey consistent
    messages and expectations to the parties.
        Finally, the court worked to develop a collaborative relationship
    with our local child welfare agency. Although reforms were initially
    met with resistance by our local children's services agency, the court
    over time was able to establish a working relationship with the agency
    and this has been important to the achieving successful results. The
    court met frequently with agency administrators over the years to
    address systemic issues and problems that have been identified through
    the hearing process and through the court's management information
    system. The court facilitates quarterly meetings with the judges, court
    administrator and each director of the stakeholder agencies to address
    policy issues that impact the child welfare system. Monthly meetings
    are scheduled with the deputy chief magistrate in dependency and the
    upper level management from each stakeholder agency to address daily,
    systemic issues in effort to achieve best practice in this area.
        Question. What role does information technology play in the
    administration of your court today-specifically in regard to case
    management, accountability and information sharing across agencies? Do
    you follow any specific standards for performance and accountability,
    such as the National Center for State Court's performance standards or
    new mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act? What impact has the
    court's information system had on the allocation of support personnel?
        Answer. The court continues to collect an extensive array of data
    concerning each child who enters the court system. The data collected
    includes:
      --identification of the parent and child problems that brought the
            case to court;
      --identification of each child's demographic profile, as well as the
            child's psychological, physical and educational needs;
      --tracking of each child's placements; and
      --tracking of how each case moves through the judicial system from
            the initial adjudication and disposition through changes in
            legal status until the child leaves the system. The information
            is tracked for the court as a whole and by individual hearing
            officer.
        The management information system is used to accomplish the
    following: determine the staffing needs of the court; allocate cases
    among magistrates; monitor compliance with statutory timeframes and
    internal guidelines; hold dependency stakeholders accountable; and
    identify problem areas or barriers to timely permanence for children.
    Our court distributes annual reports to the media, service providers
    and the community, which allows outside sources to evaluate the process
    and to determine resource needs.
        The case information is reviewed periodically. Although the court
    has not adopted specific standards for performance and accountability
    that have been promulgated by other organizations, the court does
    regularly examine the following trends:
      --the number of complaints that are filed and the initial
            dispositions of those complaints;
      --the number of complaints filed that involve reactivated cases;
      --the number of complaints that are pending for more than 90 days
            before adjudication and an initial dispositional order is made;
      --the number of motions for termination of parental rights that are
            pending for more than six months;
      --the number of children in each legal status and whether these
            numbers are increasing or decreasing;
      --the number of children who enter and leave each legal status, the
            length of time children remain in each legal status and the
            outcomes of the case when children leave a legal status;
      --the number of placements children experience; and
      --the parent and child problems that bring cases to court.
        Areas of concern identified through this review process are
    discussed within the court and with agency administrators and other
    stakeholders in regularly scheduled meetings. For example, the court
    recently identified problems with delays in achieving statutory
    timeframes for the initial adjudication and disposition of complaints.
    This court took corrective actions by hiring an additional magistrate.
    In addition, the court worked to increase the number of attorneys
    willing to serve as counsel for parents by persuading the Public
    Defender's Commission to increase the attorneys' fees.
    Court Facilities/Space
        It is critical for the court to provide a respectful and enhanced
    environment for the families we serve, and the Hamilton County Juvenile
    Court avoided the use of conventional courtrooms as they may be
    intimidating to the children and families who appear before the court.
    Our court elected to use smaller, more intimate settings for the
    dependency courtrooms in an effort to offer comfort while promoting
    more open dialogue and exchange of information between the parties
    during the hearings. The ``one family-one magistrate'' model allows the
    judicial officer to establish relationships with all the parties
    thereby fostering an environment of cooperation whenever possible. The
    intimate courtroom settings compliment this philosophical approach, and
    it is our belief that this environment is more conducive to the
    development and implementation of timely, permanent plans for children.
    Each courtroom is equipped with a silent buzzer in the event that
    security is need in the courtroom. In an effort to promote privacy and
    to separate the parties from the delinquency cases, Hamilton County
    Juvenile Court has an entire floor with courtrooms that are dedicated
    solely for the use of dependency hearings.
        The courtrooms must have adequate space to accommodate the judicial
    officer, court staff, the agency attorney and social worker, the
    parents, counsel for the parents, and the guardian ad litem. Courtrooms
    are equipped with at least three counsel tables: one for the public
    children service agency; one for the parents; and one for the guardian
    ad litem. Reliable recording devices are imperative to avoid delays in
    obtaining transcripts for objections and appeals. We recently installed
    a state of the art, computerized audio video system in each courtroom.
    Coordination of Delinquency and Dependency Cases
        In Hamilton County, a delinquency magistrate would hear the plea
    hearing and adjudication on a delinquency or unruly offense for a child
    who is who is committed to the custody or supervision of the public
    children service agency and subject to the jurisdiction of the court on
    the dependency docket. Following the adjudication, the court would
    transfer the case to the assigned dependency magistrate for the
    dispositional hearing. The assigned dependency magistrate is in the
    best position to impose a sentence and to make decisions concerning
    placement and services for the child. This policy is also consistent
    with the ``one family-one magistrate'' philosophy of our court for the
    following reasons:
      --The dependency magistrate has the long-term perspective of the case
            and is thoroughly familiar with the needs of the children and
            the families on the docket;
      --The dependency magistrate is in a better position to identify
            patterns of behavior over a period of time, to assess the
            efficacy of interventions employed in the past and to select
            the most appropriate intervention or consequence for the child
            on the delinquency or unruly offense that is before the court;
            and
      --The dependency magistrate is in a position to deliver consistent
            messages and expectations to the child and the family from the
            bench.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to Judge Rufus G. KinG III

        Questions Submitted by Senators Mike DeWine and Senator Mary L.
                                    Landrieu

                               permanency branch
        Question. Could you please provide a diagram of judges and
    magistrates for the different branches of the Family Division that was
    discussed during the hearing on May 16, 2001? In the diagram, indicate
    the responsibilities of the different judges as well as the
    magistrates, especially in regard to the Permanency Branch. It would
    also be beneficial if you would provide a cost in salary for the staff
    including judges and magistrates.
        Answer. Attachment A provides a diagram of judges and magistrates
    for the different branches of the Family Division as envisioned by the
    Court's Family Division Reform Plan. Attachment B, estimated resource
    summary included in the Court's Family Division Reform Plan submitted
    to Congress in early May, lists the positions and costs (in salary and
    benefits) for the judicial and non-judicial staff needed to fully
    implement the Plan. As you will note, we estimate approximately $5.2
    million in salaries and benefits will be required.

    Attachment B.--Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch
    Reforms

    Staffing (Recurring Costs):
        Judges and Support Staff:
            3 Judges (i.e., for additional calendars for:
              Neglect, Guardianships and Permanency in
              Neglect; TPR/Adoptions).......................        $539,772
            3 Law Clerks....................................         149,865
            3 Judicial Secretaries..........................         164,988
            3 Courtroom Clerks..............................         136,359
            3 Calendar Clerks...............................         111,474
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (15)....................................       1,102,458
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Magistrate Judges and Case Management Teams (3
          teams):
            9 Magistrate Judges.............................       1,489,770
            3 Special Masters...............................         326,853
            3 Case Coordinators.............................         164,988
            2 Attorney Advisors.............................         156,764
            3 Law Clerks....................................         149,865
            6 Secretaries...................................         272,718
            9 Courtroom Clerks..............................         409,077
            9 Calendar Clerks...............................         334,422
            3 Calendar Coordinators.........................         150,165
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (47)....................................       3,454,622
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Family Court and ADR Support Staff:
            2 Family ADR Case Managers......................          99,910
            2 File Clerks...................................          53,626
            1 Calendar Clerk................................          37,158
            1 CCAN Reappointments Clerk.....................          37,158
            1 CCAN Eligibility Clerk........................          37,158
            1 ADR Secretary.................................          45,453
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (8).....................................         310,463
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        IT and Other Support Staff:
            1 Database Administrator........................      \1\ 92,624
            1 Applications Manager..........................          78,382
            1 Database Support/Programmer...................      \1\ 78,382
            1 Statistical Data Analyst......................          54,996
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total (4).....................................         304,384
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total Staffing (74) (Recurring)...............   \2\ 5,171,927
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Contractual and Other (Recurring Costs):
        CCAN Rate Increase..................................     \1\ 797,000
        IRS Database Support and Maintenance................     \1\ 275,000
        Mediator Stipends ($100 per session; 2 sessions per
          case; 2,500 cases)................................     \3\ 500,000
        Mediator Training (Initial training for 30 new
          mediators per quarter)............................          50,000
        Training ($12,500 judicial and $3,500 staff per
          quarter)..........................................          60,000
        Rental Space for Staff Offices......................       6,074,000
        Security............................................         284,000
        Supplies, Postage and Phone ($2,762 per employee per
          year).............................................         204,388
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total Contractual and Other (Recurring)...........       8,244,388
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal, Recurring Costs.........................      13,416,315
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $1,263,006 Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts'
        fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.....................      12,153,309
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring Costs):
        Construction of Courtrooms, chambers, in Building B.      14,450,000
        Capital Improvements in Buildings A & B.............  \1\ 10,705,000
        Relocation Costs (e.g. furnishings, moving, cabling)       1,200,000
        Renovate space for Family Waiting Room ($23,750
          financed with fiscal year 2001 funds).............................
        Chambers/Office Furnishings and Equipment ($3,000
          per employee).....................................         222,000
        Equipment:
            5 Photocopiers at 10,000 each...................          50,000
            5 Fax Machines at $750 each.....................           3,750
        IJIS (Family Module: $2,600,000; Complete System:
          $7,100,000; minus $1,200,000 in grants)...........   \3\ 5,900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
            Total Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-
              Recurring)....................................      32,530,750
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $15,305,000 Non-Recurring Costs included in D.C.
        Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.............      17,225,750
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Grand Total.......................................      45,947,065
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Less $16,568,006 included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year
        2002 Budget Request.................................      29,379,059

    \1\ Included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.
    \2\ Staffing costs reflect fiscal year 2001 salary plus fringe benefits
    at 24 percent of salary.
    \3\ Portion included in D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2002 Budget Request:
    $20,000 for Mediator Stipends and $4,600,000 for IJIS (of which
    $1,500,000 plus grant funds are to be obligated in fiscal year 2002 for
    the Family module).

        Question. An IJIS will enable the court to track and properly
    monitor family and other cases in which a family member may be
    involved. This ensures that all judges and magistrates have access to
    the information necessary to make the best decisions about placement
    and child safety. For Fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated $2.5
    million for the IJIS. The fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill required
    you to provide Congress with a plan for implementing this program.
    During the hearing you indicated th[at] around $600,000 of the $2.5
    [million] was used, what was it used for? Has a formal plan for
    implementing the IJIS system for the entire DC Superior Court been
    submitted to Congress? If not, when can we expect to see the plan for
    the IJIS system? What costs will be involved with its implementation?
        Answer. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. No
    fiscal year 2000 appropriated funds were used for IJIS. To date, only
    grant funds have been used on IJIS. The Court expended $350,000 of
    grant funds in fiscal year 2000 and will obligate $600,000 of grant
    funds later this year.
        Using grant monies, the Court contracted with the National Center
    for State Courts (NCSC) to develop a comprehensive requirements
    analysis for IJIS. In the fall of 2000, the Court submitted copies of
    the multi-volume requirements analysis to Congress. Last month the
    Court submitted to Congressional authorizing and appropriations
    committees the IJIS Request for Proposals (RFP), which provides a
    detailed plan for the system design and requirements.
                                 specialization
        Question. In your proposal, when judges rotate out of the Family
    Division, their cases will remain in the Family Division except under
    extraordinary circumstances. What is meant by extraordinary
    circumstances? Furthermore, what safeguards will be implemented to
    ensure that no staffing issues arise due to the crossing over of
    divisions for the cases that a judge maintains?
        Answer. Under the Court's Family Division Reform Plan, all neglect
    and abuse cases will remain in the Family Division and continue to be
    assigned to one of the Permanency Branch teams. We are proposing that
    the judges who rotate out of full time service in the Family Division
    be permitted to retain responsibility for certain children whose cases
    present extraordinary management challenges (listed as ``extraordinary
    circumstances'' below) and where continuity with the judge as the most
    consistent adult in the child's life is necessary.
        It should be noted that the turnover and caseloads of social
    workers in the District of Columbia are far higher than the national
    average and have contributed to the need for judges to remain more
    involved in children's lives for longer periods of time. We anticipate
    that as social worker turnover and caseloads drop, children will
    experience greater consistency of care and fewer cases will need to be
    retained by judges who rotate out of the Family Division.
        If additional training and resources are provided to the guardians
    and Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), to ensure they maintain
    a bond with the child and are independently versed in the child's
    needs, there will be less need for the judge to remain the one person
    consistently involved with the child.
        ``Extraordinary circumstances'' may include the following:
      --the child is a teenager and permanent placement in a family is
            difficult;
      --the child is 14 years old or older and exercises his or her
            statutory right to refuse adoption;
      --the child is parenting a baby;
      --the child is mentally ill, mentally retarded or emotionally
            disturbed;
      --the child has a substance abuse problem for which no effective
            treatment is available;
      --the child frequently absconds from placements;
      --the case is nearing permanency and changing judges might delay that
            goal;
      --the child has been terminated from numerous placements and will be
            very difficult to place again; and/or,
      --the child has developed a special bond with the judge due to the
            absence of continuity in other parts of the child's life.
        The number of cases a judge retains would be reduced if permanent
    guardianship were included with adoption and permanent custody as a
    legally permissible option, and if all of them were precisely revenue
    neutral--that is, all services and treatments cost exactly the same
    regardless of the type of placement.
                          cases currently under review
        Question. I understand that there are around 4,500 permanency cases
    under review. How would your plan alleviate the backlog and how long do
    you estimate it would take to properly address the backlog issue? Once
    the backlog gets resolved, how will the system change with regard to
    staffing needs and assignments, so as to avoid future backlog? Would
    new employees need to be hired? Would there be additional costs in
    staff salaries?
        Answer. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the Court's position
    that these cases do not constitute a ``backlog'' in the traditional
    sense of the word. ``Backlog'' implies that these are cases that judges
    have not yet addressed. The cases you refer to are closely followed and
    reviewed periodically, some as often as each month. These cases have
    not reached closure for a number of reasons, which relate directly to
    the best interests of the child in terms of providing long-term
    security and emotional stability.
        To help close these cases, the Court has established a remedial
    project under which a special master has been appointed to review old
    cases for closure opportunities. In addition, we are currently
    undergoing an internal review by all judges of the entire caseload to
    identify those that may be closed within a year.
        The Court's Reform Plan calls for augmenting these efforts by
    appointing three teams of special masters to expedite review of all
    pending children's cases to re-examine whether a permanent placement is
    possible. I am hopeful that as many as half of the cases can be closed
    by a permanent placement within a year.
        In the meantime, the large number of cases pending review requires
    that they be assigned to judges who are not in the Family Division, so
    that Family Division judges can address the ongoing cases in Division.
    However, in order to assure the most effective management and the
    closure of these cases as soon as possible, only judges who ask to
    retain the cases and who are willing to take ongoing training will be
    permitted to do so. I believe this is the best approach using currently
    available personnel and resources to meet the needs of those children
    for whom a permanent home has not been found.
        Under the Family Court Reform Plan, the bulk of the additional
    resources will be directed to the growing number of children coming to
    the Court for the first time. Most of the 74 new employees and
    estimated $45.9 million in the Court's request would be used to staff,
    equip and house teams of judges and magistrates to resolve new cases.
    Attachment B contains a detailed list of the resources necessary to
    implement the Reform Plan. Closely focused attention early in each
    child's case will help expedite permanent placement for these children.
    The requested resources are critical to the success of the Reform Plan.
                              permanency planning
        Question. In your opening statement, you refer to the abundance of
    hard to place children currently in the system--specifically children
    who enter the system at age seven or older, children who are HIV
    positive or neonatal drug-addicted, and children with emotional or
    behavioral issues. For all of these children, it would be difficult to
    find them adoptive homes. If adoption is not an option, what other
    permanency options exist for these children?
        Answer. If adoption is unavailable, permanent custody and
    guardianship are preferred where safe and feasible. However, lack of
    adequate subsidies sometimes make use of these options more difficult.
    Independent living programs, group homes and residential institutions
    are among other alternative options.
        Question. What is the court's plan to expedite establishing
    permanency plans for these children in compliance with the Adoption and
    Safe Families Act (ASFA)?
        Answer. The Court plans to expedite the establishment of permanency
    plans for these children under ASFA by devoting more judicial and staff
    time and attention and by establishing a team-based approach to abuse
    and neglect cases, as proposed in our plan submitted to Congress. We
    also have reviewed all our current procedures with working groups of
    court personnel and other stakeholders to create a more responsive
    Permanency Branch, and to improve the level of coordination with the
    City.
        Question. Appointment and Assignment of Judges: I agree with your
    proposal's emphasis on appointing judges with an interest in Family
    Law. Your proposal would allow judges already on the DC Superior Court
    bench to volunteer for a three-year term in the Family Division. How
    many openings do you foresee in the Family Division? How many judges
    currently sitting on the bench at the DC Superior Court do you expect
    to volunteer for the three-year term? Would you agree that the
    remaining vacancies should be filled with judges who have an interest
    and experience in Family Law?
        Answer. A number of judges have indicated potential interest in
    service in the Family Division as structured in the Court's plan.
    However, it is difficult to determine how many vacancies would occur
    without knowing specifics of the legislation that will be enacted and
    the resources that will be provided to the Family Division. I will
    remain committed to seeing that capable judges with backgrounds and
    interest in family law serve in the new Family Division.
        Question. Space: How many courtrooms and hearing rooms are there at
    the D.C. Superior Court?
        Answer. We currently have 65 courtrooms and 13 hearing rooms for a
    total of 78 forum rooms. Two hearing rooms have recently been converted
    into a family waiting room. The Superior Court has 59 associate judges,
    15 hearing commissioners, and 20 senior judges (who sit part time).
        Question. In the budget, you request $32.5 million in non-recurring
    costs for space, furnishing, and equipment. And it is our understanding
    that the court plans to expand to the Old Courthouse located at 451
    Indiana Avenue. What divisions of the Court do you plan to move?
        Answer. For a number of years, the D.C. Courts have been preparing
    detailed plans for using the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue for
    the D.C. Court of Appeals, the court of last resort of the District of
    Columbia. This relocation would free 37,000 square feet in the Moultrie
    Building that could house some of the Civil and Probate Division
    operations displaced when the offices, courtrooms and hearing rooms of
    the Family Division are consolidated on the lower floors of the
    building. In addition, we are considering use of space in buildings at
    515 5th Street, N.W., and 409 4th Street, N.W., as necessary.
        Question. Coordination: The judge's proposal and the current family
    court division consist of a number of branches: Domestic Violence,
    Juvenile Offender, Mental Health and Retardation, to mention a few. How
    would the following hypothetical situation be coordinated in Hamilton
    County? [I take this to mean ``District of Columbia'']
        A 14-year-old boy living in a foster home has an open case in the
    Permanency Branch. If this same teenager were caught stealing, he would
    then have a case pending in the Juvenile Offender Branch. It would seem
    that the judge who has been presiding over his permanency case would be
    the best judge to preside over the charge in the juvenile branch.
    However, under the system in the proposal it would seem that the two
    cases would be before two different judges who would coordinate.
        Can you explain how this coordination would take place?
        Answer. Under the Court's proposed Family Division Reform Plan, the
    two judges would confer over how to best serve the child. If the crime
    was not of a very serious nature (that is, not murder, rape, armed
    robbery or the like), then the permanency branch judge would likely
    handle the case, continuing to work with the child while the juvenile
    judge would either close the case or opt for probation to be
    implemented in the neglect case. If the crime were more serious, the
    permanency branch judge would close the case, because it would not be
    possible to provide effective services for a detained child.
        Question. The proposal indicates the reason for the cases being
    split between different judges is it would allow the Family Court to
    choose among the alternatives in both systems. Can you give me examples
    of some of the alternatives that would not be available among branches
    within the same division? And why does this occur?
        Answer. Typically, more services are available in the neglect
    system than in the juvenile justice system. For example, for a child in
    the juvenile system, the only available housing alternatives may be
    incarceration at the Oak Hill facility or detention in a community-
    based group home. However if the juvenile case is closed and the child
    continues in the neglect system, he could return home under
    ``protective supervision''; live with a relative deemed fit and willing
    to handle a child with his type of behavioral problems; go into foster
    care; or be moved to a group home.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator DeWine. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Mary.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu and DeWine.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                     Courts

    STATEMENTS OF:
            ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
                ADMINISTRATION
            RUFUS KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT
            CYNTHIA JONES, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES
            JASPER ORMOND, INTERIM DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER
                SUPERVISION AGENCY
            JOHN L. CLARK, CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to
    our committee meeting. Senator DeWine and I are pleased to be
    here. We may be joined by some additional colleagues, and we
    also may be joined by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, who
    may come in, but we appreciate the panelists that have been
    asked to and are willing to testify today about several
    different important aspects concerning the District.
        So we will ask you all, if you would, to come forward and
    take your seats, Mr. Clark, Mr. Ormond, Mrs. Jones, Judge King,
    Judge Wagner. I would like to begin with a brief opening
    statement which I will submit to the record, and I am going to
    ask Senator DeWine to begin with his opening statement, and
    then we have, as you know, read and reviewed your statements.
    You can summarize your remarks, and we will try to move this
    hearing along as quickly as we can, but we do have some
    questions to each of you.
        According to the schedule today, it looks as though we are
    going to have votes, several votes between now and 4:00, so we
    may have to take a brief break, go over and vote, try to come
    back if we can, but we will just do, Senator, the best we can.
    Do you want to add anything before I start?
        Senator DeWine. No.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me again take this opportunity to
    thank all of you for being here. I know that each of you and
    the work that you do for the District and really for our whole
    Nation, you are very busy. Your willingness to help us better
    understand the funding needs and remaining challenges for the
    D.C. courts, the Court Services and Offenders Supervision
    Agency, and the Office of Corrections is very much appreciated.
        As we all know, in 1997, in an effort to help the District
    rebound from its financial distress, the previous
    administration worked with us in Congress to enact legislation
    that would shift certain district functions traditionally
    carried out at the State level to the Federal Government.
        We enacted legislation, the D.C. Revitalization Act,
    eliminating the approximate $600 million appropriated by the
    Federal Government to the District. Instead, the act
    transferred several functions of the D.C. Government to Federal
    supervision. It was decided that the Federal Government would
    be fully responsible for two specific areas, and that is what
    our hearing is about this morning.
        The first function transferred the criminal justice
    activities into two main components, the D.C. courts and the
    transitional D.C. Corrections Trustee System. Specifically, the
    following changes were made: federally funding the Superior
    Court, free trial services and defender services, transferring
    sentenced felons from D.C. Lorton Correctional Complex to the
    Bureau of Prisons, and transferring parole decisions from the
    D.C. Parole Board to the U.S. Parole Commission. Also, the
    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency was established
    as an independent Federal agency.
        Although any criminal justice system faces coordinating
    challenges, this unique structure and funding in which Federal
    and D.C. jurisdictional boundaries are mixed creates additional
    challenges for all of us. Each of you in your respective
    capacities has been faced with overwhelming challenges, and in
    most instances has succeeded remarkably in overcoming many of
    these challenges, yet it is clear that we face some additional
    problems and concerns that are ahead.
        For the Office of Corrections, many of these challenges
    rest in completing the closure of Lorton Complex, which we will
    hear more about today, and the transfer of all adult sentenced
    felons to prisons operated by the bureau. As you well know,
    under the terms of this act, all D.C. felons must be
    transferred from Lorton to various facilities by December 31,
    2001, which is the end of this year. It is my understanding
    that approximately 4,500 of the 8,000 adults have been
    transferred to the permanent custody, but this means that there
    are another 3,500 inmates remaining to be transferred.
        I know the progress has been somewhat restricted by
    overcrowding issues--the problems were highlighted by the
    Youngstown incident--and the consequences of significant staff
    reductions, but there are real challenges that require real
    solutions, and we are anxious, both of us, to hear some of the
    specifics today.
        I am particularly concerned about the relocation of inmates
    who are parents of young children, and that was an issue when
    this was initially crafted and created. I think it remains an
    issue today, and I hope that we will get some additional
    comments on that particular area.
        In fact, this budget blueprint and the President's
    blueprint has included $67 million for a new program that he is
    promoting, mentoring children of prisoners, designed to help
    children of inmates all around the Nation retain intimate
    connections that are necessary between children and their
    parents.
        So I hope, Mr. Clark, particularly in your testimony, you
    will take advantage to focus somewhat on this particular new
    initiative, and how the District could incorporate this new
    directive into what we are trying to do here.
        I am also interested in learning more about the plans for
    the 9,000 acres which currently make up the prison site of
    Lorton. About 5,500 of those acres are already preserved as
    parkland and a national wildlife refuge. I appreciate there are
    plans underway to continue the preservation of the land at
    Mason Neck and the undeveloped peninsula that juts into the
    Potomac, so we will get hopefully some more information.
        In addition, I think the effects of this closure, while
    there are some benefits to it, affect the thousands of
    employees that are currently employed. Overall, the number of
    employees has already been reduced by 46 percent, a reduction
    of about 2,000 employees. While I understand there is a policy
    of priority consideration with the Bureau of Prisons and other
    Federal and District agencies, I believe that a great number of
    people, many have families or other considerations which
    prohibit them from transferring out of this area, so perhaps we
    could get an update.
        With the final closure date fast approaching and the
    prospective reduction of available bed space, the system put in
    place and supervised by the agency is all the more important.
    There will be between 2,500 and 3,000 new cases that will need
    to be processed through the D.C. Department of Corrections and
    transported to Federal prisons. This complicated process
    involves two courts, the U.S. Parole Commission, two offices of
    the U.S. Marshal, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Federal
    Probation, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
        Existing pretrial halfway houses are at capacity. Also,
    about 100 to 400 District inmates are released from prison each
    month, and the final closure of Lorton will all but eliminate
    overflow space which is now used when the jails reach capacity,
    so these are real problems and issues that need to be dealt
    with.
        But somewhat on the bright side, the research that we have
    received has shown that the use of halfway houses that we have
    tried to focus on recently has created a dramatic positive
    effect in reducing the number of repeat offenders. In fact, in
    D.C. the number of parolees arrested on new charges dropped
    from 158 in 1998 to 42 in 2000, which are very promising
    statistics.
        I would like to commend the Court Services and Offenders
    Supervision Agency for their attention and quick intervention
    in addressing the serious backlog of processing offenders. Yet
    again, there are significant challenges ahead. Further progress
    will require this agency to redress the remaining shortages,
    available halfway house beds and other transitional services
    for inmates that will be released shortly.
        Let me move on to say that I recognize there has been some
    recent controversy about the location of these halfway houses,
    and that is a problem or challenge in every community around
    the Nation. Of course, every community has the right to be
    concerned about the safety and well-being of the residents that
    are already in the neighborhood, but I hope that we can work
    together with the Mayor, with the Council, with the Department
    to work on these issues and to try to strike a balance between
    the need of public safety and the needs of finding proper
    locations for these important services for our community.
        One area of transitional service that in my view requires
    some additional attention is the area of drug treatment. The
    U.S. Department of Justice reports that over 570,000 of the
    Nation's prisoners, 51 percent, reported the use of alcohol or
    drugs while committing their crime. We know this. It is
    evident. It is not necessarily new research, and we know what
    to do about it. We need treatment, effective treatment, and
    funding for such treatment.
        So perhaps in some of your comments you could address the
    successes of the research, which show that when people receive
    adequate treatment and take advantage of the treatment that is
    offered, fully one-third can recover almost completely, another
    one-third can recover with occasional lapses but ultimately
    will kick the habit, if you will, and then a third basically
    remain sort of chronic problem areas which then have to be
    dealt with in other ways, but we know that halfway houses, if
    run, drug treatment, if it works and is effective, can in fact
    work to help us in some of the challenges that are before us.
        Finally, let me move to Chief Judge King, and I thank you
    for the courtesies that you have extended and the time that we
    have spent with the judges in my office, speaking about this
    issue. I want to thank you all for your work with Senator
    DeWine and I in our efforts to reform and strengthen D.C.
    Family Court Division.
        Over the past several months, we have conducted several
    hearings on the recent developments in child welfare. I am
    pleased by the rate of progress that has been made, but we need
    to make a lot more progress, and I think the steps of creating
    and fashioning this specialized court with the right resources
    and right funding will go a long way to help us relieve that
    backlog and move children into permanent placement more
    quickly, which not only helps them but helps their families and
    the whole community.
        Let me also just stress that it is essential that how the
    specific outcome, whether it is 15 judges or 12, whether it is
    separate, or separate calendars, the most important things to
    me are effective and specialized training for judges, for
    magistrates and support staff, so that they can be up-to-date
    and knowledgeable with the best practices and staffed correctly
    so that these reforms can actually take root and we can see
    real progress in that area.
        I would also like to emphasize in my closing the importance
    of the physical surroundings of this new court. There have been
    several great examples around the Nation of courts that have
    reformed and remodeled so that it is a welcoming place for
    children and their families, not sort of the traditional,
    adversarial, overwhelming, can be frightening, sterile court
    environments that we sometimes find.
        But as Senator DeWine knows, who is the father of eight,
    and I as a mother of two and from a family of nine, large
    families, it is important when you are dealing with children
    that are emotional, and their parents and relatives, et cetera,
    that the facilities sort of help us to kind of reach these good
    ends that we hope for these families.
        So I hope in our renovations and our plans for renovation,
    we can create a court that is a credit to this community and to
    the Nation, but also really serves our families, and
    particularly the children, to make them feel comfortable about
    telling the truth and minimize the trauma that is associated in
    many of these horrible situations.
        Finally, on the tracking system for the automation, I have
    said in many speeches on this particular subject that it is
    very frustrating to those of us that have been promoting these
    changes now for many years, in our own States and now here in
    D.C., that we can actually track a crate of apples leaving
    Seattle, for instance, that is being shipped anywhere in the
    world. We can find out who touched the crate last, where it was
    stored overnight, how many apples are in that crate, how many,
    literally, are bruised or not before it is finally delivered,
    but we cannot still keep track of children--living, human,
    breathing children in our system, who seem to get lost all the
    time because of lack of commitment to the kind of data that
    would keep track of them.
        Clearly, the technology is there, because we track crates
    of apples and goods all over the world every second of the day,
    but we need to do a better job of keeping track of children in
    our care, and I hope that we will hear some testimony today
    about the data collection and dispersement and technology that
    we are developing.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        With that, I am just looking forward to hearing each of
    you, and let me welcome you again and just say that Senator
    DeWine will have his opening statement, and then before we
    begin your testimony, just to remind you that your entire
    statement will be made part of the record, so you can summarize
    your statement. We would like to limit your statements to 5
    minutes, and then we will take a round of questioning.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        I would like to first take this opportunity to thank all of you for
    being here this afternoon. I know that each and every one of you is
    extremely busy. Your willingness to help us better understand the
    funding needs and remaining challenges for the D.C. Courts, the Court
    Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the Office of Corrections
    is very much appreciated.
        In 1997, in an effort to help the District rebound from its
    financial distress, the Clinton Administration worked with Congress to
    enact legislation that would shift certain district functions,
    traditionally carried out at the State level, to the Federal
    Government. The enacted legislation, the D.C. Revitalization Act of
    1997, eliminated the approximately $600 million appropriated by the
    Federal Government to the District. Instead, the act transferred
    several functions of the D.C. government to Federal supervision. It was
    decided that the Federal Government would be fully responsible for two
    specified areas, criminal justice and district employee pensions.
        The first function transferred, the District's criminal justice
    activities, are divided into two main functions: the D.C. Courts and
    the transitional D.C. Corrections System Trustee. Specifically, the
    following changes were made: federally funding the Superior Court, Pre-
    Trial Services and Defender Services; transferring sentenced felons
    from D.C.'s Lorton Correctional Complex to the Bureau of Prisons; and
    transferring parole decisions from the D.C.Parole Board to the U.S.
    Parole Commission. Also, the Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agency (CSOSA) was established as an independent Federal agency.
        Although any criminal justice system faces coordination challenges,
    the unique structure and funding of the D.C. criminal justice system,
    in which Federal and D.C. jurisdictional boundaries aFfd dues are
    mixed, creates additional challenges. Each of you, in your respective
    capacities, have been faced with these challenges and, in most
    instances, have succeeded in overcoming these challenges. For this. you
    should be commended. Yet, it is clear that there are many challenges
    still ahead.
        For the Office of Corrections, many of these challenges rest in
    completing the closure of the Lorton Complex and the transfer of all
    D.C. adult sentenced felons to prisons operated by the Bureau of
    Prisons. As you well know, under the terms of the Revitalization Act of
    1997, all D.C. adult sentenced felons must be transferred from Lorton
    Correctional Facility to various facilities in the, Federal Bureau of
    Prisons by December 31, 2001. It is my understanding that approximately
    4,500 of the 8,000 adult felony inmates have been transferred to the
    permanent custody of the Bureau of Prisons. This means that
    approximately 2,500 inmates remain to be transferred before this coming
    December.
        I know that the progress in transferring these inmates has been
    somewhat restricted by the overcrowding issues plaguing the Federal
    facilities, the problems highlighted by the Youngstown incidents, and
    the consequences of significant staff reductions. These are real
    challenges and will require innovative solutions. I am anxious to hear
    your thoughts and strategies for the final close-down, the transition
    and the final transfer of the property back to Virginia.
        Specifically, I am sympathetic to those who were concerned that the
    transfer of these inmates, in some instances several hundreds of miles
    away from the District, could potentially have a very negative impact
    on an inmate's ability to reintegrate into the community or, more
    importantly, his or her family. For several families involved in the
    criminal justice system, transportation of this nature would be cost
    prohibitive. As a result, many of the transferred inmates may be
    deprived of the contact necessary to their ultimate reintegration into
    society.
        I am particularly concerned by the relocation of inmates who are
    parents to small children. I would hope that special consideration and
    assistance would be given to inmates who are parents, not necessarily
    for their sake, but for the sake of their children. In fact, in his
    Budget Blueprint, President Bush included $67 million for a new
    program, Mentoring Children of Prisoners, designed to help children of
    inmates retain the intimate connections which are vital to their
    ultimate development as a human being. I hope, Mr. Clark, that you will
    not only take advantage of this Federal focus on preserving families
    but also do what you can to incorporate these notions into your
    transfer policies and inmate services.
        I am also interested in learning more about the plans for 9,000
    acres which currently make up the prison site in Lorton. About 5,500 of
    the 9,000 acres are already preserved as parkland and a national
    wildlife refuge. I appreciate that there are plans underway to continue
    the preservation of the land at Mason Neck, the undeveloped peninsula
    that juts into the Potomac River.
        Finally, Mr. Clark, I am greatly concerned about the effect the
    closure of this prison site may have on the employment opportunities
    for those currently employed by the Lorton facility. Overall, the
    number of employees has already been reduced by 46 percent, a reduction
    of about 2,000 employees. While I understand there is a policy of
    priority consideration with the Bureau of Prisons and other Federal and
    District agencies, I believe that a great number of people may have
    families, or other considerations, which prohibit them from
    transferring out of the area. In fact, in your report, dated April 30,
    2001, you stated that only 20 or so employees had availed themselves on
    the priority consideration program. I hope that you can discuss ways
    that you have been trying minimize the effect on the staff displaced by
    the final closure.
        With the final closure date fast approaching and the prospective
    reduction of available bed space, the systems put in place and
    supervised by the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency are
    all the more important. Between 2,500 and 3,000 new cases per year will
    need to be processed into the system through the D.C. Department of
    Corrections and transported to Federal prisons. This complicated
    process involves two courts, the U.S. Parole Commission, two offices of
    the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Attorney's office, CSOSA, Federal
    Probation, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Existing pre-trial
    halfway houses are at capacity. Also, about 100 to 400 District inmates
    are released from prison each month, and the final closure of Lorton
    will all but eliminate overflow space which is now used when the D.C.
    jail reaches capacity.
        One of the most important functions of the CSOSA is their role in
    helping parolees reintegrate into society. Research shows that the use
    of halfway houses can have a dramatic effect in reducing the number of
    repeat offenders. In fact, in D.C., the number of D.C. Parolees
    arrested on new charges dropped from 158 in 1998 to 42 in 2000. This
    reduction occurred in large part because of the Federal policy that
    required all parolees to be released into halfway houses.
        I would like to commend the Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agency for the attention and quick intervention in addressing the
    serious back log of processing offenders. Yet, again there are
    significant challenges still ahead. Further progress will require that
    CSOSA address the remaining shortage of available halfway house beds
    and other transitional services for inmates that will be released into
    the District; developing community education and understanding for the
    need for the expansion of these services and selecting appropriate
    sites for these services.
        I recognize that there has been some recent controversy about the
    location of these halfway houses and the CSOSA treatment center. Of
    course, any community has the right to be concerned about the safety
    and well being of its residents and there are certain locations which
    might put the community and the offender at risk for repeated offenses.
    However, I encourage the Mayor, the Department of Corrections and CSOSA
    to work to strike a balance between the need for public safety and the
    importance of promoting the rehabilitation of previous offenders.
    Perhaps, there are ways, such as tax credits for employing parolees, to
    help involve the community in the rehabilitation process.
        One area of transitional services that, in my view, requires
    additional attention and perhaps resources is in the area of drug
    treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that over 570,000 of
    the Nation's prisoners (51 percent) reported the use of alcohol or
    drugs while committing their offense. For this reason, effective drug
    treatment is critical. Experts report that drug addiction treatment is
    as effective as treatment for other chronic illnesses such as diabetes,
    asthma, and hypertension. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services found that nearly one-third of those in treatment achieve
    permanent abstinence in their first attempt at recovery. An additional
    one-third have periods of relapse but eventually achieve long-term
    abstinence, and one-third have chronic relapses that result in
    premature death from substance abuse and related consequences.
        Despite this, reports indicate that the drug treatment program for
    D.C. parolees is only serving about 30 percent of the population in
    need of such services. I am pleased to learn that CSOSA hopes to expand
    their substance abuse and mental health programs. If used effectively,
    these programs could not only help prevent a crime but also save the
    taxpayers a good deal of money.
        Additionally, the Public Defender Service provides a critical link
    between offenders and the criminal justice system. I commend their
    dedication to ensuring due process is carried out in all cases in the
    District.
        Finally, I would like to commend Chief Judge Rufus King for his
    willingness to work with Senator DeWine and I in our efforts to reform
    the D.C. Court's Family Division. Over the past several months, we have
    conducted several hearings on the recent developments in child welfare
    in D.C. I am pleased by the rate of progress that has been made so far
    and hope that we can continue to move in a positive direction. I have
    reviewed the summary of the Court's requested funding priorities. In
    regards to the Family Court reform, I would like to stress two areas of
    critical importance to the success of this venture.
        First, it is absolutely essential that an effective and specialized
    training program be instituted to ensure that the judges, magistrates
    and support staff are well trained in the areas involving children.
    Last year, I joined with Senator DeWine in calling on Congress to
    approve legislation that would provide State courts with the funding
    necessary to implement such training programs nationwide. The types of
    issues resolved in the family court are unlike any other legal matters
    before the court. If properly trained, a judge is a far more effective
    arbiter of the truth.
        Second, I would like to emphasize the importance of the physical
    surroundings of a family court. Clearly, the first concern is the
    critical space shortage currently facing the D.C. courts. Yet, I would
    like to take this opportunity to encourage the courts to use the
    creation of this new branch to ensure that the courtrooms and waiting
    spaces are as family friendly as the judges, advocates and the support
    staff. Several courtrooms throughout the country have found that an
    inviting infrastructure can be as important to a traumatized child as a
    successful decision.
        Also, I support your efforts to improve the automation and
    collaboration of information between the different divisions in the
    courts. Again, I hope that you will make sincere efforts to ensure that
    these systems are implemented in the family court. Often times, it is
    these courts that are the least and last funded. It has always
    frustrated me that in this day and age, where one can track a crate of
    apples to Taiwan, we cannot keep better track of children and families
    in our child welfare system.
        Again, I am looking forward to hear from each of you and thank you
    for your time.

        Senator Landrieu. Senator DeWine.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

        Senator DeWine. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and
    congratulations on your first hearing as chairman of this
    subcommittee.
        Since the start of the 107th Congress, when Senator
    Landrieu and I were appointed, and I must say recently
    reappointed to this committee--an interesting time--we have
    emphasized the need to reform the District of Columbia's child
    welfare system and the Family Division of the Superior Court.
    Today, as we examine the District's proposed court budget, we
    are, I believe, at a crossroads. It is a crossroads both in
    terms of responsibility and accountability.
        We are here to analyze from a budgetary perspective what
    the District's resource needs are, and how those investments
    can play a part in helping the District create a court system
    that ultimately puts the safety and health of children first
    above all else.
        In our efforts to match resources with reforms, there are a
    number of issues to be discussed, and right now I would like to
    focus my attention on the plan to reform the family court and
    the court's overall role in the child welfare system.
        Senator Landrieu and I, along with a number of our Senate
    colleagues, have developed a discussion draft of a family court
    bill. We are collaborating with our colleagues in the House to
    draft legislation which we hope to introduce in both the House
    and the Senate later this month.
        Several important and necessary changes must take place as
    the District shifts to a family court system. First, I believe
    it is paramount that the one-judge-one-family concept be the
    center of the court reform. I say this because judicial
    consistency will ensure that families will not be shifted, one
    judge to another. Quite simply, a judge who knows the entire
    history of a family can better protect the interests of the
    children who are involved.
        Second, the judges in family court should specialize in
    family law. This is, of course, simpler said than done, as we
    have found out in the last few months. All judges serving in
    Superior Court oversee a total of approximately 4,000 cases,
    regardless of their current court assignment. They preside over
    approximately two abuse and neglect matters per week, which I
    think brings up the point of how difficult, under the status
    quo, it is for a judge to develop over a long period of time
    the real great expertise that I think is really needed,
    expertise in the area of family court and children and related
    issues.
        Currently, the court assigns 12 judges to the Family
    Division. While they are assigned for 2-year terms, the average
    judicial term is actually about 1 year. This exceptionally high
    rate of turnover means that cases involving children do not
    benefit from judges who have had the experience. Judges who
    serve longer become more familiar with the law, and they are
    better able to more consistently implement the law.
        I think it makes good common sense to say that, and this is
    in no way a reflection on the determination of the judges who
    are in this position. They do a good job. It in no way reflects
    on their capabilities. It simply is, in my opinion, a matter of
    common sense that someone who has done something longer does it
    better, whether it is a teacher, whether it is a welder,
    whether it is a judge who is dealing with the most precious
    thing that we have, and that is our children.
        Third, I believe that we must make sure that the courts in
    the District comply with the permanency time line outlined in
    the 1997 Federal law that I helped write called the Adoption
    and Safe Families Act. Family and Juvenile Courts across the
    country have implemented this law, yet the District still only
    has a plan to implement it. The time for compliance with the
    regulations has long since passed. The District absolutely must
    act, and act now. The lives of children are hanging in the
    balance.
        Fourth, we need to maintain case consistency. The court in
    its budget has requested an additional $5.4 million for
    defender services initiatives, to increase the hourly
    compensation rate for attorneys and investigators. However,
    there are still many unsolved, unresolved issues surrounding
    how and when attorneys or guardians ad litem are compensated,
    which in the end is threatening the adequate representation of
    children. When examining the court's budget, we need, I
    believe, to explore options that could help in this situation.
        Let me conclude by saying that for the best possible
    treatment of families a specialized family court is vital, and
    in creating such a court we must ensure that the resources we
    provide lead to sound structural changes, changes that will
    make a lasting, long-term difference. I fear that a newly
    renovated courthouse and an increased number of judges and
    magistrate judges is simply not enough to fix the systemic
    problem that is plaguing the District's child welfare system.
        I will say that the changes that have been outlined as far
    as the structure are unique and I believe, as the chairman has
    indicated, that they can be integrated into an overall plan of
    change, and that is something that we obviously need to work
    on.
        The children and families in the District I think deserve
    better than they have received. They deserve judges who have
    expertise in family law and who possess a strong and sincere
    concern for their best interests. We owe it to the people, and
    we owe it to the children.
        Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator DeWine, for those
    remarks.
        We have had the votes called and we have three stacked
    votes, and it is usually 15 minutes or more a vote, but
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is here, and I hate for you
    to be delayed. Would you like to make a brief statement now, or
    would you like to stay?
        Ms. Norton. I will stay.
        Senator Landrieu. Should we go vote, and will you all just
    take a break, have some water--I wish we could serve you more
    than that, but that is all we have--and I will be back.
        The meeting will come to order, and we will reconvene, and
    again we apologize, but this is the way these afternoons work
    here in the Senate and the House.
        We will now be prepared for opening statements, so we would
    like you to keep your time, if the panelists would, to 5
    minutes each, and I understand because of the scheduling change
    that, Judge Wagner, you have an engagement, so we would be
    pleased to have you go first.

                      Statement of Judge Annice M. Wagner

        Judge Wagner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to members
    of the committee, thank you first of all for the opportunity to
    make an oral presentation to the committee. It is my first time
    appearing before you, and I am delighted to see you.
        As you know, the D.C. Courts have submitted a request for
    budgetary resources in a very detailed fashion. I think you
    have a copy of our submission in a white book. I am appearing
    as chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration,
    which is responsible for preparing the budget estimates for the
    Courts, and we approved the submission that was submitted to
    you earlier as our request.
        We comprise, of course, the District of Columbia Court of
    Appeals, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and
    the Court System. To support our mission in 2002 we have
    requested $153,046,000, which is divided among the various
    components of the court system in the manner which appears in
    our written submission.
        I wish to emphasize that after we submitted our request for
    review by the President and to the Congress, the Superior Court
    did formulate a family court reform plan some preliminary cost
    estimates. What I want to emphasize is that those cost
    estimates are in addition to the amounts which we have
    requested, except as otherwise indicated.
        I think that Chief Judge King in his statement will get
    into that more, but what our concern is, is that those items
    that we have previously requested are needed to support what we
    have, what exists, and to the extent that something else has to
    be funded, if it has to come from those operations, there is
    the danger of undercutting other functions which must go on in
    the Courts, criminal, civil, tax and other types of cases.
        During the past year, the Courts have taken steps to
    strengthen our budgeting and financial management. This is a
    continuing process. However, we have placed a number of reforms
    in place of which we have kept you apprised. I would just like
    to highlight that for the second year in a row the Courts have
    secured an unqualified opinion from KPMG in an independent
    audit of the fiscal year 2000 financial statements.
        The Courts have also commenced implementation of key
    aspects of the Government Performance and Results Act. The
    Courts' fiscal year 2002 budget request begins to provide
    performance data, and to link budgetary resource increases to
    enhancements in the performance of our Courts. We have
    strengthened our Courts' accounting system, including
    refinements that track expenditures by object classification
    among the Courts divisions, programs, and offices, and we will
    continue to keep the Congress apprised of the Courts'
    enhancement of our financial management operations as we move
    along.
        We have initiated a comprehensive strategic planning and
    reengineering process that will enable us to then focus our
    efforts and resources on measurable results. We are pleased to
    report the beneficial impact that a long-overdue employee pay
    raise has had on our operations, and we really owe a great deal
    of appreciation to this committee, which is the committee that
    supported pay parity for our employees with their Federal
    counterparts in similar jobs in the last budget cycle.
        What we have noticed is that our recruitment efforts have
    improved significantly. We have 20 percent more applicants for
    crucial positions today than in fiscal year 2000, and employee
    morale is noticeably improved.
        Many initiatives and programs that enhance management of
    the courts are underway, including the integrated justice
    information system, in which you have expressed an interest.
    Following a comprehensive requirements analysis by the National
    Center for State Courts, the Courts completed a detailed plan
    for the new case management system which will not only enhance
    case processing and information management, but also provide
    better information for judicial officers and others seeking
    information about court activity. We have submitted that plan
    to you, and we are awaiting approval of this plan so that we
    may proceed with this critical project.
        With the assistance of KPMG experts, we have initiated an
    information technology strategic plan to focus the resources of
    the Information Technology Division and ensure that their
    efforts conform to the larger vision and mission of the Courts
    and the District's justice community.
        The Courts are focused on training in all aspects of the
    law, and in all aspects of our administrative and our court
    processes. We have an extensive training program for judges and
    for staff that offers a variety of courses designed to enhance
    performance.
        The Courts are working with the General Services
    Administration to conduct a building evaluation report, a
    comprehensive assessment of our capital needs to ensure that
    our limited resources can be deployed in a most effective
    manner.
        Senator Landrieu. One minute.
        Judge Wagner. Oh, I have 1 minute left? I have not touched
    my priorities. I did want to touch defender services because
    you mentioned it, but let me just skip to the priorities.
        We basically have three or four priorities this year. One
    is court staffing. Our request includes enough funds to enable
    the Courts to fill vacancies and to staff mission-critical
    functions.
        Our capital infrastructure. We need information technology
    in order to come into the 21st Century. Really the integrated
    justice system will do that.
        The other priority is the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana
    Avenue. It is a historic treasure. It is a national treasure.
    It was first constructed in 1831. We already have plans to
    develop this site for the Court of Appeals in order to free
    space in the building we are in now so that Superior Court can
    expand and use the entire building. Our building was built for
    44 judges in the trial court. We now have 59, and we also have
    15 hearing commissioners now, which we did not have previously,
    so we really need additional space.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The family court is something, of course--I will just leave
    that to Chief Judge King, and finally, defender services. We
    have devoted particular attention to enhancing that program.
    There is a long overdue rate increase for lawyers, who handle
    all of the cases in both child abuse, neglect, criminal cases,
    and guardianship cases. The lawyers have not had an increase
    for 8 years. The investigators have not had an increase for 13
    years. In order to assure competent counsel in all of our cases
    we feel that this is very essential.
        I wish to thank you for hearing us, and we believe that we
    are taking steps to be fiscally responsible, but adequate
    resources are necessary to meet these critical priorities.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Judge Annice M. Wagner

        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, thank you for this opportunity to
    discuss the District of Columbia Courts' budget request for fiscal year
    2002.
        The Courts have submitted a detailed request for the budgetary
    resources needed in fiscal year 2002. My remarks this afternoon will
    highlight the Courts' most critical priorities.
        Comprised of the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court, and the
    Court System, the District of Columbia Courts constitute the Judicial
    Branch of the District of Columbia government. The Joint Committee on
    Judicial Administration, which I chair, is the policy-making body for
    the Courts. The mission of the District of Columbia Courts is to
    administer justice fairly, promptly, and effectively. Through our
    strategic goals, the Courts strive to provide fair, swift, and
    accessible justice; enhance public safety; and ensure public trust and
    confidence in the justice system.
        To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2002, the
    D.C. Courts request $153,046,000 for Court operations. Of this amount,
    $8,528,000 is requested for the Court of Appeals; $69,203,000 is
    requested for the Superior Court; $33,945,000 is requested for the
    Court System; and $41,370,000 for capital improvements for courthouse
    facilities. In addition, the Courts request $39,711,000 for the
    Defender Services account.
        Following submission and presidential review of the Courts' fiscal
    year 2002 request, the Superior Court formulated the Family Court
    Reform Plan. Preliminary cost estimates to finance the increased
    judicial and support staff, consolidate the Family Division within the
    Moultrie Courthouse, and provide space for the additional staff are
    $13.4 million for recurring operational costs and approximately $32.5
    million for capital improvements. Of these amounts, $16.5 million is in
    the Courts' budget request, although only $2.1 million of that amount
    was included in the president's recommendation for the Courts.
                strengthening financial management at the courts
        During the past year, the Courts have taken many steps to
    strengthen our budgeting and financial management. Although this is a
    continuing process, we have put into place a set of initiatives and
    reforms that demonstrate our commitment to fiscal integrity and
    responsiveness to Congressional concerns. For example, the Courts
    have--
      --For the second year, secured an ``unqualified'' opinion from KPMG
            in an independent audit of the fiscal year 2000 financial
            statements.
      --Implemented a number of recommendations made by the National Center
            for State Courts, which conducted an independent study of the
            Courts' financial operations, including an examination of the
            budget process; expenditure accounting and budget controls;
            revenue accounting and internal controls; and internal
            auditing.
      --Commenced implementation of key aspects of the Government
            Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The Courts' fiscal year
            2002 budget request begins to provide performance data and to
            link budgetary resource increases to enhancements in
            performance. During the past year, upper and mid-level managers
            participated in a series of GPRA training programs conducted by
            experts from the Office of Management and Budget, the General
            Accounting Office, and the Office of Personnel Management.
      --Strengthened the Courts' accounting system, including refinements
            that track expenditures by object classification among the
            Courts' divisions, programs, and offices.
        We will continue to keep Congress apprised of the Courts'
    enhancement of our financial management operations.
                         enhancing management practices
        The Courts have initiated a comprehensive strategic planning and
    reengineering process that will enable us to focus our efforts and
    resources on measurable results. The Courts also have initiated major
    reform efforts for family matters, and appreciate the Congressional
    support we are receiving for this work.
        We are pleased to report the beneficial impact that the long
    overdue employee pay raise has had on court operations. Non-judicial
    employee pay parity with Federal counterparts in similar jobs was
    attained with the implementation of an 8.48 percent pay increase
    required by the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2001. The result has been a
    more stable, skilled, and productive workforce: retention of employees
    has been enhanced (employee turnover in the last quarter is down 45
    percent from fiscal year 2000); recruitment has improved significantly
    (we have 20 percent more applicants for crucial positions today than in
    fiscal year 2000); and employee morale is noticeably improved.
        Many initiatives and programs to enhance management of the Courts
    are underway. For example--
      --Integrated Justice Information System.--Following a comprehensive
            requirements analysis by the National Center for State Courts,
            the Courts completed a detailed plan for this new case
            management system, which will not only enhance case processing
            and information management, but also provide better information
            for judicial officers and others seeking information about
            Court activity. We await your approval of this plan so we may
            proceed with this critical project.
      --Strategic Planning.--Court leaders--both judges and managers--have
            participated in a series of strategic planning conferences to
            formulate an updated vision for the Courts' future and to
            develop plans and priorities to achieve that vision and fulfill
            the Courts' mission in the community.
      --Electronic Filing Pilot Project.--On May 1, the Superior Court
            launched a one-year pilot project that requires parties in
            complex civil cases to file all documents after the initial
            complaint electronically. E-filing is expected to streamline
            case management, reduce paper, and provide instant access to
            case-related documents.
      --Reengineering.--Court managers and staff have participated in
            training programs on reengineering techniques and philosophies
            in order to update and streamline the way we conduct
            operations. For example, a series of clerical jobs has been
            redesigned, and staff are receiving training to enhance career
            opportunities, reduce turnover, increase accountability, and
            provide better service to the community.
      --IT Strategic Plan.--With assistance from KPMG experts, the Courts
            initiated an IT strategic plan to focus the resources of the IT
            Division and ensure that their efforts conform to the larger
            vision and mission of the Courts and the District's justice
            community.
      --Training.--The Courts have an extensive training program for both
            judges and staff that offers a variety of courses designed to
            enhance employee performance. Subjects range from basic
            computer skills to specific legal areas. For Judicial training,
            substantive areas of the law are selected and instruction is
            provided in legal and sociological aspects of the subject. In
            addition, senior staff and judges attend professional
            conferences where they have the opportunity to learn best
            practices from both experts and peers in their fields.
      --Capital Planning.--The Courts are working with GSA to conduct a
            Building Evaluation Report, a comprehensive assessment of our
            capital needs to ensure that our limited resources can be
            deployed in the most effective manner.
      --Human Resources Information System.--The Courts are in the final
            phases of implementing a new personnel management information
            system to ensure ready access to detailed personnel
            information, which will assist managers and policy-makers.
      --Independent Study of Court Staffing Levels.--As recommended by the
            GAO, the Courts have contracted with experts to conduct a study
            of staffing requirements. This comprehensive study will provide
            the data the Courts need to deploy their limited staff
            resources most effectively and efficiently.
              improving defender services operations at the courts
        One area to which the Courts have devoted particular attention and
    made significant improvements is Defender Services. The nature of the
    defender services programs makes it difficult to predict future costs
    because each year claims are submitted for Criminal Justice Act (CJA),
    Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect (CCAN), and Guardianship case
    assignments made in previous years.
        During the past year, the Courts began several initiatives designed
    to strengthen management of the Defender Services programs and provide
    better service to the community:
      --Payment time cut in half.--By reengineering procedures to process
            vouchers, the Courts have reduced the average time from voucher
            submission to payment from by more than half, resulting in a 29
            day turnaround time in June 2001.
      --Defender Services obligations tracked automatically.--In fiscal
            year 2000, the Courts implemented an automated system to track
            all CJA and CCAN vouchers presented for payment, from receipt
            at the Courts to payment by the General Services
            Administration.
      --CJA Plan undergoing revision.--The Joint Committee is considering
            major revisions to the CJA Plan to streamline the processing of
            vouchers and set guidelines for the cost of certain types of
            cases. The Courts solicited comments and recommendations from
            the legal community on the proposed revisions and are currently
            working with the Bar to finalize the Plan revisions.
      --Defender Services customer service initiative.--This fiscal year
            2000 initiative includes (1) providing attorneys with computer
            access to the voucher tracking and payroll systems, to allow
            electronic queries on vouchers; (2) a dedicated staff member,
            or ``duty fees examiner,'' who provides immediate assistance to
            attorneys with voucher status inquiries; and (3) comment forms,
            to solicit feedback and suggestions from attorneys for service
            improvements.
      --Standards for submission of vouchers developed.--The Courts have
            promulgated revised standards for submission of completed
            vouchers and the Courts' payment of interest to comply with
            District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001.
                          the courts and the community
        As part of the District of Columbia's criminal justice system, the
    Courts participate in collaborative projects with other agencies, and
    provide many services to benefit the community at large. Some examples
    include:
      --Active participation in the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
            (CJCC) which seeks to improve the criminal justice system in
            the District. The Superior Court is currently utilizing the
            results of a CJCC-sponsored study in its effort to assist the
            District in reducing police overtime costs, thereby better
            using resources throughout the criminal justice system.
      --The District's award-winning Domestic Violence Project, spearheaded
            by the Superior Court, promotes victim safety and integrates
            the adjudication of both criminal and civil aspects of domestic
            violence cases. This project provides one central location for
            a victim to meet with representatives of various agencies, and
            permits one specially trained judge to address both civil and
            criminal aspects of a case.
      --In cooperation with the D.C. Bar Association, the Courts encourage
            District high school students to reflect on the law with an
            annual essay contest to celebrate National Law Day. This year,
            Ms. Lyndsey Williams, of the U.S. Senate Page School, won First
            Place for her essay on the juvenile justice system.
      --Also in cooperation with the D.C. Bar Association, the Courts
            participated in the second annual D.C. Youth Law Fair in March
            2001. More than 200 D.C. school students toured court
            facilities, participated in a mock trial, and discussed legal
            issues of interest to youth, including the effect of pop
            culture on teen violence and teen rights and responsibilities
            in the workplace.
      --In 1999 the Court established a mentoring program with the U.S.
            Department of Justice. Justice Department employees volunteer
            for the program, are screened and then are trained by
            specialists in the Abuse and Neglect section of the Family
            Division. Once trained, they serve as mentors to children in
            the abuse and neglect system, children who all too often have
            not had a stable, consistent adult influence in their lives.
                     performance measurement at the courts
        As part of our strategic goal of providing fair, swift, and
    accessible justice, we monitor our performance in efficiently
    processing cases in terms of (1) the case clearance rate, or the ratio
    of cases disposed to cases filed in a given year (a standard efficiency
    measure is 100 percent, meaning one case disposed for each case filed);
    and (2) the reduction in cases pending at the end of the year.
      --In fiscal year 2000, the Courts' caseload management practices
            resulted in a case clearance rate of 107 percent in the Court
            of Appeals and 113 percent in the Superior Court.
      --In addition, the Court of Appeals reduced its pending cases by 4
            percent and the Superior Court reduced the number of cases
            waiting to be resolved by 8 percent in fiscal year 2000.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Court of Appeals saw 1,739 new cases
    filed. Including pending cases and reinstatements, 4,407 cases were on
    appeal in fiscal year 2000. During the same time, in the Superior
    Court, 144,046 new cases were filed. Including reinstated cases and
    pending cases, 209,329 were available for disposition in fiscal year
    2000.
        The Courts look forward to enhancing our performance measurement
    system by moving toward implementation of the strategic planning and
    related strategies of the Government Performance and Results Act in the
    next fiscal year.
                fiscal year 2002 budget priorities of the courts
        The Courts continue to require adequate funds to ensure the prompt
    and fair administration of justice for the citizens of the District of
    Columbia and the many others who must rely on our court system in the
    Nation's capital. I would like to briefly discuss the Courts' four
    highest priorities for which funds are requested in fiscal year 2002.
        Court staffing.--The Courts' current on-board FTE of 1,127 is 9
    percent below the fiscal year 1999 authorized level of 1,239 FTE. The
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation permits the Courts to replace only 41 of
    the 76 FTE lost during fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2002 request
    is essential to enable the Courts to fill vacancies and staff mission-
    critical functions. At a minimum, key vacancies must be filled in
    fiscal year 2002 to produce court records, process cases timely, and
    support effective court administration.
        Capital infrastructure.--The Courts' physical plant consists of 1.1
    million square feet of space in four buildings located around Judiciary
    Square. The oldest building was constructed in 1820 and the newest in
    1978. The Courts' capital budget has not received adequate funding for
    some time. As a result, many basic capital repairs have been deferred
    and building projects have been delayed. The fiscal year 2002 capital
    request includes funding for health and safety projects, information
    technology, the historic Old Courthouse, and to maintain our aging
    infrastructure. Two critical needs are:
      --Information technology.--The Courts' current information technology
            infrastructure cannot meet the demands of the 21st century. In
            1998, the Courts launched the Integrated Justice Information
            System (IJIS), a major capital initiative to replace 18
            different computer systems with a unified case management
            system. In addition, to make financial accounting improvements
            recommended by KPMG, the Courts' independent auditors, a
            general ledger system is required. $2.2 million in capital and
            operating funds is critically needed in fiscal year 2002 to
            finance these projects.
      --The Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue.--The Courts face a
            critical space shortage in the main courthouse at 500 Indiana
            Avenue, which was built in 1978 for 44 trial judges. Today,
            with 59 trial judges (34 percent more) and 15 hearing
            commissioners in the Superior Court, 9 judges in the Court of
            Appeals and senior judges in both Courts, the main courthouse
            is filled well beyond capacity. The Courts request $15 million
            in the fiscal year 2002 budget to continue preservation of the
            Old Courthouse, a national treasure, and to readapt it for use,
            once again, as a courthouse, thereby freeing 37,000 sq. ft. for
            use by the Superior Court in the main court building. The
            Courts are working closely with GSA and with National Law
            Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, which plans to build a
            museum near this site. At a minimum, funding is critically
            needed in fiscal year 2002 to commence design and site
            preparation work and to prevent further deterioration of the
            structure.
        Family Court.--The Court is restructuring its Family Division
    operations to meet the critical needs of the increasing number of
    abused and neglected children entering the Court. Our Family Division
    Reform Plan calls for new teams of judges and magistrate judges to
    monitor and process the children's cases toward permanency, increased
    mediation, and enhanced coordination with the District's social
    services agencies. Although not included in the Courts' original budget
    submission, the Court estimates $46 million will be necessary to
    finance the increased judicial and support staff, consolidate the
    Family Division within the Moultrie Courthouse, and provide space for
    the increased staff.
        Defender Services.--In fiscal year 2000, the Courts devoted
    particular attention to improving the financial management of the
    Defender Services programs. The fiscal year 2002 request of $39.7
    million builds on these accomplishments. The request includes $5.4
    million for the first phase of an hourly rate increase for attorneys
    and investigators. This long-overdue rate increase, the first for
    investigators in 13 years and for attorneys in 8 years, is essential to
    ensuring continued high quality legal services to the District's
    indigent population.
        Madam Chairwoman, Senators, the District of Columbia Courts have
    long enjoyed a national reputation for excellence. We are proud of the
    Courts' record of administering justice in a fair, accessible, and
    cost-efficient manner. We believe we are taking the administrative
    steps, as highlighted above, needed to enhance our operations and
    ensure the fair administration of justice in the District of Columbia.
    Adequate funding for the Courts' highest priorities in fiscal year 2002
    is critical to our success, both in the next fiscal year and as we plan
    our strategy to continue to provide high quality service to the
    community in the future. Madam Chairwoman, we look forward to working
    with you throughout the appropriations process, and thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the Courts' budget request.
        Chief Judge King, Anne Wicks, the Court's Executive Officer, and I
    would be pleased to address any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you for your testimony. I
    understand you may have to leave, so let me just ask one
    question to clarify, and then you can leave your statement, of
    course, for the record.
        You said you have submitted your budget of $154 million,
    but that does not include the additional funding for the new
    family court.
        Judge Wagner. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. Were you or the analyst able to estimate
    of that $154 million in previous years what percentage was sort
    of committed to family work, because while we can add some
    funding for what I think we want to do, it is going to have to
    probably be a combination of some new funding and some current
    funding that was already previously dedicated for this portion
    of the courts' charge, and I do not know if you want to try to
    just answer that generally, and maybe Judge King can----
        Judge Wagner. I think Judge King probably would have the
    details of that. There is a certain amount of our submission
    which includes, obviously, some of the staff and judicial
    personnel who would be devoted to this, and we have come up
    with an estimate of what we believe the operational costs would
    be and also what we believe the capital budget requirements
    would be for new courtrooms and the like, but I think I would
    defer to Judge King to go into detail on that.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you again.
        Judge.

                       STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS KING, III

        Judge King. Very well. If I may, I will just----
        Senator Landrieu. Would you speak into the mike, Judge?
    Pull that over closer to you.
        Judge King. I will finish that answer briefly, and we can
    go into it in greater detail, but since that is freshly on the
    record. We already have 12 judges in the Family Division. That
    expense and the facilities to accommodate them do not change
    because of the new family reform plan, so that would carry over
    directly.
        The additional funds, and the reason it is so high, is
    because not only do we need to add additional staff, which is
    laid out in our plan--you and your staff have been made aware
    of that--but we are already, as Chief Judge Wagner indicated,
    bursting at the seams. I sometimes now have senior judges who
    want to sit and I am unable to use their services because I do
    not have a courtroom for them, so every additional person that
    we would use in the family court reform plan is going to come
    with a need to build a courtroom, a chambers, and the
    facilities that accommodate the people and the support staff.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I think we understand there will be
    additional expenses for the physical, the building, courtrooms,
    the equipment, but I was trying to get, as the percentage of
    your current budget that is devoted to or directed, operations
    budget, to sort of the family aspect, so as we try to define it
    more clearly we could build on the budget that is already
    there, but we can come back to that.
        Judge King. Well, I think that--let me just be sure that I
    am expressing myself clearly. The existing budget includes a
    Family Division expense, that is, judges, and courtrooms, and
    chambers.
        Senator Landrieu. In the 154?
        Judge King. In the 154.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay, fine. I am sorry, then.
        Judge King. What we have submitted as our plan is in
    addition to that.
        Senator Landrieu. And it is mostly physical capital
    improvements.
        Judge King. It is building out--there is a capital expense
    that I think works out at about $32 million, and then the
    balance of $12 or $13 million is the cost of additional
    personnel, but those are all pretty easy----
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you for clarifying that.
        Judge King. I mean, to the extent that we have not done
    that, clearly we could derive percentages, but there is already
    a Family Division operation in that.
        Judge Wagner. Would you like us to try to estimate that?
        Senator Landrieu. We can figure the other percentages.
    Thank you.
        Judge King. We would be happy to submit, and if you have
    any questions that would help clarify it, we would be happy to
    do that.
        I will be very brief, then. I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the budget. I fully support the budget
    request and priorities as stated by Chief Judge Wagner for the
    Courts' infrastructure, including the technology, the increased
    space, and restoration of the Old Courthouse, family court
    reform costs, and a rate increase for attorneys and
    investigators who serve indigent defendants and families.
        This afternoon, I would like to mention the resources
    required for the reform of the Superior Court's Family Division
    which were not included, as we have just been talking about, in
    the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Let me begin by noting the
    Court's appreciation for the courtesy shown by both you, Madam
    Chairwoman, and you, Senator DeWine, and your staffs, in
    discussing your concerns in the Court's plan. Your willingness
    to engage in a constructive and informal dialogue on our shared
    concern for improving service to children and families has, I
    believe, been very helpful to the reform process, and I hope it
    will continue.
        As you know, our Family Division reform plan is centered on
    teams of judges, magistrate judges, and staff to serve the
    increasing number of abused and neglected children coming to
    the Court, and I am delighted to hear of your focused interest
    on areas such as one judge and one family, a concept we
    entirely agree with, and one that we have already been
    substantially implementing with juvenile and neglect cases. We
    are very conscious of the need to expand that and to see that
    it becomes more firmly and strongly established in the rest of
    our family court operations.
        I am also happy to see your interest and receptivity to the
    notion of improved training. We have already undertaken some of
    that, including a recent 2-day conference that expanded the
    training on ASFA requirements and the like, and the
    infrastructure, including the technology infrastructure, are
    critical pieces that we are very much aware of and share your
    concern that they be done in a way that really serves children
    and families in a friendly way.
        The plan was formulated, or the plan that we are working on
    now, and this has been discussed--I see my light.
        Senator Landrieu. Two minutes. I took 2 minutes of your
    time.
        Judge King. Very well. I will be very brief.
        The plan was formulated after submission and presidential
    review of the Courts' fiscal year 2002 budget request, and so
    the cost of just under $46 million has for the most part not
    been included in the Courts' budget request or the President's
    budget, which was prepared before our family division reform
    plan was drafted.
        However, to commence the needed reforms expeditiously,
    resources are required in fiscal year 2002 to hire and train
    judges and staff and to construct additional courtrooms and
    office space to ensure that the plan can be promptly
    implemented.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Madam Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, your support for the
    required resources is critical to the success of the Family
    Division reform plan. We look forward to working with you
    throughout the appropriations process, and thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the priority in the budget request, and
    I would be happy to address questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Judge Rufus King, III

        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, I am Rufus G. King, III, and I am
    appearing in my capacity as Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the
    District of Columbia and a member of the Joint Committee on Judicial
    Administration. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
    District of Columbia Courts' budget request for fiscal year 2002.
        I fully support the fiscal year 2002 budget priorities Chief Judge
    Wagner outlined-adequate staffing for critical functions; adequate
    funding for the Courts' infrastructure, including technology and
    increased space through restoration of the Old Courthouse; family court
    reform costs; and a rate increase for attorneys and investigators who
    serve indigent defendants.
        This afternoon, I would particularly like to address the resources
    required for reform of the Court's Family Division, which were not
    included in the Courts' fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
        As you know, our Family Division Reform Plan is centered on teams
    of judges, magistrate judges, and staff to serve the increasing number
    of abused and neglected children coming to the Court. Although the plan
    was formulated after submission and presidential review of the Courts'
    fiscal year 2002 budget request, to commence the needed reforms
    expeditiously, resources are required in fiscal year 2002 to hire and
    train judges and staff and to construct additional courtrooms and
    office space to ensure that our Reform Plan can accomplish its goals.
                                    staffing
        To create the teams of judges, magistrates and support staff to
    serve the children, the Reform Plan calls for 74 new full-time
    employees. In addition to the judges and magistrate judges and their
    chambers staff, non-judicial employees would form the remainder of the
    case management teams, staff the additional courtroom operations, and
    administer the expanded Child Protection Mediation Program.
                                    training
        Specialized training for Family Division judges, magistrate judges,
    and staff is a critical component of the Reform Plan. Building on the
    Courts' existing training program, the increased resources associated
    with the Reform Plan will provide the enhanced specialization needed to
    best serve abused and neglected children.
        Already, the Court has taken steps to build the expertise of judges
    and staff in family issues. In May, Superior Court judges attended two
    full days of comprehensive training on child abuse and neglect law.
    Local and national experts provided information on a variety of
    subjects including--
      --The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and judicial
            responsibility from the initial hearing through permanency;
      --The family unit and how substance abuse fuels the cycle of child
            abuse and neglect;
      --The role of judges in fostering collaboration and providing
            leadership in the community;
      --Mental health experts' means to assess the level of risk to a child
            and how the District's Child and Family Services Administration
            determines the best residential placement for a child;
      --Child development issues and how they can assist in judicial
            decision-making;
      --Special education, how the Court may initiate the process, and the
            responsibility of the District of Columbia Public Schools; and
      --Mental health intervention.
        Family Division staff also attended training on meeting ASFA
    standards, child protection and welfare, and roles and expectations at
    Court hearings.
                                  space needs
        The Reform Plan envisions a consolidation of the Family Division
    offices and courtrooms in the Moultrie Courthouse, which is large
    enough to accommodate the expanded Division in a consolidated location.
    Other offices currently located in the Moultrie Courthouse will be
    relocated to two other Court buildings (Bldg. A and Bldg. B), which
    will need to be upgraded and reconfigured. Significant work needs to be
    completed in both Buildings A and B before offices with increased
    public traffic can be moved into the buildings, including--
      --Roof repair and replacement to curtail leaks;
      --Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) repair and
            replacement of original 1920's vintage air conditioning
            equipment;
      --Increased electrical capacity to accommodate modern office
            equipment;
      --Plumbing upgrades;
      --Elevator repair;
      --Fire and security system enhancement;
      --Restroom improvements; and
      --ADA enhancements.
        In addition, to accommodate the increased number of judicial
    officers, additional courtrooms and judicial chambers must be
    constructed in one building. Support operations currently occupying
    Buildings A and B will be moved to leased space in the local area, as
    needed.
        Madam Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, your support for the required
    resources is critical to the success of the Family Division Reform
    Plan. We look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations
    process, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important
    priority in the Courts' budget request.
        I would be pleased to address any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        We could hear from all the panelists, Senator, and then
    come back for a round of questions.
        Ms. Jones.

                           STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA JONES

        Ms. Jones. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine.
    My name is Cynthia Jones, and I am the Director of the D.C.
    Public Defender Service. I appreciate the opportunity to come
    before you today in support of the agency's fiscal year 2002
    budget request.
        As a result of the revitalization act, PDS was established
    as a federally funded, independent District of Columbia agency.
    The revitalization act requires PDS to transmit its budget and
    receive its appropriation through the Court Services and
    Defender Supervision Agency, but PDS is not a component of
    court services. We have a separate mission.
        The Public Defender Service provides constitutionally
    mandated legal representation to indigent people who are facing
    a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia. PDS shares this
    responsibility with the local court, which is responsible for
    assigning cases to CJA panel attorneys, private lawyers who
    provide indigent legal defense representation under the
    Criminal Justice Act.
        While much of our work is devoted to ensuring no innocent
    person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide
    legal services to mentally ill people who are facing
    involuntary civil commitment, recovering substance abusers
    participating in drug court, juveniles with learning
    disabilities, and many other indigent people facing a
    deprivation of liberty.
        For fiscal year 2002, the Public Defender Services requests
    $20,829,000, and 211 positions in direct authority. Our request
    would allow us to continue to build upon the success of our
    current operations and add one new initiative, a community
    reentry program to educate juvenile and adult defenders of
    their legal rights and their responsibilities upon returning to
    the community. This initiative is aimed at reducing the number
    of offenders who face revocation and reincarceration. To
    support this initiative, we are requesting approximately $1
    million and 10 positions.
        The past year has been very successful for the Public
    Defender Service. We have increased the number of cases we
    handle by approximately 29 percent. We have provided assistance
    to the court in administering the Criminal Justice Act, held
    over 40 training sessions for CJA panel lawyers, and we have
    helped to create a mental health treatment program called
    Options.
        PDS joined forces with the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency
    and the Superior Court and the Corrections Trustee to establish
    a treatment program for mentally ill people charged with minor,
    relatively minor, and nonviolent offenses. As a result,
    mentally ill people who would have been subject to costly
    institutionalization or incarceration without treatment are now
    receiving treatment in a community-based program. We are very
    encouraged by the success of this initiative.
        Madam Chair, one initiative forwarded by the Public
    Defender Service last fiscal year was a Lorton closure
    initiative. With the support of the Court Services and Defender
    Supervision Agency and the U.S. Parole Commission, the Public
    Defender Service requested funding to establish a unit called
    the special litigation unit to represent parolees facing
    revocation. Since August 2000 we have hired 10 lawyers. We have
    handled over 700 cases, approximately 100 percent of all cases
    in which an individual is facing revocation of parole.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the agency will
    allow PDS to continue to partner with the Court Services and
    Defender Supervision Agency and create a community-based legal
    services program to address the legal needs of adults and
    juveniles who regularly face revocation and reincarceration for
    violations of their structured release program.
        Because the Public Defender Service provides legal
    representation to nearly every parolee facing revocation, PDS
    attorneys have been able to see first-hand that in many
    instances parolees who have been incarcerated for over a decade
    require additional legal assistance in order to adjust to their
    structured community release and the profound changes in the
    law that have occurred since their incarceration.
        Under this proposed community reentry program, PDS will
    provide legal assistance to parolees on their legal
    obligations, like payment of child support and compliance with
    community supervision requirements, and educate parolees on the
    critical recent changes in the law, like in the areas of
    domestic violence, victims' rights, violence against women, and
    sex offender registration.
        Similar to their adult counterparts, juveniles who have
    been released, or who are detained in detention facilities,
    require additional services, additional legal services in order
    to successfully transition back into the community. Under this
    proposal, we would provide special education advocacy to
    juveniles in the delinquency system who have learning
    disabilities, and we would provide civil legal services and
    help juveniles and their families attain critical public
    benefits necessary for a successful transition.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        PDS is uniquely situated to provide these legal services,
    and the PDS reentry proposal is the perfect companion to the
    community reentry efforts underway by the Court Services and
    Defender Supervision Agency and other criminal justice
    agencies. Consequently, I respectfully request your support of
    this important initiative.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Cynthia Jones

        Good Afternoon, Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee. My
    name is Cynthia Jones, and I am the Director of the Public Defender
    Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I appreciate this
    opportunity to come before you today in support of the agency's fiscal
    year 2002 budget request.
        As a result of the National Capitol Revitalization and Self-
    Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ``Revitalization Act''), PDS
    was established as a federally-funded, independent District of Columbia
    agency. The Revitalization Act requires PDS to transmit its budget and
    receive its appropriation through the Court Services and Offender
    Supervision Agency (CSOSA), but PDS is not a component of CSOSA. We
    have a separate mission.
        The Public Defender Service provides constitutionally-mandated
    legal representation to indigent people who are facing a loss of
    liberty in the District of Columbia. PDS shares this responsibility
    with the local court, which is responsible for appointing private
    attorneys to provide indigent defense representation under the Criminal
    Justice Act (``CJA panel attorneys'').
        While much of our work is devoted to ensuring that no innocent
    person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
    services to:
      --mentally ill people facing involuntary civil commitment;
      --recovering substance abusers participating in the structured Drug
            Court treatment program; and
      --juveniles in the delinquency system who have learning disabilities
            and require special accommodations under the Individuals with
            Disabilities in Education Act.
        For fiscal year 2002, the Public Defender Service requests
    $20,829,000 and 211 FTE in direct authority. Our fiscal year 2002
    request would allow us to continue to build upon the success of our
    current operations and add one new initiative, a Community Re-Entry
    Program, to educate juvenile and adult offenders of their legal
    responsibilities upon returning to the community. This initiative is
    aimed at reducing the number of offenders who face revocation and re-
    incarceration. To support this initiative, we request approximately $1
    million dollars and 10 FTE.
         progress on agency functions and fiscal year 2000 initiatives
        The past year has been a very successful and productive one for the
    Public Defender Service. We have been able to work with other agencies
    to improve the quality of legal services received by indigent people in
    the D.C. criminal justice system.
                 increase in number of cases handled by agency
        First, although the legal staff of 100 attorneys at PDS is still
    relatively small in comparison to the 300 CJA panel attorneys and the
    300 attorneys at the local prosecutors office, the agency was able to
    handle almost 1,000 more cases last year than in fiscal year 1999. In
    the largest legal services division of the agency--the Trial Division--
    there was a 29 percent increase in the number of cases handled in
    fiscal year 2000. All tolled, the Public Defender Service provided
    legal representation and assistance in over 10,000 legal matters in
    fiscal year 2000. More specifically, we have been able to increase the
    number of resource-intensive and time-consuming serious felony cases
    handled by the agency. Our experienced attorneys are able to draw upon
    the institutional knowledge of our staff and the resources of our
    Investigations and Offender Rehabilitation Divisions, to resolve these
    complex cases in a manner that is far more cost-efficient than if
    handled by CJA panel attorneys.
       assistance to the court in administering the criminal justice act
        The second area where PDS has expanded its services is assisting
    the court in administering the Criminal Justice Act. First, PDS now
    offers a series of training programs to CJA panel attorneys to further
    improve and enhance the quality of legal services rendered to poor
    people in the District of Columbia. In June 2000, PDS instituted the
    Summer Criminal Defender Training Series, a 20-session intensive and
    comprehensive training program that was attended by over 200 CJA panel
    attorneys. The presenters included Superior Court judges, experienced
    attorneys in private practice, as well as local and national experts on
    DNA evidence and related topics. In 2001, we have again offered the
    Summer Training Series and the reviews from CJA panel attorneys have
    been very positive.
        PDS also offered more intense training sessions on juvenile
    matters. In April of this year, we offered a 6-day training program in
    Special Education Advocacy and trained 60 attorneys to provide legal
    representation to children in the delinquency and neglect system who
    suffer from learning disabilities or special education challenges. This
    training program utilized presenters from the Department of Education,
    the DC. Public Schools, area law schools and law firms, as well as PDS
    staff attorneys. Finally, we offered a 5-day intensive juvenile
    delinquency training session that was attended by 40 CJA panel
    attorneys. The participants in this program received instruction from
    Superior Court judges, the D.C. Department of Human Services, local
    practitioners and law professor and PDS staff attorney on all aspects
    of representing children in the delinquency system. Over the course of
    the next year, we hope to work closely with the court to develop an
    intensive training program for the criminal defense investigators who
    work on cases with CJA panel attorneys.
        In addition to training, PDS has been working very closely with the
    court and the Corrections Trustee to institute major improvements in
    the issuance of payment vouchers for CJA legal services. The new
    streamlined, automated procedures should be implemented by the end of
    this fiscal year.
                 creation of a mental health treatment program
        The third major project of the Public Defender Service in fiscal
    year 2000 and in fiscal year 2001 was the creation of diversion
    programs in cases involving very minor, low-level crimes. In
    furtherance of this objective, PDS joined forces with the D.C. Pretrial
    Services Agency, the Superior Court and the Corrections Trustee to
    establish OPTIONS, a treatment program for mentally ill people charged
    with minor, non-violent offenses. The OPTIONS program has only been
    underway for a few months, but already it has had a huge impact.
    Mentally ill people who would have been subject to costly
    institutionalization or incarceration without treatment are now
    receiving critically-needed treatment in a community-based program.
                 fiscal year 2000 initiative: parole revocation
        Finally, I am pleased to report that the one new initiative for the
    agency in fiscal year 2000, the Lorton Closure Initiative, has been
    fully and successfully implemented. Under the Revitalization Act, all
    of the functions of the former D.C. Board of Parole were transferred to
    the United States Parole Commission (``Commission'') in August 2000.
    With the full support of the Commission and the Court Services and
    Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), PDS requested funding to create a
    new unit of lawyers to provide the constitutionally-mandated legal
    representation to parolees facing revocation before the Commission.
    With the increased efficiency and strict accountability measures in
    place by CSOSA, parolees who fall short of their structured supervision
    requirements are quickly identified and brought to the attention of the
    Commission. Since August 2000, PDS has represented over 700 parolees,
    nearly 100 percent of those facing revocation. We estimate that the
    D.C. Superior Court would have incurred costs in excess of $600,000 in
    order to provide this same legal representation through the Criminal
    Justice Act Program.
              fiscal year 2002 budget request: community re-entry
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the agency will allow PDS
    to continue to build on the success of its current operations and, in
    partnership with CSOSA, create a community-based legal services program
    to address the legal needs of adult defendants, parolees and
    probationers who regularly face revocation and re-incarceration for
    violations of their structured release program. This initiative will
    also allow PDS to provide the same community transition services for
    juveniles in the delinquency system. The costs associated with parole
    revocation and reincarceration are enormous. Because the Public
    Defender Service provides legal representation to nearly every parolee
    facing revocation before the commission, PDS attorneys have been able
    to see first-hand that, in many instances, parolees who have been
    incarcerated for over a decade require additional transitional legal
    assistance in order to adjust to the a structured communitybased
    supervision program and to the profound changes in the law that have
    occurred since their incarceration. Under this proposed Community Re-
    entry Program, PDS will provide legal assistance to parolees on legal
    obligations, like payment of child support and compliance with
    community supervision requirements, and educate parolees on critical
    changes in the law during their period of incarceration, like domestic
    violence, victim's rights, violence against women, sex offender
    registration, as well as other legal changes that have occurred under
    the Revitalization Act ( e.g., truth-in-sentencing changes, abolishment
    of the D.C. Board of Parole).
        Similar to their adult counterparts, juveniles who have been
    released, or who are detained in juvenile detention centers require
    additional services in order to successfully transition back into their
    communities. One very critical, long-standing problem in the D.C.
    criminal justice system is the lack of post-commitment (conviction)
    services for juveniles. CJA panel attorneys are not usually involved in
    a case after the child has been sentenced or institutionalized. PDS,
    through it's Juvenile Services Program, provide some limited legal
    assistance to these children while they are at the Oak Hill Detention
    Facility (representation at institutional disciplinary hearings, street
    law courses, etc.), but there are currently limited resources available
    to assist juveniles with the transition back into the community. Under
    this proposal, PDS would seek to provide:
      --Special Education Advocacy to get children placed back in public
            school and provide the legal assistance to juveniles who are
            entitled to special education benefits under the Individuals
            with Disabilities in Education Act;
      --Civil Legal Services to assist juveniles (and their families) to
            obtain benefits that the child is entitled to receive (child
            support, public assistance, social security, food stamps, etc);
            and
      --educate juveniles under criminal justice supervision, as well as
            at-risk youth in the community about the law and their
            responsibilities.
        PDS is uniquely situated to provide these legal services, and the
    PDS Community ReEntry proposal is the perfect companion to the
    community re-entry efforts currently underway by CSOSA and other
    criminal justice agencie. Consequently, I respectfully request your
    support of this important initiative.
        I would like to thank you and the committee members for your time
    and attention to these matters and I would be happy to answer any
    questions the committee might have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. Ormond.

                           STATEMENT OF JASPER ORMOND

        Mr. Ormond. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine. CSOSA is comprised of
    community supervision programs, the pretrial service agency,
    and we also transmit the budget of the Public Defender Service,
    as Ms. Jones indicated.
        CSOSA requests $147 million and 1,167 FTE's in direct
    budget authority this year. Of this amount, $94.1 million is
    requested for our community supervision programs, $32.4 million
    is requested for pretrial services, and $20.8 million is
    requested for D.C. Public Defender Services.
        CSOSA supervises approximately 26,000 individuals, 9,500
    pretrial defendants, 10,900 probationers, and 5,700 parolees.
    The period of supervision varies, approximately 107 days for
    pretrial defendants, 20 months for probationers, and 5 years
    for parolees.
        The typical offender under our supervision shows
    significant educational, employment, and social deficits, as
    well as multiple prior arrests, convictions, and a history of
    substance abuse. Our goal is to reduce recidivism by offenders
    by 50 percent over the next 5 years, and we think these goals
    are very, very achievable by the year fiscal year 2005.
        Our funding request is tied to five strategic objectives,
    critical success factors which define what we must do in order
    to achieve our goal of the 50-percent reduction. I would like
    to discuss briefly our major achievements in this area, and
    introduce our proposed initiatives for this year.
        The first objective is that of improved risk needs
    assessment. We have been able to implement a comprehensive risk
    screener for all probationers and parolees. We are also very
    proud of a state-of-the-art forensic toxicology drug-testing
    laboratory. We have been able to increase drug testing among
    our population by 600 percent. In fiscal year 1999 we had
    50,000 samples. In fiscal year 2001 we have had 300,000
    samples, a 600-percent increase, which is very significant. In
    this regard, our request for this year is for $486,000 to
    increase our efforts for expanded drug-testing.
        In addition, our next major objective is that of close
    supervision, which is our primary mandate, continued reduction
    in probation and parole caseload is very significant to us. We
    have been able to reduce those caseloads by 50 percent over the
    last 3 years, and currently we are looking at a 70 to 1 ratio.
    We still feel our ultimate goal would be one of a 50 to 1 ratio
    in order to do the level of supervision that we propose.
        We have also opened two new field offices in Washington,
    both on Taylor Street and South Capitol Street, which has been
    a significant collaboration with the city. We have implemented
    programs to report reentry, and roughly we are looking at about
    2,000 offenders reentering the community over the next year.
        PSA pretrial services has also established new restrictive
    community supervision programs to support the halfway house
    placements, as well as a new case management system for Federal
    defendants.
        Supervision is the area in which we indicate the majority
    of our resources. Three of our goals or initiatives are
    primarily focused under our close supervision. First, we
    request $13 million and 92 positions to establish a reentry
    sanctions center. We propose expanding our existing assessment
    orientation center, which is on the grounds of Karrick Hall at
    D.C. General Hospital. We have operated the AOC since 1997 very
    successfully. We are seeing an 84-percent completion rate among
    our participants.
        In the expansion of this facility and the new sanctions
    facility we think that we can cover at least 70 percent of
    those folks that are transitioning back into the community,
    which is very, very critical to supplement the halfway house
    issues and resources in the city.
        Our second major initiative under close supervision is $1
    million for expanded space and equipment. Our need to move our
    staff into the community is very, very important. Our
    collaboration with the Metropolitan Police Department and the
    community has shown significant successes, so this $1 million
    will support an expanded field unit within the community.
        We are also occupying current sites that are owned by
    either the court or the D.C. Government, and because of the
    initiatives of the court, we need to really look at expanding
    those spaces.
        Our third major initiative is that of reducing the caseload
    at pretrial services. Now, pretrial services roughly has a
    ratio of 204 to 1, which is not acceptable. We are hoping to
    support a reduction in those caseloads for 84 to 1. $1 million
    would reduce those ratios to 84 to 1 from 204 to 1.
        Our next major initiative is that of treatment and support
    services, which is the core of what we do. Seventy percent of
    the people that we are serving are drug-involved. They have a
    significant history of drug use, and we have found that if
    there is one precipitator, drug use is that precipitator.
        We have been very successful in serving these folks this
    year. Roughly we have resources to serve about 35 percent of
    the population. The request this year of $5.3 million would
    allow us to expand our contract treatment services to serve
    roughly about 70 percent of the population that is in need of
    service, and roughly we have about 7,200 people in need of
    those services.
        Our fourth major initiative is that of partnerships. Again,
    we have developed 30 community-justice partnerships with the
    Metropolitan Police Department. We have trained over 3,000
    Metropolitan Police officers in our form of supervision. It has
    been a very successful outcome for us.
        Our last initiative is that of timely and accurate
    information. The Pretrial Service Agency basically processes
    about 16,000 bail reports throughout the course of the year,
    and we have registered about 499 people in our sex offender
    registration. These data bases are very, very important. In
    order for us to expand these data bases we are requesting
    roughly $4 million to expand our case management offerings.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We really feel that we have significantly impacted close
    supervision in the city. The rearrest rate has fallen by 70
    percent since 1998 of parolees, and in our partnership with the
    police department we have seen a 35-percent decrease in violent
    crimes in those neighborhoods that we have had a full-blown
    partnership.
        Again, we look forward to the support of the committee, and
    thank you very much for your time.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Jasper Ormond

        Madam Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal
    year 2002 budget request for the Court Services and Offender
    Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA).
        CSOSA was established under the National Capital Revitalization and
    Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act) and
    was certified as an independent Executive Branch Agency on August 4,
    2000. The Agency is comprised of the Community Supervision Program
    (CSP), which supervises offenders on probation and parole, and the
    Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), which supervises defendants released
    pending trial. The Public Defender Service transmits its budget with
    CSOSA's, and it receives a transfer from CSOSA's appropriation.
        For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests $147.3 million, and 1,167 FTE
    in direct budget authority to build on our accomplishments to date and
    to continue implementation of our strategic plans. Of this amount,
    $94,112,000 is requested for CSP; $32,359,000 is requested for PSA; and
    $20,829,000 is requested for the D.C. Public Defender Service.
        According to a recent survey, CSOSA monitors or supervises 9,641
    pretrial defendants, 10,988 probationers, and 5,663 parolees. The
    period of supervision varies according to the individual's status.
    Pretrial defendants are typically supervised for approximately 170
    days; probationers, approximately 20 months, and parolees, an average
    of 5 years. Split, sentence probationers typically serve approximately
    two years in prison and three years under probation supervision.
        As in the rest of the Nation, offenders under community supervision
    in the District of Columbia are poorly equipped to establish stable,
    law-abiding lives. The typical offender under CSOSA supervision has
    four prior convictions and nine prior arrests. Two-thirds are
    unemployed. Almost half have no high school diploma or GED. The average
    literacy level is seventh grade. Nearly three-quarters have a history
    of substance abuse, and almost half have 1 current substance abuse
    problems. Forty percent show some evidence of a personality disorder.
    Twenty percent have experienced a major loss of someone close to them
    in the last six months.
        Due to these circumstances, CSOSA is working to maximize
    opportunities for defendants and offenders to succeed and minimize the
    risk of reoffense. Unless current trends are reversed, most released
    offenders will soon return to prison. Nationally, almost two-thirds of
    all parolees are rearrested within three years. In 1998, probation or
    parole violators constituted 36 percent of admissions to state prisons.
        Our mission is to increase public safety, prevent crime, reduce
    recidivism, and support the fair administration of justice in close
    collaboration with the community. Our tools are proven best practices
    grounded in performance-based goals and measurable indicators of
    success. Our goal is to reduce recidivism by offenders under our
    supervision for drug-related and violent crime by 50 percent, as well
    as to reduce rearrest and failure to appear among supervised pretrial
    defendants. This will require maximum performance from both Community
    Supervision and Pretrial Services, but we believe it is achievable by
    fiscal year 2005.
        In the three years since CSOSA was established, we have put in
    place a performance management structure that supports our strategic
    objectives. We have achieved significant progress in changing the way
    defendants and offenders are supervised in the District.
        The Agency's policies and operations are grounded in a cohesive set
    of strategies that define what must be achieved in order for the
    overall goal--the reduction of recidivism--to be met. These strategies
    are the five Critical Success Factors (CSFs):
      --Establish and implement an effective classification system,
            including Risk and Needs Assessment, case management, drug
            testing, and ongoing evaluation of our progress. Effective
            community supervision is grounded in sound decision-making
            about who should be released, what level of supervision is
            appropriate, and how much progress the individual under
            supervision has made. Approximately 11 percent of the fiscal
            year 2002 budget request is dedicated to activities in this
            area.
      --Provide Close Supervision of high-risk defendants and offenders,
            with intermediate graduated sanctions for violations of release
            conditions. Approximately 53 percent of the fiscal year 2002
            budget request is dedicated to activities in this area.
      --Provide appropriate Treatment and Support Services, determined by
            the needs assessment, to assist defendants in complying with
            release conditions and offenders in reintegrating into the
            community. Approximately 16 percent of the fiscal year 2002
            budget request is dedicated to activities in this area.
      --Establish Partnerships with other criminal justice agencies and
            community organizations. Approximately 2 percent of the fiscal
            year 2002 budget request is dedicated to activities in this
            area.
      --Provide Timely and Accurate Information and meaningful
            recommendations to criminal justice decision-makers consistent
            with the defendant's or offender's risk and needs profile.
            Approximately 18 percent of the fiscal year 2002 budget request
            is dedicated to activities in this area.
        Our efforts to this point have focused mainly on establishing the
    processes and programs through which we will achieve these results. Our
    fiscal year 2002 budget submission contains our first formal
    performance plan. By the end of fiscal year 2002, we believe that we
    will begin to see the benefits from reducing caseloads, increasing drug
    testing and sanctions, expanding treatment services and establishing
    additional partnerships with law enforcement and community service
    organizations. We are confident that our program strategy will result
    in such positive outcomes as reduced rearrests, lower drug use and
    expanded employment among the population we supervise.
                          progress and new initiatives
        CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 budget request builds on our progress
    under each Critical Success Factor. I would like to discuss briefly our
    achievements in each area and introduce our proposed initiatives for
    next year.
        Under CSF 1, Improved Risk and Needs Assessment, we achieved three
    important milestones:
      --CSP is currently standardizing the process of screening all
            probation and parole cases to ensure the maximum consistency in
            evaluation the risks and needs of offenders across the
            supervised population. The University of Maryland is working
            with us in this capacity.
      --A new state-of-the-art Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory
            was completed and opened in February 2000. The Drug Lab
            processed over 193,000 samples in fiscal year 2000 and expects
            to process over 300,000 in fiscal year 2001.
      --CSOSA continues to increase the number and frequency of drug tests
            of defendants and offenders. The number of offenders tested
            increased by 41 percent, and the number of samples collected
            increased by 89 percent over fiscal year 1999 levels.
        For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests an additional $486,000 over
    fiscal year 2001 level to increase offender drug testing .
        CSOSA maintains a zero tolerance policy for substance abuse by
    offenders under our supervision. Drug testing is conducted on all
    offenders placed on supervision by the Courts and the U.S. Parole
    Commission to identify those who are using illegal substances and to
    allow for appropriate sanctions and/or treatment interventions. Studies
    show that among offenders, high rates of drug use are associated with
    high rates of criminal activity. Conversely, during periods of relative
    abstinence, criminal activity tends to decline. Drug testing is
    necessary to detect illegal substance use, effect swift sanctioning
    where appropriate, make treatment referrals to ensure the successful
    rehabilitation of offenders, and reduce the risk to the community of
    further criminal conduct.
        Under CSF 2, Close Supervision, we achieved five important
    milestones:
      --PSA created the Restrictive Community Supervision Program to
            supervise defendants placed by the court in halfway houses.
      --PSA's District Court Unit implemented a new case management system
            and close supervision for Federal defendants.
      --CSP's current General Supervision caseload is 70 offenders per
            supervision officer. This represents substantial progress since
            the Agency's establishment--cutting the active caseload roughly
            in half.
      --CSP opened two new field offices (Taylor Street and South Capitol
            Street) to increase supervision officer presence in the
            community, bringing our total number of field sites to five. We
            expect to finalize a location for a sixth field site very
            shortly.
      --CSP implemented Transitional Interventions for Parole Supervision
            (TIPS), a structured program for offender reentry and a pilot
            reentry program in Police Service Area 605.
        Three proposed fiscal year 2002 budget initiatives are related to
    this Critical Success Factor:
        First, CSOSA requests $13,234,000 and 92 positions to establish a
    Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        The cornerstone of our reentry strategy is a dedicated facility for
    assessment and residential sanctions. Such a facility greatly increases
    the range of programming and sanctioning options available to judges,
    supervision officers, and treatment staff. We propose expanding the
    existing Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) program at Karrick
    Hall into a full-fledged Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        CSOSA has operated the AOC program since 1997. It is currently
    funded by CSOSA with grant assistance from the Washington-Baltimore
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. The AOC program
    provides intensive assessment and treatment planning for a limited
    number of defendants and offenders with serious criminal histories and
    long-standing substance abuse problems. More than 84 percent of
    participants have completed the program successfully.
        The additional resources requested to renovate the facility will
    enable us to expand the scope of the AOC's operations to include a
    continuum of reentry assessment, treatment, and sanctions programming
    for defendants and offenders under supervision. We also request
    authorization for positions to operate the facility and funding for
    start-up staffing.
        Once the Reentry and Sanctions Center is operational, our three-
    phased reentry strategy for parolees can be implemented fully. The
    assessment phase will be followed by intensive supervision and relapse/
    recidivism prevention phases, during which the parolee may be placed in
    contract residential treatment for up to 90 days and transitional
    housing for an additional 90 days. As the parolee completes treatment
    and demonstrates progressively responsible behavior, he or she
    progresses to less frequent supervision contacts and drug tests. If the
    parolee violates release conditions, appropriate sanctions (including
    residential placement) will be imposed immediately.
        We estimate that at least 70 percent of returning offenders, or
    approximately 1,250 persons per year, need this assessment and
    transitional programming, but we do not presently have the capacity to
    provide it. That is why we are seeking to expand the AOC and reduce our
    reliance on grant funding for its operation.
        CSOSA also requests $1,000,000 to acquire space and equipment for a
    new supervision field unit. The field unit will relocate CSP staff from
    downtown buildings that are owned or controlled by the D.C. Courts and
    the District Government, as well as relieving overcrowded conditions at
    existing field units.
        These resources will enable CSOSA to acquire space and equipment
    for an additional community supervision field office. Moving CSOSA's
    supervision officers to the neighborhoods where most offenders live is
    an important part of our strategy. In that way, the officers become an
    active public safety presence in District of Columbia neighborhoods.
    They are close to the offenders they supervise. Seeing the supervision
    officer on neighborhood streets reinforces the message of offender
    accountability. This structure also facilitates interaction with the
    police. We have structured our field operations to provide officers
    with the time and support they need to visit offenders at home and at
    work, as well as to interact with the police and the community. Our
    caseloads are assigned according to the Police Service Areas in the
    District, further strengthening the link between community supervision
    and community policing.
        CSOSA requests $1,000,000 to reduce caseloads for higher risk
    felony defendants.
        Caseloads within PSA's General Supervision Branch are approximately
    204 defendants to 1 Pretrial Services Officer (PSO). The funding
    requested for additional PSA positions will lower the caseload ratio
    for higher-risk defendants to approximately 84 to 1. With these
    additional PSOs, the full range of supervision services will be
    provided for higher-risk defendants, including: needs assessments for
    treatment and service referral, electronic monitoring, intermediate
    sanctions for selected violations, and improved coordination with CSP
    on dual supervision and presentence investigations.
        Under CSF 3, Treatment and Support Services, we achieved five
    milestones:
      --We have implemented a continuum of treatment services, including
            detoxification, inpatient, and outpatient treatment from more
            than 10 contract providers and in-house staff.
      --PSA created the New Directions Intensive Drug Treatment and
            Supervision Program to closely supervise and treat drug using
            defendants.
      --CSOSA placed 527 defendants and 1,165 offenders in contract
            treatment programs.
      --The CSP Learning Lab at St. Luke Center was dedicated in November
            2000. The Learning Lab provides educational and job placement
            services to defendants and offenders. The program was developed
            through a grant from the Department of Justice's Weed and Seed
            program.
        For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests $5,297,000 to expand
    contractual treatment to meet court-ordered and assessed treatment
    needs of supervised offenders and defendants.
        Sanction-based treatment has proven an effective tool in changing
    the behavior of offenders. The synergistic impact of treatment and
    graduated sanctions together produces better public safety-related
    outcomes than would either approach individually. Gains over and above
    those associated with treatment alone are achieved with the addition of
    swift and certain sanctions that hold defendants and offenders
    accountable for continued drug use or other non-compliant behavior.
    Research performed by the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Area project found that involvement in a drug treatment
    program with regular drug testing and immediate sanctions for
    violations resulted in a 70 percent reduction in recidivism 12 months
    following completion of the program.
         CSOSA currently estimates that each year at least 7,200
    individuals under supervision--3,700 defendants and 3,500 offenders--
    require placement in an intensive treatment program, such as inpatient
    or outpatient contract treatment. In fiscal year 2000, CSOSA placed
    1,165 offenders and 527 defendants in contract treatment. We will
    increase these placements in fiscal year 2001.
        Under CSF 4, Partnerships, we have achieved four milestones:
      --CSP launched Community Justice Partnerships with the Metropolitan
            Police Department in 30 Police Service Areas (PSAs).
      --CSP executed 27 agreements with community agencies, providing
            opportunities for offender community service.
      --CSP established a cross jurisdictional approach to supervision with
            the Metropolitan Police Department, the Prince George's County,
            Maryland, Police Department and the Maryland Division of
            Probation and Parole.
      --PSA restructured the General Supervision Branch to work more
            closely with the Superior Court.
        Under CSF 5, Timely and Accurate Information, we have three
    important achievements to report:
      --PSA staff completed over 16,000 Bail Reports in fiscal year 2000.
      --CSP staff completed over 4,800 Pre-Sentence Investigation reports
            in fiscal year 2000.
      --CSP established a secure database for sex offender registration
            information and has registered 499 offenders to date.
        For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA $4,069,000 for continued work on
    improved case management systems and to complete the Agency's
    Information Technology (IT) infrastructure upgrades.
        The ability to track and analyze performance and results is
    critical for CSOSA to efficiently manage its resources. This year's
    request will ensure the Agency's case management systems are properly
    designed to complement and support the Justice Information System
    (JUSTIS) being developed under the auspices of the Criminal Justice
    Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia.
        The additional resources requested for information system
    development will be used to address significant deficiencies in the
    current system which include: lack of a single data repository, poor
    data integrity, lack of timely information retrieval capacity, lack of
    IT support for the integration of PSA and CSP supervision practices,
    and inability to track data supporting PSA's transition to a
    performance-based organization.
                                   conclusion
        In the short time that CSOSA has managed the functions of
    supervised release, probation and parole in the District of Columbia,
    we have seen real progress in terms of both processes and outcomes. We
    have reduced caseloads to levels that are improving supervision and
    contributing to enhanced public safety. More offenders are tested for
    drug use, and we have put in place a system of sanctions and treatment
    for those who test positive.
        Are our strategies working? We are only beginning to measure
    results, but outcomes look promising so far. We have seen the number of
    parolee rearrests fall by nearly 70 percent since May 1998. In a two-
    year period, we have seen reported Part I violent crimes reduced by as
    much as 35 percent in the neighborhoods where community supervision and
    police officers collaborate. We have seen the rate of positive drug
    tests begin to fall among supervised offenders. We look forward to
    seeing these positive trends continue and accelerate as our programs
    mature.
        We appreciate the support the Subcommittee has shown us in past
    years, and we hope that support will continue. Thank you for the
    opportunity to share our progress with you. I will be happy to answer
    any questions you may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, and I really appreciate your
    comments regarding the outcomes of some of our initiatives, and
    the performance and outcomes are important to keep focused on.
    I thank you for that.
        Mr. Clark.

                           STATEMENT OF JOHN L. CLARK

        Mr. Clark. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine.
    It is a pleasure to appear before you today to report on the
    progress that has occurred in carrying out the mandates of the
    1997 Revitalization Act as it relates to the corrections
    components of the D.C. Government.
        I need also to report on some of the challenges that are
    still remaining. We are a little different than the others, who
    all have initiatives. We are kind of phasing down here.
        Our office, the Corrections Trustee's Office, was
    established by the Revitalization Act for several purposes:
        First, to provide a funding vehicle and consequent
    financial oversight for implementation of the Federal
    Government's responsibilities to the District of Columbia
    Department of Corrections under the act during the period when
    the D.C. felony population is being transferred to the Federal
    prison system.
        Second, to facilitate implementation of aspects of the act
    related to the closure of the Lorton Corrections Complex and
    the transfer of 8,000 felons to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
        And finally, to provide assistance to the DOC in upgrading
    its operations.
        More recently, the unique role and perspective of our
    office has led to a somewhat broader mandate in terms of
    facilitating interagency communications in the District. This
    role evolved from requests from the Office of the Attorney
    General to investigate and help remedy several problems in the
    District, particularly those involving coordination between
    District, local district and Federal criminal justice agencies,
    and the reengineering of certain interagency processes that
    were altered by the act.
        Madam Chair, I am proud of the way that our office has
    fulfilled these mandates. In particular, just to mention a
    couple of things, for this 4-year fiscal year period between
    1998 and 2001 the Corrections Trustee will have provided the
    Department of Corrections with approximately $640 million in
    operating funds, in addition to having financed necessary
    short-term repairs at the Lorton facilities and certain new
    major initiatives, such as improvement of technology and
    information systems in the Department of Corrections.
        We have also worked closely with the Department of
    Corrections to provide technical assistance, with the goal of
    creating a streamlined, efficient Department of Corrections,
    well-prepared for its new role as a more typical urban jail
    system, responsible primarily for pretrial and misdemeanor
    populations.
        The Corrections Trustee has also prepared several
    investigative reports or reviews at the request of the
    Department of Justice, particularly on the problems at the
    private prison in Youngstown, Ohio, and I did have a chance to
    brief Senator DeWine on that report some months ago.
        Another investigative review for the Justice Department
    focused on problems associated with the District's interagency
    processing of offenders. These reports made a number of
    recommendations which I am proud to say have led to significant
    improvements in both situations.
        And more recently, the trustee has been asked to play a
    role in funding and shepherding several pilot projects, one of
    which Cynthia Jones mentioned, the Options mental health
    treatment program, projects for the larger D.C. justice system
    to improve the case flow processing from the time of arrest
    through movement into custody.
        Let me briefly address, Madam Chair, the progress on
    implementation of the revitalization act, and I must say it
    would be hard to overestimate the magnitude and complexity of
    some of the issues that have been thrust upon not only the
    Department of Corrections, but the other agencies who are
    represented here today, and a number of complex logistical
    issues have come up in the implementation.
        Frankly, these challenges are made even more complex in the
    District, and more cumbersome to an extent, because of the
    unique relationships and responsibilities between the District
    government and the Federal Government in terms of the criminal
    justice operations.
        On the other hand, on the positive side, while there is a
    long way to go to finish the job, I am firmly convinced, after
    4 years in this job, that in the end the operations of the
    local criminal justice system in the District and the public
    safety of the District of Columbia will have been significantly
    enhanced through this process.
        I want to assure the committee that the transition will be
    completed on time, by the end of this year, and hopefully by
    mid-November Lorton will be vacated of inmates, and all the
    prisoners will have been transferred to the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons. As you mentioned already, about 4,600 have been
    transferred.
        Skipping forward just to mention a couple of things,
    looking at the yellow light, I would also point out that
    although by the end of the year all the prisoners will have
    been transferred, the actual transfer of the final portions of
    the Lorton property to GSA will not occur immediately on
    December 31. After the inmates have left, there will be a
    period of decommissioning the property, disposing of extensive
    records and equipment.
        Madam Chair, you have mentioned one area that I would
    emphasize, and that is the particular difficulty impacting upon
    the staff at Lorton and with the Department of Corrections. The
    size of the DOC staffing is being reduced by three-quarters,
    from 3,300 employees to under 800, and again, without going
    into detail at this point, we can all imagine the anxiety and
    disruption that this has caused, although generally the staff
    have adjusted well after the initial shock, and I would say
    that we have developed an interagency task force to provide
    services to the employees. We have set up a career transition
    center at Lorton, and we have implemented the priority
    consideration program which was mandated in the law.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In order to meet all these challenges, finally I will
    mention, that face our office and the Department of Corrections
    in fiscal year 2002, the Corrections Trustee requests a total
    of $32.7 million. This represents a reduction of $101 million
    below our current year level in view of the transfer of most of
    the prisoners to the Federal prisons this year.
        With that, I will conclude and be happy to take any
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of John L. Clark

        Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member DeWine. I am
    pleased to appear before you today to report the progress that has
    occurred in carrying out the mandates of the National Capital
    Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Act)
    relating to the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia. I
    wish to thank you for the opportunity to share with you the progress we
    have made and challenges still facing our office.
                                   background
        The Corrections Trustee was established by the National Capital
    Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997:
      --to provide a funding vehicle and consequent financial oversight for
            the Federal government's responsibilities under the Act to the
            District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) during the
            period when the D.C. adult felony population is being
            transferred to the Federal Prison System;
      --to facilitate implementation of aspects of the Act related to the
            closure of the Lorton Correctional Complex and the transition
            of felons out of DOC; and
      --to provide assistance to DOC in upgrading its operations. However,
            the Trustee has no operational authority within DOC, since that
            authority remains with DOC's Director.
        Broadened Mandate.--Although the mission of the Office of the
    Corrections Trustee was originally conceived to be a financial and
    operational partner of DOC during the transition period, the unique
    role and perspective of the Office of the Corrections Trustee led to a
    wider role in terms of facilitating interagency communications. This
    role evolved from requests from the office of the Attorney General to
    investigate and help remedy several problems, particularly those
    involving coordination between District and Federal criminal justice
    agencies, and to foster an interagency re-engineering of the detention-
    related processes altered by the Act.
        Financial Support of the District.--For the fiscal years 1998
    through 2001, the Corrections Trustee will have provided DOC with
    approximately $640 million in operating funds, in addition to having
    financed necessary repairs at the Lorton facilities and certain major
    new initiatives such as a new $2.8 million jail management information
    system. The Corrections Trustee allocates funds provided through the
    Federal appropriations process to finance the operations associated
    with the Federal government's responsibilities for District of Columbia
    adult ``sentenced felons,'' as set forth in the May 1997 Memorandum of
    Understanding signed during the development of the Revitalization Act.
    The Federal funding responsibility is limited to the Department of
    Corrections operations related to those felons serving sentences and
    whose legal charges have been fully adjudicated (``State ready''). This
    definition excludes those felons awaiting trial on other charges,
    parole revocation procedures, or other court appearances, which are
    considered to be a local responsibility.
        The Corrections Trustee works closely with the D.C. Department of
    Corrections on its financial operations as well as on critical
    operational issues facing the Department. The Corrections Trustee's
    goal is to assist in the strategic planning process to create a
    streamlined, efficient Department of Corrections prepared for its new
    role as a local correctional authority in the District of Columbia. In
    its new role as a more typical urban jail system, the Department will
    be responsible for its pretrial and misdemeanant inmate population, as
    well as those prisoners held for court-related procedures. The
    Corrections Trustee also works with the Department to ensure the safety
    of all inmates, staff, and the community, including the safety of
    inmates, staff and the community at Lorton, Virginia, where the
    facilities are scheduled to be closed at the end of the transition
    period.
            implementation of the act and the lorton closure process
        It would be hard for me to overstate the magnitude and complexity
    of the implementation tasks thrust upon the various agencies by the
    Revitalization Act, particularly on the D.C. Department of Corrections,
    the Courts, and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. The
    scope of the operational and logistical changes required to be made
    during a relatively brief period is unprecedented in my knowledge.
    Frankly, the challenges are made more complex and cumbersome in the
    District by the unique nature of the responsibilities and relationships
    among local and Federal criminal justice agencies here. Those
    relationships have been significantly altered in the new regime, often
    with consequences which undoubtedly were unforeseen by those involved
    in the formulation of the Act. However, although there is a long way to
    go to finish the job, I am firmly convinced that in the end the
    operations of the local criminal justice system and the public safety
    of the District of Columbia will have been significantly strengthened
    and improved in the process, but not without great effort by many.
        The mandates of the Act to close the Lorton Complex and transfer
    all sentenced D.C. felons to BOP operated or contract prisons by the
    end of this year will be met, due in large part to the hard work and
    cooperative planning of all the involved agencies. The transfer of
    District of Columbia adult felony inmates has been progressing in
    accordance with schedules developed jointly by the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons with the Office of the Corrections Trustee and the Department
    of Corrections. These schedules have been shared with the Subcommittee
    as part of the Trustee's mandated Lorton closure reports submitted in
    1999 and 2000.
        Of the current D.C. inmate population of 10,200 inmates, almost
    8,000 are adult felony inmates, of which about 4,500 have already been
    transferred to the permanent custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
    Since the establishment of the Office of the Corrections Trustee, four
    of the five facilities have closed at Lorton, Virginia: the Occoquan
    Facility in early May 1999, the Minimum Security Facility at the end of
    July 1999, the Youth Facility at the end of January 2000, and the
    Maximum Security Facility at the end of January 2001, two months ahead
    of schedule. This was accomplished in part by the transfer of inmates
    to BOP.
        However, due to the lack of available bedspace in Federal
    facilities during most of the transition period, BOP was unable to
    accept most of the DOC inmate population, especially medium and high
    security inmates which constitute the largest portion of the DOC
    population or about 70 percent. In order to continue the Lorton closure
    process in an orderly fashion, the D.C. Department of Corrections, with
    funding and cooperation from the Trustee's Office, entered into a
    contract with the Commonwealth of Virginia and modified a previous
    contract with the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) to house
    medium and high security inmates. About 1,350 medium- and high-security
    inmates were placed in Virginia prison facilities, and about 1,500
    inmates were placed in facilities operated by CCA. Only the Central
    Facility currently remains open at the Lorton Correctional Complex,
    housing approximately 1,300 inmates.
        Staying on schedule has been made less arduous in part due to the
    relatively stable size of the District of Columbia inmate population,
    which was about 9,700 in 1997. However, during fiscal year 1999, a very
    large, unanticipated increase of more than 10 percent in the sentenced
    felon population occurred at the same time the DOC was closing the
    Occoquan and the Minimum Security Facilities. The rise in inmate
    population was not due to an increase of new commitments, but rather
    was, in large part, a result of more intensive parole revocation
    procedures, more stringent release procedures that occurred as a result
    of the Revitalization Act, and a court decision on the handling of
    parolees. This increase in the population necessitated the reopening of
    a Modular Unit within the Central Facility in April 1999 to accommodate
    the growth in the number of inmates while closing the Occoquan
    Facility. In fiscal year 2001, the current population has decreased
    slightly and is relatively stable at the present level of 10,200
    inmates, of which close to an estimated 8,000 inmates are a Federal
    responsibility.
        The transfer of inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons raised the
    concern that the inmates would be relocated far away from the District
    of Columbia and their families. This concern was reflected in the
    Memorandum of Understanding signed during the development of the
    Revitalization Act which provided that inmates would ``ordinarily
    initially be assigned to institutions located within a 500 mile radius
    of their release residence.'' This is not always feasible due to the
    special requirements in handling certain inmates, such as the
    availability of adequate bedspace at the appropriate security level.
    However, of the current 4,500 D.C. inmates in the Federal Prison
    System, nearly 80 percent are housed in facilities within 500 miles of
    the District.
        Transfer of the Lorton Property.--Although all the adult felony
    inmates will have been transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons--
    including those in facilities contracted for by the Department of
    Corrections--the actual transfer of property at the Lorton Correctional
    Complex to the General Services Administration will not occur
    immediately on December 31, 2001. After the inmates have left, the
    equipment and property inventory and hundreds of thousands of records
    must be relocated or otherwise disposed of, as well as the transfer of
    certain Lorton-based functions such as the transfer and incorporation
    of warehouse functions, armory, laundry, and staff training to another
    suitable location. In addition, certain clean-up activities, including
    the decommissioning of the sewage treatment plant, must take place
    prior to the land's conveyance. The license plates, furniture, print
    shop, and the Metrobus seat repair prison industry programs at Lorton
    will be discontinued with most of these functions transferred to
    Federal prison facilities.
                       perspectives on current operations
        Difficult Challenges of Downsizing DOC Staff.--The Department of
    Corrections is being confronted with some unique issues and problems as
    its mission is altered and the size of the Department is reduced by
    about three quarters both in funding and in staffing from 3,300
    employees in 1997 to about 800 by the end of the transition later next
    year. The closure of four prisons and the gradual reduction of the
    Department's size over the past four years have been accompanied by a
    steady or even an accelerated rate of natural attrition. In recent
    months, that rate of attrition has slowed significantly. Overall, the
    impact over the past several years of the attrition phenomenon has been
    to minimize the need for conducting large Reductions-in-Force (RIF)
    efforts, though several of modest proportions were necessarily
    implemented by DOC. In certain cases as particular facilities were
    closed, vacancies in uniformed positions at DOC-operated correctional
    facilities were backfilled with staff transferred from closed
    facilities, thus reducing the need to separate some employees and
    reducing the need for a portion of the overtime.
        In contrast, the next six months present a more difficult situation
    since the number of staff who will be required to depart from DOC
    employment will be significant and, in order to live within constrained
    budget levels of the post-Revitalization Act period, RIFs will need to
    be planned well in advance of December 31, 2001, and be implemented
    during the final stages of downsizing and closure of the Lorton
    Correctional Complex. This issue has been complicated by the slow pace
    in carrying out certain previous RIF actions, such as with the recent
    delay in the processing of RIF actions after the closure of the Maximum
    Security Facility which closed at the end of January 2001. Separation
    notices associated with that closure were only recently issued, with
    most to take effect later this month, six months after the closure of
    the Maximum facility.
        The final downsizing needs to occur in a gradual, phased-in fashion
    and requires accelerated planning, including steps to process an
    additional RIF of significant size before September 30 of this year.
    These formal RIF actions are complex endeavors requiring coordination
    among the Department of Corrections, other District entities, and
    District officials. Because of this complexity, there is the strong
    potential for delay in this procedure due to the length of the approval
    process and the number of involved parties both within and beyond the
    Department of Corrections. I have recently reiterated to the Department
    of Corrections my concerns that the pace of separations needs to be
    accelerated to keep pace with the dramatic decline in the inmate
    population under supervision in DOC-operated facilities and the
    associated closing of correctional facilities and various housing units
    within the one remaining Lorton prison. Likewise, there is a
    significant concern that the available financial resources will soon be
    outstripped by the requirements to compensate a pool of employees who
    remain on duty, in spite of the drastic reduction in the requirements
    for on-board staffing corresponding to the diminished inmate
    population. It is incumbent upon the Department of Corrections to take
    the lead to ensure that this process is handled in an orderly and
    timely fashion.
        Employment Assistance for Departing Employees.--The priority
    consideration program and the Career Transition Center at Lorton were
    established by the Corrections Trustee and DOC to assist staff
    scheduled to be separated from the Department of Corrections to
    mitigate the difficulties of these separations. This program continues
    to provide an array of employment-related counseling and other services
    and is coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the D.C. Office
    of Personnel, D.C. Department of Employment Services, and the U.S.
    Office of Personnel Management.
        One major benefit available to separated employees is preferential
    consideration for employment with BOP and other Federal and District
    agencies. Although only 20 applicants have been hired by the Bureau of
    Prisons to date both within and outside of the priority consideration
    program, it is expected that applications will increase as we approach
    the final closure of the Lorton Correctional Complex. As always, DOC
    staff are continually encouraged to avail themselves of the Federal
    employment opportunities through the priority consideration program.
        Improvements in Operations at the Department of Corrections.--One
    of the successes initiated by the Corrections Trustee in concert with
    the DOC administration has been in the implementation of a system of
    internal audits and controls within DOC. This system fosters the
    development of policies by which program accountability can be
    assessed. DOC Director Washington has supported this initiative by
    establishing a permanent unit to oversee the development and
    implementation of the new system. The Office of the Corrections Trustee
    instructed Department of Corrections staff on how to develop audit
    standards in 12 areas that will measure policy compliance in core
    correctional practices as well as focus on adherence to national policy
    standards, such as standards of the American Correctional Association,
    the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National
    Commission on Healthcare.
        Likewise, the Trustee's Office has worked with the management of
    the DOC to attempt to remedy a long-standing problem with the lack of
    adequate information systems, a problem which has plagued the
    efficiency of staff operations and the ability of other agencies on a
    daily basis to access necessary accurate information on particular
    offenders. Installation of a state-of-the-art $2.8 million jail
    information system funded by this Office is currently being completed.
    This system should be of great benefit to DOC and its sister agencies.
    Several other technological enhancements have been provided to DOC
    through the assistance of the Trustee's Office.
        Improvements in services and supervision for offenders returning to
    the community after a period of incarceration.--Prior to the
    Revitalization Act and the establishment of the Office of the
    Corrections Trustee, few inmates returning to the community had the
    benefit of a transitional period in a halfway house prior to release.
    We strongly advocated that the prisoner re-entry and halfway house
    program be reinvigorated, and currently nearly all parolees have been
    placed in halfway houses before returning to the community. This
    improvement has resulted in reducing the rate of re-arrest by more than
    50 percent among parolees.
    initiatives to improve the criminal justice process within the district
                                  of columbia
        Investigative Reviews of the Youngstown Prison and of the
    District's Interagency Processing of Offenders.--The Corrections
    Trustee has prepared several reports at the request of the Department
    of Justice. The first was a review completed in November 1998 examining
    the very serious, well-publicized problems at a private facility at
    Youngstown, Ohio, operated under a contract with DOC which predated the
    transition mandated by the Revitalization Act. This review led to a
    detailed report with 19 major findings of issues to be addressed along
    with 24 recommendations to ameliorate the problems, directed at both
    DOC and the operations at the private facility. The major issues have
    subsequently been addressed by both entities, leading to significant
    improvements, including the removal of all high-security or disruptive
    prisoners. The Youngstown facility has operated in a much improved
    fashion over the past two and a half years, with no major incidents or
    disruptions.
        The second report requested by the former Deputy Attorney General
    resulted in a 280-page review of a number of other interagency and
    inter-jurisdictional issues and problems unique to D.C.'s current
    transition, including problems associated with the processing of newly
    sentenced inmates and those who are sentenced under both local and
    Federal statutes. The request was in response to an order from the U.S.
    District Court requesting that the Department of Justice investigate
    and remedy the policies and procedures related to these areas. The
    Court's order reflected serious public concerns, including those raised
    in the Congress, regarding the mishandling of the highly publicized
    case of murderer Leo Gonzales Wright, and specifically with the
    commitment processes for Federal and D.C. code cases. This report
    included 24 major recommendations. It was released in October 1999 and
    has been favorably received by both the U.S. District Court and the
    Superior Court, as well as DOC and Department of Justice and its
    component agencies.
        Critical Importance of Interagency Coordination of Case Processing
    to the Courts, Corrections and Department of Justice.--As a result of
    the Leo Gonzales Wright report and the recommendations on interagency
    case processing issues, the former Deputy Attorney General requested
    that the Corrections Trustee coordinate implementation of the report's
    recommendations with all affected agencies of the Federal and District
    governments. Beginning in January 2000, the Office of the Corrections
    Trustee organized an ongoing interagency committee of Federal and
    District criminal justice agencies to improve the coordination and
    logistical planning in various detention related processes. This
    Interagency Detention Work Group meets on a monthly basis and includes
    ranking representatives from 15 Federal and local agencies, including
    Judges from both the District and Superior Courts. Six separate
    committees are working very effectively in resolving a number of
    interagency issues and problems and in improving the coordination of
    interagency processes.
        The progress made and the collaborative approach of the agencies
    involved in this work group were acknowledged in a report released to
    the Congress in March 2001 by the General Accounting Office, a report
    which in many ways was otherwise critical of the lack of adequate
    coordination efforts in the District's criminal justice system.
        Coordination of Re-entry and Halfway House Issues.--In response to
    requests from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and the former Deputy
    Attorney General in September 2000, the Trustee's Office coordinated a
    joint effort of several agencies participating in the Interagency
    Detention Work Group to develop and implement a short-term action plan
    to address several immediate problems in the processing of offenders
    being released or those assigned to halfway houses. The collaboration
    resulted in much needed progress in the effective elimination of the
    backlogs of two major categories of inmate cases, those beyond their
    parole dates due to lack of available halfway house beds and those
    ordered to halfway houses by the Court as a condition of pretrial work
    release. Although there continues to be a shortage of halfway house
    beds, the enhanced interagency communication resulted in a responsive
    allocation of available beds.
           fiscal year 2002 budget request of the corrections trustee
        In fiscal year 2002, the Office of the Corrections Trustee requests
    funding to continue reimbursement to DOC for operations associated with
    the adult felony population for the period until the final group of
    inmates is transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which will be
    no later than December 31, 2001. The last remaining inmates at the
    Lorton Correctional Complex will be housed at the Central Facility,
    where it is estimated that no more than 500 to 600 inmates, and
    hopefully fewer, will be located at the beginning of the fiscal year.
    This facility will be closed on schedule no later than December 31,
    2001.
        The Trustee's office also requests funding to reimburse DOC during
    this period for major support activities related to housing felons,
    such as health services, facilities management, and transportation. For
    a reasonable period beyond December 31, during the period that all
    physical property including records and equipment is being removed in
    preparation for final transfer to the General Services Administration,
    and, ultimately to Fairfax County, I anticipate that there will be some
    diminishing level of funding provided.
        Contract Confinement.--Most secure confinement contract bed spaces
    for the adult felony population will be vacated by the beginning of
    fiscal year 2002, but the Office of the Corrections Trustee requests
    contingency funding to DOC for some higher security bed spaces to be
    made available, as necessary, through contractual arrangement until
    December 31, 2001. Funding is also requested for the same period for a
    limited number of re-entry halfway house beds for prisoners being
    paroled, as the last felons who are under DOC custody are released to
    halfway house bedspace prior to BOP taking over full responsibility.
        Transfer of Lorton-based Activities.--Lorton-based functions that
    are required to continue will be transferred from the Lorton Complex.
    We support the DOC's plan in which it is anticipated that these and
    other administrative functions will be transferred to a single location
    in the District. The warehouse, facilities management, and staff
    training must be relocated from Lorton. Since the relocation is
    directly associated with the closing of the Lorton facility, the
    Trustee's office requests funding to contribute a portion of the total
    costs in the preparation of the new space for the relocated functions.
        Severance Pay.--Prior to the Revitalization Act, DOC employed more
    than 3,300 staff. The current DOC staffing level is about 1,600
    employees, and it is projected that with current attrition, another 140
    employees will separate before the Central Facility closes. Of the
    remaining employees, a significant number must still be separated to
    downsize DOC in accordance with its new, reduced mission. Under the
    pending budget request, the Office of the Corrections Trustee would
    reimburse DOC for severance pay and terminal leave for employees
    released as a result of the closing of the Central Facility, including
    those employees in support operations such as health services,
    transportation, facilities management, and administration.
        Assistance with Broader-based Local Justice Initiative.--In fiscal
    year 2001, in addition to assistance with strictly correctional
    operations, one million dollars in Congressional funding was provided
    through the Trustee's Office to the District's criminal justice system
    for the implementation of caseload and records management improvements.
    The intent of these funds was to quickly begin to implement some
    recommendations of a report then underway for the District by the
    Council for Court Excellence, a report which was released only in the
    past two weeks. The importance of this report and its recommendations
    for the District's criminal case processing was emphasized in the new
    GAO report to the Congress cited above. Four major projects are under
    development among several criminal justice agencies. The projects
    include:
      --Reinvigorating the MPD citation release process and citation
            caseload management system;
      --Implementing, with a view of future expansion of, the MPD Papering
            Reform Pilot Project;
      --Implementing a Differentiated Case Management System for
            Misdemeanors and Traffic offenses at D.C. Superior Court; and
      --Implementing a pilot ``options'' project in coordination with the
            D.C. Commission on Mental Health Agency and the Pretrial
            Services Agency to test the value of adding additional mental
            health services as conditions of pretrial release for
            appropriate non-violent, non firearm, post-arrest mental health
            offenders. This type of project is a progressive approach that
            is being promoted in other State and local governments
            throughout the Nation.
        The Office of the Corrections Trustee requests continued funding to
    assist in further implementation of criminal justice improvements in
    fiscal year 2002.
                                   conclusion
        Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to
    respond to any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you all very much. Senator DeWine
    does have a few questions specifically about the court, so
    since our time is short, Senator, and that is very important to
    us, why don't we go ahead and focus on those questions, and why
    don't you go ahead and you can begin, and I will do a few wrap-
    up questions on some of the other points.

                              FAMILY COURT REFORM

        Senator DeWine. Thank you all for coming. We appreciate it.
    Sorry for the delay. Sometimes the Senate does not cooperate
    too well when you are trying to do hearings.
        Judge King, I want to follow up on your comment about the
    one judge one family, and that you are basically doing that
    now, is that correct?
        Judge King. Particularly in the juvenile area, where one
    family or one young person would find himself before the
    neglect and abuse court, and involved in a juvenile case, and
    in that instance by far the predominant practice is for the
    judge who is responsible for the neglect or abuse case, to be
    in contact with the judge to whom the juvenile case came in the
    first instance, and what usually happens is, the juvenile case
    is transferred to the judge with the neglect and abuse case for
    the child.
        In other words, the child remains before one judge, and
    essentially the judge who has the neglect matter is responsible
    for everything.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, I am not sure I am following you. So
    that would mean that the first contact with this family, this
    whatever family, DeWine family, whatever, the first contact
    with this family, that judge would then----
        Judge King. Take other matters that came in relating to
    that family. Informally we do that less--it is less uniform at
    this point, and that is one of the things--I mean, we
    absolutely agree with your emphasis on the importance of one
    family one judge, and one of the things we are working on our
    plan to do is to tighten up that aspect of it, in part in
    respect to our dialogue on that subject.
        Senator DeWine. So you would not have a situation where the
    case just stayed on the docket of one judge but another judge
    was dealing with it.
        Judge King. No. Once a case was--there are clearly two
    cases that ought to be in front of one judge, that child is
    transferred to one judge, and that judge is responsible for all
    the cases. In other words, it does not make any sense to go
    back and forth between judges.
        Senator DeWine. But I guess my question is, it would be
    decided basically on who had the kid first? I mean, whatever
    the case that came up, or how would that work?
        Judge King. No. The usual--in that instance, and as I say,
    this is still a work in progress, but the child in the neglect
    system is the one where the most critical issue is at stake,
    the greatest need for services, so that is likely to be the
    predominant----
        Senator DeWine. So the neglect aspect of it would dominate.
        Judge King. That is right, and one of the things that I
    think we will be looking at down the road, as the rules
    change--I mean, that is easy to address in a rule. We want to
    make sure that we have thought through how the plan is actually
    going to be implemented, what ultimately is the amount of
    resources that we are going to have, and how this process comes
    out, but one of the things that I see as helping this process
    would be a rules change, or a rules procedure.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me just follow up on that for 1
    minute. Senator DeWine and I, as you know, have worked so
    closely on this issue together, and we have conducted these
    meetings at question time a little more informally than some of
    the other committees.
        Judge King. In a very helpful way.
        Senator Landrieu. We hope that this is more helpful,
    because we really want to try to fashion a remedy that really
    works, and what we are struggling with is not so much, if I
    could, one judge one child, but one family one judge, so that
    there is one judge, or one magistrate that understands the
    depth and breadth of the problems facing a particular family.
        It could be drug addiction and criminal behavior by a
    father or a mother, it could be abuse of one child or more, it
    could be truancy by a child, but once that family comes into
    contact with--whichever member of a family to a courtroom, to a
    judge, we are hoping that the system that would result would be
    that that judge would basically be in charge of that family so
    that these cases are not passed from one judge to another, and
    a new judge has to familiarize themselves with the condition of
    the mother, the condition of the father, the brothers and
    sisters, et cetera.
        I realize that every jurisdiction in the country is
    struggling with this. I mean, this is not a problem just with
    the District, but it is a very important problem and challenge
    in the Nation, and that is why the way that you all have
    described to me your docket--you have a divorce docket, I
    think, a termination docket, an abuse docket, a such-and-such
    docket.
        But it is important if you could say for the record either
    what you are doing now, or what we should do in the future, to
    make sure that somebody has their eye on this family unit in an
    attempt to hold it together, which is very important, if
    possible, and then somebody who has got enough information to
    make some tough decisions sometimes about placing those
    children with other families that can raise and nurture them,
    and then providing compassionate but disciplined counseling or
    whatever to parents, and there are different levels of that,
    from counseling to imprisonment, based on what those actions of
    those parents or adults would be.
        So can you just sort of elaborate a little more, and if you
    do not mind, if we could just sort of focus on this for a
    minute.
        Judge King. This has been a constant source of, I think,
    concern for all of us, and I think perhaps maybe I have not
    expressed myself as clearly as I might have, because we really
    do not disagree a bit on the goal and where we ought to go.
        I find sometimes it is frustrating, because I think we all
    would like a simple, two sentences as to how this is all going
    to work, and we have got it, and boom, now we have solved the
    problem. And in my now almost 30 years at the bar I have not
    encountered very many legal problems that are susceptible of
    that kind of approach. It gets complicated when you get to the
    details. That is where the devil is.
        But the short answer to your point, I think, is that most
    cases do not have multiple issues in them, and so it makes
    sense to have judges responsible for divorce cases, for
    example, people who have divorces, because most divorces do not
    have neglect and abuse and all the other things, so in terms of
    organizing a family court and running it day to day, for most
    of the time it makes sense to have judges have areas of
    responsibility where they have the benefit of efficiencies of
    doing cases.
        For example, one of the things you have to work out is, all
    the neglect cases and adoption cases are closed proceedings,
    whereas other family proceedings are open to the public, and so
    that is just some logistics you have to work out in order to
    have all of those matters brought before a judge in a timely
    and sensible way so that people are not kept waiting. That is
    why it makes sense for judges to have one general area of
    responsibility.
        The number of cases that you are addressing that are of
    vital concern but are not that huge in number are ones where
    there are different cases relating to one family, where there
    is a divorce case and a neglect case, or an adoption that is
    going to resolve a neglect case, and in those cases I think we
    can and we are looking at ways to move us to a point where all
    of those cases will be handled by one judge, end of discussion.
        Now, one caveat is that there are a few types--for example,
    if dad is in a criminal case, is in trouble for armed robbery,
    it does not make a lot of sense to bring that into the family
    court, where you have got to then have a whole jury process set
    up.
        Senator Landrieu. I would say that could be the one
    exception.
        Judge King. Things like that, with other exceptions I think
    we can get to a place, and the plan that we have now gets us
    there by the collaboration and, if you will, a rules change
    which would set up the dominant judge given a particular family
    member or child, but that is not the end of our work on it,
    either. Just as you are concerned about it, we are responding
    and trying to look at it again.
        We still have our task forces which were convened in
    January. They are being reconvened to take another look at this
    to see, for example, if there is a way to find out which are
    the cases where duplicate types of litigation are most likely
    to occur, and deal with those separately, maybe do some
    different ways of assigning those responsibilities so that the
    judge will be responsible for all the cases that affect that
    family.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, just to bring this point to a
    close, I am happy to hear that we are all pretty much in
    agreement of where we want to be, and where we think we should
    be, and where we really need to be for the families that are
    involved.
        I mean, it must be extremely frustrating to everyone
    involved to have to start with a new person every week or every
    month, trying to explain to the case workers, to the people in
    the courtroom, to the neighbors, to the friends that are trying
    to help. It has just got to be extraordinarily frustrating, so
    whether we do it by rule or by law, or in what way, and there
    is probably no perfect way, but there are good ways that it can
    be accomplished, we look forward--Senator DeWine will probably
    have a few more questions, and Senator, go right ahead.

                         Courthouse Facility Renovation

        Senator DeWine. Judge King, after the last hearing I asked
    you to identify, or at the last hearing I asked you to identify
    the division or divisions of the court that you plan to move to
    the Old Courthouse, and in your response you indicated that you
    plan to move the Court of Appeals.
        Judge King. Which, of course, is not mine to move, but the
    thinking is that that is the effort.
        Senator DeWine. But in dealing with the big problem that
    one impacts the other.
        Judge King. That is the initiative.
        Senator DeWine. Why would you not move the family court
    there? I mean, it seems that you have a new renovated facility,
    you have the ability to design from scratch, basically, all the
    things that we have talked about with Senator Landrieu, some of
    the things she mentioned in her opening statement, and then
    wouldn't you have, therefore, basically the segregation between
    the criminal, those who have been charged with criminal
    offenses, and the family court?
        Judge King. There are a couple of things there. First of
    all, that building has no cell block facilities or underground
    access to bring prisoners in and out, so that you would have to
    duplicate that apparatus not only for the juveniles who would
    be in the Family Court, but for the incarcerated parents, which
    is enough so that we at least need to think about that problem.
        One of the main reasons is timing.
        Senator DeWine. Whatever you do, it is temporary. We are
    not--I know we have got to follow our standards, but it is a
    temporary holding cell, or temporary holding facility we are
    talking about. We are talking about hours. We are not talking
    about even probably overnight.
        Judge King. No, no, the problem is moving people. For the
    incarcerated parents, it is moving people back and forth across
    the street, and we have had that experience, in having to move
    people in irons.
        Another very important consideration for us is that the
    Court of Appeals may be 3 or 4 years away from going over to
    that building, and I am hoping that we do not have to wait 3 or
    4 years before we can effectively open our new family court
    operations, and let me say that we are looking at three
    possibilities for the Family Court.
        One is to keep it in the Moultrie Building and get
    contiguous space there, displacing other operations needed in
    order to do that. Another is that there is another building,
    Building B, it is called, which was years ago the old civil
    court. It is also in need of renovations. That may be one that
    would be accessible to us early, and it already does have cell
    block facilities, so there would be a leg up.
        The third is that there was some consideration at the time
    the Moultrie Building was built to having additional floors, or
    having capacity for additional floors on it. We want to do, and
    it seems to me the only competent, careful way to do this is to
    complete a building evaluation report on our existing
    facilities and then to do a feasibility report on these various
    things, and we have actually already initiated discussions with
    GSA to begin to look at that so that we will figure out what
    the best solution is.
        Certainly, it is conceivable that they would come back and
    say, the Old Courthouse is the way to go. We are going to
    listen to that, but I think for now we are looking at that as
    maybe untimely, and it seems, at least at first blush, to have
    some problems that the other options do not have.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
        Senator Landrieu. I just want to follow up on this, and I
    will get the schematics and sketches and brief myself more than
    I was able to today, but I do want to make this point, that if
    there is any way in this sort of redesign that we could have a
    sort of, either a stand-alone or a separate facility for
    parents who are not criminals--these are families that need
    help. These are children who are not criminals. They need help.
        They do not need to literally be walking around where other
    people are in chains, and people have guns. These children are
    traumatized enough already. They need to be in a setting that
    is more conducive to sort of healing and nurturing, so whether
    they are in one building, or on a separate floor, or whether
    they are in a building--I think Senator DeWine and I would be
    very interested in trying to work with you all to figure out
    what is the best place where these situations of abuse and
    neglect and some sort of--not that that is not criminal, but
    the children are not the criminals--in a way that makes sense,
    and so, since we have got some options with these facilities,
    we will continue to work with you, Judge, and see.
        Judge King. We certainly want to do a--as I say, I want to
    do it carefully and competently. If this were my money I was
    chasing, I would want to know what the options were, and I
    would want to have a report in hand.
        The other thing, let me issue an invitation to both you and
    your staffs at any time to come over and I will show you what
    our thinking is.
        Senator Landrieu. And I will. I think I would like to, and
    I think the Senator would like to.
        Judge King. We would be delighted.
        Senator Landrieu. We would love to do that and come see
    what some of the options are, and perhaps our staff could,
    based on what the proposals are, submit some options for this.
        Judge King. Sure.
        Senator Landrieu. Because it is a great opportunity to
    create, as we talked about before, a real model for the Nation,
    because many of the courts around the Nation are trying to use
    this model and have their facilities match the reforms.
        Judge King. May I just add one thing I forgot to mention.
    We have already moved in that direction. We had a hearing room
    which was really so small that it was dangerous to use for the
    use that it was being used, and I have already had that broken
    out and turned into a family-friendly waiting room, so that is
    just using resources we have now, without any additional
    things. We are very conscious of the need to have somewhat less
    chaos and more kind of a sense of safety around the places
    where children and people with the children are going to be
    waiting for court proceedings.

                      LORTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CLOSING

        Senator Landrieu. That would be great. Let me follow up
    with you, Mr. Clark, for just a moment on this--and this is
    prior, I think, to my service on this committee, and I am not
    as familiar with the law that established your initiative, but
    your charge is basically just to empty a facility, and to
    transfer these prisoners, all 8,000 to 9,000 to Federal
    jurisdiction. Basically the physical movement of them and the
    closure of the facility is your general charge.
        Mr. Clark. That is the core of our charge, that is correct,
    and to engineer a number of processes that are involved in
    setting up some permanent case processing.
        In other words, we have probably 1,500 cases a year
    sentenced in Superior Court, who in the past have just gone--
    they have been in the D.C. Jail, and they have gone to Lorton.
    Now, they will all have to be committed to the Federal Bureau
    of Prisons, which involves the meshing of four or five or six
    agencies, between the court and the court services who develops
    the presentence report, the Marshals, the Bureau of Prisons, so
    there is some of these processes that we have been in the
    middle of trying to reengineer and, say, a thing occurs with
    the parolees----
        Senator Landrieu. Well, the reason I ask is because, you
    know, all States, and I understand that we are trying to help
    the District, and it does help them significantly to relieve
    this financial responsibility. It is a huge responsibility for
    States, and very, very expensive, the criminal justice piece,
    and on moving it we have helped the District in terms of their
    financial management.
        But in addition to basically moving bodies around that
    States do, people in prison, they also have obligations for
    skill development and education, and trying to transfer people
    back into the community, and the human aspects of prisoners and
    their families, contact with their families--is it your agency
    that has responsibility for that, or Mr. Ormond, or Mrs. Jones,
    or who right now--I know you are focused on sort of just the
    movement of them to the Federal system, but once they get in
    the Federal system, then they come under the jurisdiction of
    all of the programs available to Federal prisoners, and
    initiatives with Federal prisoners, and they just come under
    the general Federal prison rules, or----
        Mr. Clark. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And that is clear in the law.
        Mr. Clark. That is clear, that they are to be treated in
    every respect as a Federal prisoner, to have access to all of
    these programs.
        Senator Landrieu. Whatever services are available to
    Federal prisoners, skill development, educational options.
        Mr. Clark. That is correct, and in my walking around, and I
    served for 23 years in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, so I am
    very familiar with that agency, but in my walking around Lorton
    and Youngstown and all the other facilities, to be truthful I
    find that most of the inmates are eager to move to the Federal
    system.
        They are not necessarily eager to be a little further from
    home, although that is not an issue with many of them, but they
    are eager to have access to those kinds of programs, drug
    treatment programs, as you say, skill development programs,
    parenting programs, many of which have not been as available.
        Senator Landrieu. Which are more robust in the Federal
    system than they are in this current system.
        Mr. Clark. That is correct, yes. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Are there any things--I have got a few
    other questions, but I could submit some of them in writing,
    and since it is 4:30, is there anything, though, that you all
    wanted to add to the record that you did not get to say in your
    statement, or anything you wanted to bring to my attention or
    emphasize just briefly in a one-minute closing?
        Judge King. I would welcome any written questions that
    would clarify, and I particularly would like to be sure,
    whether it is by staff meetings or a meeting with you, that we
    come to a shared understanding as to the budget that is already
    devoted to family, as opposed to the extra that we will need to
    implement some reform.
        We may not ultimately agree, but I sure would like to know
    that we all see the same reality, and then are dealing with
    that picture, so I will look for an opportunity to do that with
    you or your staff at some point.
        Senator Landrieu. Great. Mrs. Jones.
        Ms. Jones. I do not have any other things I need to add,
    but I would invite any questions you might have about the
    Public Defender Service.
        Mr. Ormond. I would just like to thank you again for the
    opportunity, and we feel very good about the progress we have
    made so far, and the support we have gotten from the committee,
    and we would welcome any further questions for clarification.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Clark. Madam Chair, the only thing that I would
    mention, again, after having spent the last 4 years in this
    process, is how impressed I am with the progress that has been
    made in a number of areas in the District, where the public
    safety of the District is being enhanced by a number of these
    initiatives, and in that same regard I have been impressed by
    the growing sort of communication and coordination among the
    many agencies, maybe as compared to 4 or 5 years ago.
        I mean, we just meet each other coming and going trying to
    work out some of these processes, and trying to make
    improvements in the local system, so we all see each other and
    many other folks from other agencies all the time, so I am just
    impressed that in the District right now there is this energy
    to not only take care of our own agency, but to try to work
    together with the other agencies.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Landrieu. Well, that is very good to hear.
        Thank you all, and again I am sorry for the delay, but this
    meeting will be recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu and Hutchison.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR
            LINDA M. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
                MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
            DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA
            DR. NATWAR M. GAHDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            CAROLYN GRAHAM, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
            PAUL VANCE, SUPERINTENDENT, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon, and if those here would
    take a seat, we will begin. I would like to call the meeting of
    the Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia to
    order and welcome all of our very, very special guests and our
    panelists today. Particularly to the Mayor of the District of
    Columbia, Mayor Williams, welcome, and Mrs. Cropp and all of
    the administrators for the District.
        It is a pleasure for me to conduct this hearing, and we may
    be joined by one or two of the other members, but as you know,
    there are other subcommittee hearings taking place and bills
    and activity on the floor at this moment. But we may be joined
    by some of our other members.
        Let me just begin by saying that the purpose of this
    hearing is to review the local budget and discuss the policy
    priorities of the District.
        As you all know, I will just remind each of you that your
    entire statement will be made part of the record, so I would
    appreciate it if you could limit your opening statements to
    about 5 minutes. Mr. Mayor, we will give you a little latitude
    here with yours in just a few minutes.
        So, without objection, the record will remain open until
    5:00 p.m., Friday, July 20, for the submission of any
    additional testimony or responses that myself or other members
    may raise.
        So, let me begin, if I could, with an opening statement,
    and then we will take your statements and questions. Hopefully,
    we can finish our work in about an hour and a half, but if need
    be, we can go a little bit further into the afternoon.
        I have already welcomed all of you here but I would
    specifically like to say, Mayor, what a personal honor it is to
    have you here. I have watched your work now very closely as a
    part-time resident of D.C. and back and forth between my home
    State. And to Councilwoman Cropp, for your good work that you
    do here in the District too. I follow the work that you do
    quite closely in the newspaper, not only as a Senator but as a
    resident of the District. If our house can ever get finished,
    Mayor, we will invite both of you over. It is not your fault
    but our fault that it is taking a while right on East Capitol.
        But, Mr. Mayor, you have done a wonderful job, and you are
    supported by a very able city council. You have made a
    tremendous impact, Mayor, in such a short period of time. Much
    to your credit and others and the team that you have assembled
    around you, you have succeeded in streamlining the District's
    management processes, providing better, more efficient services
    to the residents of the District, which we all appreciate. The
    budget, which your office has crafted and which you are here,
    of course, to testify on, truly reflects that your vision is
    for more truth in budgeting, which I appreciate and the members
    of this committee appreciate.
        Since taking office, this Mayor has succeeded in surpassing
    the balanced budget benchmarks set by Congress while
    maintaining a fiscally responsible budget focused on key areas
    and priorities.
        The key to any strong society rests on its ability to
    provide primarily, in my opinion, an education for its youth,
    stability and safety for the least of its members, a strong
    economy, and a clean environment. Under your leadership, Mayor
    Williams, and the City Council, the District has made
    tremendous strides towards building a new and vibrant D.C. With
    an eye towards each of these visions, you have helped to
    improve education, begin the reform of the child welfare
    system, which is so critical to this city and to any city in
    our Nation, to reinvent the capital's parks and recreation
    sites for families everywhere in every neighborhood and for the
    children who desperately need places to run and play and
    recreate and to enjoy all the benefits of childhood, and most
    importantly, unify the city around a shared vision of a better
    tomorrow for the District and its residents.
        I am pleased to find that several of the areas of focus
    within your budget are areas of great importance not only to me
    but members of the committee and things we work on in Louisiana
    every year and for many decades actually, and that is,
    education, child welfare, environmental conservation, and
    recreation have long been cornerstones of my own legislative
    agenda. In each of these areas, the Mayor and the council have
    been faced with a variety of different challenges, some of
    which are unique to the District, but most of which many
    communities around this Nation struggle with each and every
    year. The tremendous efforts you have made will make sure that
    as the Nation's capital, the District is better positioned to
    serve as a model for other cities around the Nation. Again, for
    the thousands, hundreds of thousands of residents, but also the
    millions of people who visit here, it is a very, very special,
    place indeed.
        They say that the test of a true leader is his or her
    ability to surround himself or herself with like-minded
    talented people. I would like to commend you and the leaders
    around you for the work that you have done, specifically
    Carolyn Graham, the Deputy Mayor for Children and Youth;
    Margaret Kellems, Public Safety; John Koskinen, City
    Administrator; Eric Price, Deputy Mayor for Economic Planning;
    and Nat Gandhi, the CFO, who we will hear from in a minute.
        And to you, Ms. Rivlin, I thank you for the commitment that
    you have made in your role with the Control Board and others to
    give guidance through this difficult, but increasingly
    promising situation we find ourselves in.
        I am pleased to know that Superintendent Vance has recently
    agreed to remain as Superintendent through another contract
    term. In his relatively short tenure as the Superintendent of
    D.C. Public Schools, Paul Vance has taken the Mayor's vision of
    education reform to a new level and begun to make it a reality.
    In his recent report to the Board of Education, Mr. Vance said,
    ``I came to the D.C. Public Schools because ours is a rare
    opportunity to do for our children today the things that will
    make a difference for their future for today and tomorrow.''
        Might I say that any strengthening of our public schools or
    investment in our children is not only the right and moral
    thing to do for them, but it is the smart economic thing to do
    for this community and for our Nation. We look forward
    particularly to working with you all in that regard.
        I am very interested in the District's efforts to use
    charter schools to help broaden school choice options for D.C.
    students. It is important that students and their parents have
    real choices between several quality educational options. Their
    education will most certainly be benefitted by that.
        While the Nation's charter school movement has been slowed
    somewhat by certain barriers, the District continues to employ
    innovative approaches to increasing the number of charter
    schools and magnet schools. Just last month, the city
    celebrated the dedication of the first new public school to be
    built in over 20 years. The new school is a bilingual
    elementary school constructed at no cost to the taxpayers
    through an innovative community initiative public and private
    development partnership, a real model for many of our
    communities around the Nation. The state-of-the-art Oyster
    School, home to a nationally recognized dual-language immersion
    program in English and Spanish, will provide a unique learning
    experience for its students. It is this type of innovation that
    will allow the District to really move ahead.
        I would also like to encourage the District to do its work
    to implement a District-wide system of assessment and
    accountability. Many cities and many States are moving to very
    rigorous accountability systems in schools. There are different
    measures of testing, some better than others, some more
    rigorous than others. Texas has its own system. Louisiana has
    its own system. But we have met with tremendous success when
    the tests and the measurements of accountability can be
    properly crafted and the right resources match the reform and
    the rhetoric, if you will, to make sure that each child is
    getting a quality education and we are getting the finest
    teachers and focusing on performance as opposed to process.
        In fact, as you know, Mayor and Council Chairman, the
    Senate just recently passed our version of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act--and it was a bipartisan effort with
    the President, Democrats, and Republicans--to really be a
    catalyst for this school reform effort nationwide. So, we hope
    that the wind is truly at our back and here in D.C. we can
    catch part of that wind and continue the good work.
        I also want to note in my opening the remarkable success of
    some of the college education programs that have been initiated
    here and the real challenge of not having the university base
    that we have in our own States. So, how do we make a college
    education really available to students here? Through the D.C.
    resident tuition program, which is fully federally funded and
    created by statute in 1998, this gives District residents the
    opportunity for a college education.
        But there is work to do. Let me suggest that one program
    that I helped to start in Louisiana that may serve as a model--
    of course, there are many varieties of this around the Nation.
    But we have, to my knowledge, the only sort of 401(k) for
    education in the country. Not only do we have a full
    scholarship program in Louisiana called TOPS, which costs our
    State $100 million a year in Federal dollars, but the result of
    that investment is that every child in Louisiana gets to go to
    college, that has a 2.5 percent average, for free at an in-
    state college. That amount of money is applied to out-of-state.
        But to supplement that very robust scholarship program--and
    Georgia has something that is similar, not exactly--we put into
    place--and 3,000 families in Louisiana are taking advantage
    of--a 401(k) match where the poorer the family or the more
    challenged the family is, the greater the match. So, even if
    you can just manage to put up $12.50 a week or $25 a week or
    $50 a month, over the course of 10 or 15 or 20 years saving for
    an education can amount to a serious amount of money, as your
    treasurer can tell you, with the value of compounded interest
    and a direct match from the State. And under this tax bill that
    we just passed, it is federally tax exempt. So, it could be
    quite an astonishing amount of money accumulated. So, I am
    hoping to visit with you all about the possibilities of opening
    some of those options for the children and families here in
    D.C.
        Let me just end my statement by saying, in addition to the
    child welfare system, the education system, that we have made
    great progress on, and the budgetary systems, which will be
    more part of this hearing, I also want to commend you for your
    work on the Anacostia River, the development of parks and
    recreation, which is so important to the families and the
    residents of the District, but to really make this beautiful
    city even more beautiful and a place where our Nation can truly
    celebrate all that is wonderful about being an American. So, to
    you, Mayor, and to your deputy and for all of the leadership
    that you have shown, let me thank you.
        Now, we have a lot of work to do. This budget is in good
    shape, but it could be improved. There are still some very
    sticky wickets, if you will. There are some tough areas that
    still need to be addressed. But I want to just again commend
    you for your good work.
        Let me recognize now my colleague from Texas who will have
    an opening statement, and I am sure some of her remarks will be
    focused on the importance of these reserve funds and how we
    want to work with the city in terms of the budgetary process
    and some other areas that she has worked in. I thank her for
    joining us. Senator Hutchison.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you so much, Senator
    Landrieu, and welcome to your very first committee hearing as a
    subcommittee chairman. That is very exciting.
        I want to say that I found being the chairman of the D.C.
    Subcommittee very rewarding, and I feel so good about all four
    of the people sitting in front of me because I think they are
    turning the District around. I am very proud of what each of
    you have done, Mayor and Ms. Cropp and Ms. Rivlin. You
    certainly have given a lot of time on a volunteer basis. And
    Dr. Gandhi, with whom I have worked since you came on board.
        I would just like to say I asked to stay on the D.C.
    Subcommittee because I am so excited about the progress that is
    being made for our capital city. I am committed to doing the
    right thing, and I love this city and I want it to be the best
    that we have in America. I think we are on our way there.
        Second, I think we have made some great strides in some
    innovative areas.
        I think the tuition scholarship grants that we started so
    that D.C. students would have the opportunity to go to colleges
    and offset some of those college expenses because there is a
    shortage of space in the colleges here.
        Second, I think what you have done in education in the
    charter schools having an option there for parents. The charter
    school that I visited was wonderful and doing a terrific job. I
    think that is a major step in the right direction.
        I think the greatest accomplishment that we have made is in
    fiscal management and responsibility. This has certainly been
    tough for everyone, but I think you have worked so well with me
    in trying to establish real reserves. When I came on board as
    chairman, we had a budget reserve, but that did not seem to be
    strong enough to put us really into the investment grade bond
    arena. And I wanted us to have that in the District.
        So, I started looking at what other cities have in reserve
    that make them fiscally sound and came up with a plan. We are
    in the process now of working into the 4 percent emergency fund
    with a 3 percent contingency. The emergency fund requires a
    very strict test before you can take money from the emergency
    fund; the contingency fund, less so. But it would be one-time
    only expenses, non-recurring. But it is real money in the bank
    that the rating agencies can look at and know that if there
    were a real emergency, D.C. could handle it without worrying
    about taxing their people or coming back to Congress.
        So, I think it is a very good beginning that we have, and
    from what I have understood from the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi, we
    will have that fully funded probably early, hopefully. So, I
    think we are on very sound ground, and I think once it is fully
    funded, the District of Columbia will have the same fiscal
    profile that the good, well-run major cities in America have.
    So, I am very proud of that. I certainly look forward to
    working with you to continue on that program. As long as we
    have the money in the reserves, I think you can start whittling
    away at the budget reserve because the real money would
    certainly be the safe and sound way to have your emergency
    needs met.
        So, with that, I thank you very much and I applaud all of
    you for the leadership that you have shown. Sometimes it has
    been tough, and I appreciate that. But you have always been
    open and responsive and I think we are on the right track. And
    I thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS

        Mr. Mayor.
        Mayor Williams. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu and Senator
    Hutchison. I thank both of you. I think this is a very able
    committee since both of you come from financial backgrounds. I
    feel like we are in good company here and we have worked well
    together as partners in moving our city forward.
        I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the reserve
    issues, on her leadership in working with us on economic
    development. We had a major ground breaking today for the Kmart
    and the Home Depot. So, we are very, very proud of that. You
    were there at the initial opening, so we were pleased with the
    support that you have given us.
        And certainly, Senator Landrieu, your support for what we
    are doing not only with children in foster care and adoption
    but also now with the Anacostia River is welcome. We look
    forward to a very strong partnership with you to really make,
    as you say, the Anacostia River a river that unites our city.
    It is really a model waterfront for our Nation, and I thank
    both of you.
        I have with me here John Koskinen, my City Administrator,
    who is sitting to my right, and I am also pleased that with me,
    although he does not really work for me, but in attendance is
    Superintendent Paul Vance of our schools. So, they are
    available to also help us answer any questions that you may
    have.
        The theme of our budget this year is building a city that
    works for everyone, neighborhood by neighborhood. As our city
    moves forward, as both of you have remarked, it is important
    that we move forward together. It is equally important that we
    invest in critical services, most importantly high quality
    education for our children.

                                 SCHOOL BUDGET

        I am proud of the fact that our budget includes a $29
    million increase for the D.C. public schools, as well as a $37
    million increase for the D.C. public charter schools. In
    addition, we include $750,000 to launch the Lead Principals
    initiative, a recruiting drive by the superintendent that will
    draw highly talented principals from across the country to our
    lowest performing schools, and $1.2 million for the Teaching
    Fellows program which will help the District recruit and train
    committed new teachers from an array of professional
    backgrounds.
        We appreciate the fact that Congress and President Bush
    also place a high priority on education in the District. We are
    particularly gratified that First Lady Laura Bush was with us
    when we launched the Teaching Fellows program.
        We are even more pleased to report that more than 1,200
    people, including dot-com executives, retired persons, and even
    a few former congressional staffers, have applied for the
    program in its first year. 1,200 people. To me that is a solid
    indication that folks, regular citizens, are willing to invest
    themselves in turning around schools and our school system.
        As you may also know, Washington is home to probably the
    most vibrant, vigorous, robust charter school movement in the
    country. This fall we are going to have 40 charter schools in
    operation. We have not been able to satisfy all needs for
    facilities, but we are working closely with these schools to
    help them and all of our public schools. Between the large
    array of charter schools and liberal out-of-boundary enrollment
    programs in our school system, the District has embraced public
    school choice. Parents in the District in fact, practically
    speaking, have many options. It is our hope to broaden those
    choices, especially for those in chronically low performing
    schools as the superintendent implements his plan to
    reconstitute schools and provide parents with new environments
    within the public school system.
        I think the subcommittee would also be pleased to know
    that, thanks to the tuition assistance grant program, more than
    1,800 District youth received financial assistance to attend
    colleges and universities in 37 States. For many of them, this
    program means a difference between attending and not attending
    college. The number of applicants, grantees, and participating
    schools has far exceeded our expectations.
        With a year's worth of successful operations under our
    belt, the District now needs the Congress to amend the original
    statute and remove the requirement that participants have
    graduated after January 1, 1998 and that they have commenced
    higher education within 3 years of their high school education.
    These restrictions we find needlessly exclude older students
    and others who, for whatever reasons, fall into these
    categories. Financially and administratively, the program can
    withstand this expansion. Congresswoman Norton has drafted a
    bill, H.R. 1499, to effect this change. This bill has been
    passed by the House Subcommittee on the District and is now
    being considered by the full Committee on Government Reform in
    the District of Columbia. And we urge you to also consider and
    we hope approve this initiative.
        To further ensure quality educational opportunities, our
    budget includes $174 million to renovate and build quality
    school buildings for our children. Going forward, we believe
    that we have to pursue every means of supporting our master
    facilities plan, designed with the input council and District
    citizens and under the leadership of our superintendent. As we
    look to the future, we also have to make sure that we fix what
    has not worked in the past, and there are clear indications
    that superintendent Vance has begun turning the facilities
    division around. We need to see the continued vigilance to make
    sure that our school construction projects are starting and
    staying on schedule on a reliable basis.
        As we rebuild our schools, we also have to ensure that
    children and adults receive the support they need beyond school
    walls. To this end, the budget provides for three key
    enhancements.
        First, it includes an expansion of the District's Earned
    Income Tax Credit for low income residents, increasing the
    local credit from 10 percent to 25 percent of the Federal
    level.
        The capital budget, secondly, includes more than $8 million
    for construction of senior wellness centers, and $15 million to
    enhance the infrastructure of information and facilities that
    are critical to delivering human services to our most
    vulnerable residents.
        Third, it invests $62 million in new program funding to
    provide better health care to those citizens who need it most
    through a restructured health delivery system that provides
    more health care to more people at a lower cost.
        But even with these enhancements, our residents cannot
    reach their full potential if they live in unhealthy
    neighborhoods. Children, youth, adults, and families cannot
    thrive unless they live in a clean and safe community, a
    community with jobs, stores, parks, and affordable homes.
        So, toward this goal, our budget enhances Fire Department
    operations with more than $12 million for capital equipment and
    facility upgrades, enhances the Police Department with a $12
    million increase for staffing and equipment, and includes $11
    million for library renovations, $59 million to improve local
    streets, which we all know is clearly needed, and $67 million
    to renovate recreation centers in our city.

                           ANACOSTIA RIVER INITIATIVE

        The capital budget includes $2 million in matching funds to
    take another step in an enormous task of cleaning up the
    Anacostia River. This river has suffered for many, many years
    to the point of becoming a health hazard and a deterrent to
    economic development in some of our most challenged
    communities. My administration is partnering with the Federal
    Government to aggressively begin restoring this river.
        To improve water quality, the District has planted, in
    partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, 46 acres of
    wetlands and installed several trash traps on the river. We
    have also removed three vessels that were either abandoned or
    sunk in the river, and I am proud of that.
        While these measures are tangible steps, we are also
    working with the Federal Government on a massive effort toward
    a long-term solution, what we call combined sewage overflow. We
    need a system that can remove the toxic materials in the river
    bed and the discharges that contaminate the river.
        Central to this effort is $12 million that Congresswoman
    Norton and I requested from the VA/HUD Appropriations
    Subcommittee in the House in March of this year to begin to
    implement the long-term combined sewage overflow control plan
    design. This plan would mitigate the negative environmental
    impacts from 60-plus discharges of diluted sewage that flow
    into the river annually. We hope that Congress will continue
    and sustain its support with us on the Anacostia River in
    general and certainly on the combined sewage overflow issue in
    particular.

                             FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

        I want to speak a minute about the area of fiscal
    responsibility because in meeting the benchmarks put forward by
    Congress, we have achieved a high level of fiscal strength that
    many would have thought unthinkable and certainly unattainable
    a few years ago.
        We have now achieved four clean annual financial audits in
    a row. Our accumulated fund balance is projected to exceed $550
    million in fiscal year 2004, and bond ratings reached
    investment grade years ago and continue to improve. Local
    revenues have increased nearly 30 percent, and we have done
    this with fewer full-time employees than we had 20 years ago.
        And the District's success in attracting new economic
    development has been well documented.
        One of the greatest indications of the District's restored
    financial health is our swift progress in building financial
    reserves. Last year Congress challenged the District to
    establish emergency and contingency cash reserves that, when
    fully funded, will equal 7 percent of the total annual
    operating expenditures appropriated from local funds. These
    accounts are to be fully funded at 1 percent a year by fiscal
    year 2007.
        I am pleased to report that the first 1 percent--that is
    $33 million--was set aside in fiscal year 2000. So far this
    year, we have deposited an additional 2 percent, $69 million to
    be exact, for a total of $102 million. At this pace, the
    District will meet the 7 percent target, which we are happy to
    say--and are pleased with--will exceed every other State and
    local jurisdiction in the country, by fiscal year 2003, 4 years
    ahead of schedule. So, we are happy with this reserve
    requirement. We do not complain about this reserve requirement.
        The establishment of these permanent cash reserves should
    eliminate, though, the ongoing need for an additional budget
    reserve. As such, we ask that you include language in this
    year's appropriations bill to amend the existing budget reserve
    requirement. Currently, the $150 million budget reserve is
    scheduled for complete phase-out at the end of fiscal year
    2004. Under our proposal, this phase-out would begin gradually
    in fiscal year 2002, and by fiscal year 2004, the budgeted
    reserve would be replaced by a fully funded operating cash
    reserve in the amount of $50 million. This $50 million reserve
    would be in addition to the approximately $250 million in
    emergency and contingent reserves that will be accumulated by
    this time, as we have discussed above.
        So, we would like to initiate the phaseout in the fiscal
    year 2002 budget with a $30 million reduction in the $150
    million budgeted reserve requirement toward the path, as
    Senator Hutchison suggested, matching where we are with our
    cash emergency and contingency reserve with where we are with
    our budget reserve. I think this is consistent with that
    philosophy and with that principle and moves in that direction.
        I want to emphasize again that as far as I can see--and I
    cannot speak for my colleagues, but I believe we in the
    District are happy because we understand our history, we
    understand our circumstances in context. We do not complain
    with a 7 percent reserve requirement. We are happy to lead the
    rest of the country. We just want to make sure that we are
    mapping the cash requirements with our budget requirements on
    an ongoing basis.
        We have talked about one government, moving our
    receiverships back into the city, and good government. Just a
    word about self-government. We do believe that living in the
    greatest democracy in the world, we as citizens of the capital
    city should be able to elect voting representatives to the
    Congress. On top of this, we should not have to, given the
    circumstance, pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State
    other than Connecticut.
        So, early this spring, the No Taxation Without
    Representation Act of 2001 was introduced in Congress to
    provide D.C. residents full voting representation in Congress.
    This is the first voting rights bill that has been introduced
    simultaneously in the Senate and the House. On behalf of all of
    the citizens in the District who suffer from this taxation
    without representation, I urge the committee to look favorably
    on this bill.
        In addition to no voting representation, we also suffer
    under very limited legislative and budgetary autonomy. Again,
    we are very, very happy with the partnership that we have built
    with the Congress, and we want to continue this partnership.
    But in the Federal appropriations process, Congress reviews our
    local decisions and imposes its will on how we spend our local
    dollars. Likewise, Congress often inserts itself in our
    legislative process by requiring a 30-day review before local
    legislation can take effect. Both of these processes create
    major delays and disruptions at the local level and further
    infringe on rights of citizens to manage local affairs.
        So, along with Congresswoman Norton, we are now advocating
    for a reasonable level of budgetary and legislative autonomy
    for the District. In our recent testimony and discussions with
    Members of the House, members of both parties I should add,
    this proposal has earned a positive reception, and I urge this
    committee to join with its colleagues to provide for well-
    deserved legislative and budgetary autonomy for the District.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        With that, once again, I would like to thank the committee
    for its efforts on behalf of the District, thank the committee
    for its leadership in a number of key areas, and as always,
    stand willing not only to work with you but to answer, in
    conjunction with my colleagues, any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony Williams

        Good morning Chairman Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and members of the
    committee. I'm very pleased to be here today to discuss the District's
    fiscal year 2002 Budget and Financial Plan. The theme of this budget is
    Building a City that Works for Everyone--Neighborhood by Neighborhood.
    This theme reflects the focus of our efforts in the District to date,
    and reflects our vision for the future.
                        investing in critical priorities
        As we invest in critical services, the foremost priority of my
    administration is to ensure that every child has access to a high
    quality education in a safe and healthy school. In fiscal year 2001 I
    committed to full funding for education, and I continue that commitment
    in fiscal year 2002.
        Our budget includes a $29 million increase for the D.C. Public
    Schools and a $37 million increase for the D.C. Public Charter Schools.
    In addition, we include $750,000 to launch the Lead Principals
    initiative--a recruiting drive that will draw highly talented
    principals from across the country to our lowest performing schools--
    and $1.2 million for the Teaching Fellows program, which will help the
    District recruit and train committed new teachers from an array of
    professional backgrounds.
        We appreciate the fact that Congress and President Bush also place
    a high priority on education in the District. The city is particularly
    gratified that First Lady Laura Bush helped launch the Teaching Fellows
    program.
        We are even more pleased to report that over 1,200 people--
    including ``dot-com'' executives, retired persons, and even a few
    congressional staffers--applied for this program in its first year.
    This is a solid indication that citizens are willing to invest
    themselves in turning around our school system.
        As you know, Washington is home to probably the most vibrant
    charter school movement in the country. This fall we will have 40
    charter schools in operation. We have not been able to satisfy all
    needs for facilities, but we are working with these schools closely to
    help them and all of our public schools. Between the large array of
    charter schools and a liberal out-of-boundary enrollment program, the
    District has embraced public school choice. Parents have many options.
    It is my hope to broaden those choices--especially for those in
    chronically low-performing schools--as DCPS implements plans to
    reconstitute schools and provide parents with new environments within
    the public school system.
        The subcommittee will be happy to know that thanks to the Tuition
    Assistance Grant Program, more than 1,800 District youth received
    financial assistance to attend colleges and universities in 37 states.
    For many of them, this program means the difference between attending
    and not attending college. The number of applicants, grantees, and
    participating schools far exceeded our expectations.
        With a year's worth of successful operations under our belt, the
    District now needs the Congress to amend the original statute and
    remove the requirement that participants have graduated after January
    1, 1998 and that they have commenced higher education within three
    years of their high school graduation. These restrictions needlessly
    exclude older students and others who, for whatever reasons, fall into
    these categories. Financially and administratively the program can
    withstand this expansion. Congresswoman Norton has drafted a bill, H.R.
    1499, to affect this change. This bill has been passed by the House
    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and is now being considered
    by the full Committee on Government Reform and the District of
    Columbia. I encourage you to also approve this initiative.
        To further ensure quality educational opportunities, my capital
    budget includes $174 million to renovate and build quality school
    buildings so that our children have safe, functional, inviting
    environments in which to learn. Going forward, we need to pursue every
    means of supporting the proposed Master Facilities Plan, designed with
    the counsel and input of citizens. And, as we look to the future, we
    must also make sure we have fixed what has not worked in the past.
    There are clear indications that Superintendent Vance has started
    turning the facilities division around. We need to see that continued
    vigilance to make sure that school construction projects start and stay
    on schedule.
        While we rebuild our schools, however, we must also ensure that
    children and adults receive the support they need beyond the school
    walls. To that end, this budget provides for three key enhancements.
      --First, it includes an expansion of the District's Earned Income Tax
            Credit for low-income residents--increasing the local credit
            from 10 percent to 25 percent of the federal level.
      --Second, the capital budget includes more than $8 million for the
            construction of senior wellness centers, and $15 million to
            enhance the infrastructure of information and facilities that
            are critical to delivering human services to our most
            vulnerable residents.
      --Third, it invests $62 million in new program funding to provide
            better health care to those citizens who need it most through a
            restructured health care delivery system.
        Even with strong schools and quality human services, however, our
    residents cannot reach their potential if they live in unhealthy
    neighborhoods. Children, youth, adults, families, and seniors cannot
    thrive unless they live in a clean and safe community--a community with
    jobs, stores, parks, and affordable homes.
        To move us toward that goal, this budget enhances Fire Department
    operations with more than $12 million for capital equipment and
    facility upgrades, enhances the Police Department with a $12 million
    increase for staffing and equipment, and includes $11 million for
    library renovations, $59 million to improve local streets, and $67
    million to renovate recreation centers.
        The capital budget also includes $2 million in matching funds to
    take another step in the clean up of the Anacostia River. This river
    has suffered for too many years, to the point of becoming a health
    hazard and a deterrent to economic development in one of our most
    challenged communities. My administration has partnered with the
    federal government to aggressively begin restoring this river.
        To improve water quality, the District government has planted, in
    partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, 46 acres of wetlands and
    installed several trash traps in the river. We have also removed three
    vessels that were either abandoned or sunken in, the river.
        While these measures are tangible steps towards a cleaner river, no
    real victory can be achieved without addressing the long-term solution
    of the Combined Sewer Overflow System, the removal of toxic materials
    in the riverbed, and the removal of silt that clogs the flow of the
    river.
        Central to this effort is the $12 million that Congresswoman Norton
    and I requested from the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in March of
    this year to begin to implement the long-term Combined Sewer Overflow
    control plan design. This plan would mitigate the negative
    environmental effects from the 60 plus discharges of diluted sewage
    that flow into the river annually. We hope the Congress will support
    the District in this appropriation.
        As we clean up the natural environment, the District is also taking
    great strides to maintain and develop affordable housing. As the
    District economy experiences historic levels of prosperity, we must
    ensure that everyone shares in that prosperity. One key to doing so is
    to help low- and moderate-income residents gain and maintain access to
    affordable homes. Through these investments, the District will continue
    to make great strides in service improvements across the city.
                       maintaining fiscal responsibility
        Even while investing in critical priorities, the District maintains
    high standards of fiscal responsibility. In meeting the benchmarks put
    forth by Congress, we have achieved a level of fiscal strength that
    many would have thought unattainable in such a short period of time.
      --We have achieved four clean annual financial audits in a row.
      --Our accumulated fund balance is projected to exceed $550 million in
            fiscal year 2004.
      --Our bond ratings reached investment grade years ago, and continue
            to improve.
      --Our local revenues have increased nearly 30 percent, and we have
            done this with fewer full-time employees than we had 20 years
            ago.
      --And the District's success in attracting new economic development
            has been well documented.
        One of the greatest indications of the District's restored
    financial health is our swift progress in building financial reserves.
    Last year Congress challenged the District to establish emergency and
    contingency cash reserves that--when fully funded--will equal seven
    percent of the total annual operating expenditures appropriated from
    local funds. These accounts are to be fully funded, at one percent per
    year, by fiscal year 2007.
        The first one percent--that's $33 million--was set aside in fiscal
    year 2000. So far this year, we have deposited an additional two
    percent--$69 million to be exact--for a total of $102 million. At this
    pace, the District will meet the seven percent target by fiscal year
    2003--four years ahead of schedule.
        The establishment of these permanent cash reserves should eliminate
    the ongoing need for an additional budget reserve. As such, I ask that
    you include language in this year's appropriations bill to amend the
    existing budget reserve requirement. Currently, the $150 million budget
    reserve is scheduled for complete phase out at the end of fiscal year
    2004. Under our proposal, this phase out would begin gradually in
    fiscal year 2002, and by fiscal year 2004, the budgeted reserve would
    be replaced with a fully funded operating cash reserve in the amount of
    $50 million. This $50 million reserve would be in addition to the
    approximately $250 million in emergency and contingent reserves that
    will be accumulated by this time, as discussed above. We would like to
    initiate the phase out in the fiscal year 2002 budget with a $30
    million reduction in the $150 million budgeted reserve requirement.
        Considerable benefits would be realized by such a restructuring.
    The District would begin to establish budget flexibility through the
    creation of a new cash reserve that it could access for routine budget
    adjustments. At the same time, phasing out the obligation of the
    District to fund the $150 million annual budget reserve will provide
    much needed relief in the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 operating budgets
    helping us to meet critical operating needs while maintaining balanced
    budgets in the immediate post-control period.
              one government, good government, and self-government
        As we invest in critical priorities and maintain fiscal
    responsibility, we continue moving toward one government, good
    government, and self-government. District leaders have demonstrated a
    high level of cooperation and an unprecedented level of responsiveness
    to our citizens.
        We live in the greatest democracy in the world, but ironically, we
    citizens of the capital city cannot elect voting representatives to the
    Congress. On top of this disenfranchisement, District residents pay
    more federal taxes per-capita than any state in the union except for
    Connecticut.
        Early this spring, the No Taxation Without Representation Act of
    2001 was introduced in Congress to provide D.C. residents full voting
    representation in Congress. This is the first voting rights bill that
    has been introduced simultaneously in the Senate and the House. On
    behalf of the more than half a million people in the District who
    suffer taxation without representation, I urge you to pass this bill.
        In addition to no voting representation, the District also suffers
    under very limited legislative and budgetary autonomy. In the federal
    appropriations process, Congress reviews our local decisions and
    imposes its will on how we spend our local dollars. Likewise, Congress
    inserts itself in our legislative process by requiring a 30-day review
    before local legislation can take effect. Both of these processes
    create major delays and disruptions at the local level, and further
    infringe on rights of our citizens to manage local affairs.
        Along with Congresswoman Norton, we are now advocating for a
    reasonable level of budgetary and legislative autonomy for the
    District. In our recent testimony and discussions with members in the
    House--members of both parties I should add--this proposal has earned a
    positive reception. I encourage this committee to join with your
    colleagues to provide this well-deserved autonomy to the District.
        And finally, as part of this commitment to democracy and autonomy
    in the District, I encourage Congress to end the practice of attaching
    riders to our appropriation. This micromanagement is not only an
    affront to home rule, but it disrupts the timely passage and execution
    of our budget. Therefore, it is my hope on behalf of all District
    residents that this Congress will respect local will and pass a clean
    bill that provides the District with the autonomy it deserves.
        This concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to
    present our priorities to you today, and I would be happy to respond to
    any questions you may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for that concise
    statement. We will return in just a moment with questions.
        Mrs. Cropp, Councilwoman, would you like to proceed?

                          STATEMENT OF LINDA M. CROPP

        Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much. Let me say good afternoon,
    Chairman Landrieu and Senator Hutchison. It is indeed a
    pleasure to be here with my colleagues and testify before you
    today on behalf of the 2002 budget.
        Chair Landrieu, let me just say I listened to stories of my
    husband's brother talking about the Anacostia River where they
    grew up near what is called the Eastern Branch, and they used
    to go swimming in that part of the river. Let us hope that we
    can bring it back to that state.
        Senator Landrieu. We can do that hopefully sometime soon. I
    look forward to taking the plunge with you when we can do that.
        Ms. Cropp. Senator Hutchison, I join with the Mayor to be
    able to say the cash is in the bank and we are pleased that
    that has occurred.
        Fiscal year 2002. This is the year that we have all been
    looking forward to with great anticipation. The council,
    together with the Mayor, is pleased to present to Congress our
    2002 budget. Although the budget is another in a series of
    fiscally sound and responsible budgets, it is a turning point
    in our young history of home rule. This budget was accomplished
    without the Financial Authority and came on the heels of
    several major accomplishments of the city.
        We have demonstrated--and there are a lot of ``we's''--that
    as elected leaders, we are ready to govern the city ourselves,
    and that is without the Financial Authority. However, I must
    take this time to personally thank, on behalf of the citizens,
    the work of Chairman Alice Rivlin with the Financial Authority,
    Andrew Brimmer, and the other members who put in an awful lot
    of time and effort on behalf of the city and its citizens.
        We also have exercised sound financial discipline in our
    oversight role by putting safeguards and insurance policies,
    when necessary, and triggers in our budget to make sure that we
    would not overspend.
        We have made remarkable progress in improving our city's
    image and our services.
        We are in good shape economically as seen in our real
    estate market, both private and commercial. Signs do not stay
    up. People automatically offer more money than what people are
    asking.
        We have obtained clean audits for the fourth consecutive
    year.
        We have ended fiscal year 2000 with a healthy accumulated
    surplus of $465 million.
        We are in good fiscal standing and our bond ratings have
    been raised.
        We have a healthy rainy day savings which is projected to
    reach the 7 percent requirement, as the Mayor stated, by 2003,
    way ahead of the schedule that had been anticipated by most.
        We have prepared a spending plan which is our fifth
    consecutive balanced budget.
        As part of the council's reorganization period, the council
    and its committees have established a legislative agenda. Our
    legislative agenda had certain criteria within it. We demand
    fiscal discipline. We are looking at revitalizing our
    neighborhoods. We want to invest in our youth, protect our
    vulnerable residents, oversee the executive performance of
    service delivery, promote continued economic stability and
    growth, and expand home rule and democracy. We are pleased to
    say that the council worked, in conjunction with the Mayor,
    because we all agree that these are very important issues for
    us to address in order to make this city move forward.
        For your information, we will present to you a copy of the
    Council Period XIV Legislative Agenda for your records.

                               LOCAL FUNDS BUDGET

        An integral part of the council budget process is the
    public input, and as such, many hearings on the fiscal year
    2002 budget were held. The process gave citizens and our work
    force an opportunity to comment and critique programmatic and
    funding needs and agency performances throughout the city. This
    feedback is invaluable because it contributed and culminated in
    the decisions and recommendations of each committee in the
    markup of the budget. Following a review for the committee
    recommendations, the committee of the whole made additional
    revisions in order to bring the budget into balance. At the end
    of the process, the council had conducted a total of 61 public
    hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the findings from
    our citizens and our employees into this budget.
        In May, the council approved the $5.3 billion spending plan
    that provides adequate funding for basic city services and
    programs. Our schools continue to receive full funding. Health
    and neighborhood revitalization programs were funded. For
    example, there is a $2 million pilot for the interim disability
    assistance program for disabled adults, and there is funding
    for more stabilization officers to help abate nuisance
    properties.
        This budget also earmarked $23 million for local road
    repairs, contribution, and maintenance. Of this amount, $11
    million is set aside in contingency funding for freed-up
    appropriations. We ask you to approve the $11 million because
    this is a one-time expenditure and it is critical for the
    District to address the disparity between the excellent Federal
    roads and the poor or fair local roads that we are trying to
    move to that excellent condition also.
        It is my understanding that in recognition of the
    District's accelerated establishment of the 7 percent cash
    reserve, the committee is receptive to recommendations of
    lowering the $150 million budgeted reserve to a more realistic
    level of approximately $120 million for fiscal year 2002. The
    council supports this idea and we will work very closely with
    the Mayor and the CFO and this committee to finalize whatever
    is necessary in order to do this. I concur with the remarks
    made by our Mayor with regard to our reserve. He was certainly
    speaking, I think, on behalf of the council also when he said
    we want to have money in the bank, a cash reserve in the bank.
    It is a safety net and we think that is a fiscally sound
    budgeting process. But once we go over that, we still have
    needs for our community, and we would like to be able to
    support those needs.
        It is worth recalling to you, however, that last year the
    council requested that the Greater Washington Society of CPAs
    analyze the District's purported disproportionate share of
    revenues from Federal grants. Their conclusion was that the
    ratio of Federal grants to the District general fund revenue is
    not high. And there is a table that we have submitted for this.
    In short, the Federal Government is not subsidizing the
    District as generously as many think. When compared to the
    other 50 States, 32 States received a greater portion of the
    Federal funds for their general fund than the District does,
    and that is in table 2. Again, this was done by an independent
    group, the Greater Washington Society of CPAs.
        It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act
    was passed, one recommendation was that since the District no
    longer receives any Federal funds or payments, that the
    Congress would not need to review or approve its budget. At a
    minimum, Congress should no longer approve the local portion of
    the District's budget. We concur wholeheartedly with the
    sentiments of the Mayor with regard to budget and the
    legislative autonomy. We passed an awful lot of emergency
    legislation due to our lay-over period.
        Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask
    that you support and pass in time for the start of the new
    fiscal year this budget. This budget is important for the city
    because it is put together by locally elected leaders. It is
    important to remember that at the end of the budget process,
    both the council and the Mayor found themselves in sync and
    approved the budget that invests in service delivery and basic
    programs. Furthermore, we urge you to pass this budget as is
    without any extraneous riders. This much anticipated fiscal
    year 2002 budget is important because it shows that the Mayor
    and the council can coexist and underscores our commitment to
    make Washington, D.C. one of the best governed cities in the
    world.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Let me also join with the Mayor, in conclusion, in asking
    the committee's support for the No Taxation Without
    Representation as it comes forward. We pay more than $2 billion
    annually in Federal taxes, and we do not have a seat at the
    table. So, we agree with that.
        Thank you so very much for this opportunity.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Linda M. Cropp

                                  introduction
        Fiscal year 2002 . . . this is THE year that we have been looking
    forward to with great anticipation. The Council, together with the
    Mayor, is pleased to present to Congress our fiscal year 2002 budget.
    Although this budget is another in a series of fiscally sound and
    responsible budgets, it is a turning point in our young history of home
    rule. This budget was accomplished without the Financial Authority and
    came on the heels of several major accomplishments in the city:
      --WE have demonstrated that, as elected leaders, we are ready to
            govern the city ourselves, that is, without the Financial
            Authority; (As the control period comes to an end, I would like
            to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Alice Rivlin, the former
            Chair Dr. Andrew Brimmer as well as each member of the previous
            and current Financial Authority for their service and
            commitment.)
      --WE have exercised sound financial discipline in our oversight role
            by putting safeguards, ``insurance policy'', and triggers in
            this year's budget;
      --WE have made remarkable progress in improving the city's image and
            services;
      --WE are in good shape economically as seen in our real estate market
            both private and commercial;
      --WE have obtained clean audits for the fourth consecutive year;
      --WE ended fiscal year 2000 with a healthy accumulated surplus of
            $465 million;
      --WE are in good fiscal standing and our bond ratings have been
            raised;
      --WE have a healthy rainy day savings which is projected to reach the
            seven percent by fiscal year 2003, and;
      --WE have prepared a spending plan which is our fifth consecutive
            balanced budget.
                               council period xiv
        As part of Council reorganization for Period XIV, we have added two
    subcommittees to the existing 10 standing committees.\1\ Our
    legislative agenda also included seven important goals. These are:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The 10 committees are Government Operations, Economic
    Development, Judiciary, Public Education, Human Services, Public Works,
    Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Finance & Revenue, Public Service, and
    Committee of the Whole. The 2 subcommittees are Subcommittee on Latino
    Affairs, Human Rights, and Property Management and Subcommittee on
    Labor, Voting Rights, and Redistricting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Demand Fiscal Discipline
      --Revitalize our Neighborhoods
      --Invest in our Youth
      --Protect our Vulnerable Residents
      --Oversee Executive Performance of Service Delivery
      --Promote Continued Economic Stability and Growth
      --Expand Home Rule and Democracy.
        For your information, we will send you a copy of the Council Period
    XIV Legislative Agenda when it becomes available.
                        the council-mayor budget process
        In December of last year, the Council passed the fiscal year 2002
    Budget Submission Requirements Resolution of 2000. It established March
    12 as the date by which the Mayor shall submit to the Council the
    proposed budget. The Mayor transmitted his budget on March 12 and the
    Council acted on it within the 50 days as required by the Home Rule
    Charter. During this 50-day period, the Council worked diligently with
    the Mayor in aligning both sets of priorities and, put together a
    fiscally sound and responsible spending plan that will serve our
    citizens well and make the District a better place to live. The
    operating budget funds basic city services and programs. The capital
    budget, as a result of stringent oversight by the Council, was
    realigned by directing funds from non-performing or delayed projects to
    new or existing projects, resulting in a better Capital Improvement
    Plan that will improve the infrastructure of the District and encourage
    economic growth.
        When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 12, he had
    proposed a local budget of $3.53 billion, an increase of $95 million or
    2.7 percent over the new fiscal year 2001 budget as amended by the
    supplemental request. An integral part of the Council budget process is
    public input and, as such, many hearings on the fiscal year 2002 budget
    were held. The process gave the citizens and our workforce an
    opportunity to comment and critique programmatic and funding needs and
    agency performances throughout the city. This feedback is invaluable
    because it contributed and culminated in the decisions and
    recommendations of each committee in the mark-up of the budgets.
    Following a review of the committee recommendations, the Committee of
    the Whole made additional revisions in order to bring the budget into
    balance. At the end of this process, the Council had conducted a total
    of 61 public hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the findings
    from our citizens and employees into this budget.
                   highlights of the fiscal year 2002 budget
        On May 1, the Council approved the $5.3 billion spending plan that
    provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. Schools
    continue to receive full funding. Health and neighborhood
    revitalization programs were funded, for example, there is $2 million
    for a pilot Interim Disability Assistance program for disabled adults,
    and there is funding for more Neighborhood Stabilization Officers to
    help abate nuisance properties. This budget also earmarks $23 million
    for local road repairs, construction, and maintenance. Of this amount,
    $11 million is set aside in contingency funding from the fiscal year
    2001 freed-up appropriations or pending additional revenue
    certification. We ask you to approve this $11 million because this one-
    time expenditure is critical for the District to address the disparity
    between the ``excellent federal'' roads and ``poor or fair local''
    roads in every ward of the city.
        All of this was done without any general tax increase. In fact, we
    are continuing with the phase-in of tax reductions associated with the
    Tax Parity Act passed by the Council in 1999. This Council action will
    bring our taxes more in-line with our neighbors over a five-year
    period. We believe this has contributed to the economic ``renaissance''
    that our city is experiencing.
                              federal contribution
        Historically, the relationship between the District and the federal
    government has been a unique political and financial arrangement.
    Between 1879 to 1920, the federal government would provide assistance
    by paying half of all District expenditures. Subsequently, given the
    various federal prohibitions on taxing nonresident incomes, federal
    properties, federal purchase of goods and services, the District would
    receive a direct payment. This payment was stopped in 1997 when the
    federal government took over some of the ``unusual'' costs such as
    contributions for the police, firefighters, and teachers' retirement
    plans and various Court services. Last year the Council requested that
    the Greater Washington Society of CPAs (GWS of CPAs) analyze the
    District's purported disproportionate share of revenues from the
    federal grants. Their conclusion was that the ratio of federal grants
    to the District General Fund revenue is not high (see Table 1). In
    short, the federal government is not subsidizing the District as
    generously as many think. When compared to the other 50 states, 32
    states received a greater portion of federal funds for their general
    fund than the District does (see Table 2).
        It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was
    passed, one recommendation was that since the District no longer
    receives any federal payments, Congress would not need to review or
    approve its budget. At a minimum, Congress should no longer approve the
    local portion of the District's budget. Just like the other 50 states,
    the District would be solely responsible for approving its own local
    spending.
                                   conclusion
        Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that
    you support and pass the budget in time for the start of the new fiscal
    year. This budget is important for the city because it is put together
    by the locally elected leaders. It is important to remember that at the
    end of the budget process, both the Council and the Mayor found
    themselves in sync and approved a budget that invests in service
    delivery and basic programs. Furthermore, we urge you to pass the
    budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This much anticipated
    fiscal year 2002 budget is important because it shows that the Mayor
    and the Council can co-exist together and underscores our commitment to
    make Washington D.C. one of the best governed cities in the world.
        Nonetheless, the Council will continue to oversee executive
    operations and expenditures. We will be responsive to our constituents
    who call the District their home. We will work with the Mayor,
    Congress, and the surrounding governments to achieve mutually shared
    goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good responsible
    budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for
    future generations. Granted we do not always agree from time to time,
    but we will be at the table to assert ourselves as an institution and
    work for the betterment and future of our citizens.

      TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE REVENUES DC VS. OTHER
                     GOVERNMENTS FOR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2002
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Prince
                                   District   State of   George's   State of
                                      of      Maryland   County,    New York
                                   Columbia                 MD
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Grants..............     $1,253     $3,974       $663    $24,004
    Federal Pension Costs.......       $182  .........  .........  .........
    Federal Reimbursements for         $254  .........  .........  .........
     Restrictions and Unusual
     Costs......................
    Taxes.......................     $3,128    $10,405       $854    $37,259
    All Other...................       $488     $1,523       $101    $10,474
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total Revenue.........     $5,305    $15,902     $1,618    $71,737
                                 ===========================================
    Percent Federal Grant                24         25         41         33
     Revenue to Total Revenue...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: District of Columbia Audit Task Force, Greater Washington
      Society of CPAs, District of Columbia Audit Briefing Fiscal Year 2000
      Report

     TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN TOTAL GENERAL FUND FOR ACTUAL
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent
                                               Total                federal
                     State                    general    Federal    funds to
                                                fund      funds     total GF
                                              revenue               revenue
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    North Dakota...........................     $2,123       $810         38
    Alabama................................     13,675      5,152         38
    Tennessee..............................     15,772      5,793         37
    Montana................................      2,615        954         36
    New Hampshire..........................      2,549        923         36
    South Dakota...........................      1,959        706         36
    Vermont................................      2,020        722         36
    West Virginia..........................      6,067      1,980         33
    Mississippi............................      8,149      2,643         32
    California.............................    109,635     34,375         31
    South Carolina.........................     11,121      3,443         31
    Oklahoma...............................     10,000      3,094         31
    Maine..................................      4,479      1,356         30
    Idaho..................................      3,372      1,018         30
    Texas..................................     44,700     13,098         29
    Pennsylvania...........................     36,863     10,679         29
    Kentucky...............................     14,635      4,220         29
    New York...............................     74,482     20,937         28
    Louisiana..............................     14,984      4,204         28
    Rhode Island...........................      4,042      1,120         28
    Indiana................................     15,014      4,115         27
    Colorado...............................      6,523      1,732         27
    Alaska.................................      5,092      1,350         27
    Georgia................................     24,218      6,414         26
    North Carolina.........................     23,810      6,122         26
    Missouri...............................     15,228      3,899         26
    Arizona................................     14,803      3,785         26
    Michigan...............................     33,180      8,471         26
    Nebraska...............................      5,358      1,355         25
    Kansas.................................      8,306      2,089         25
    New Mexico.............................      7,803      1,959         25
    Wyoming................................      2,155        536         25
    Iowa...................................     10,649      2,516         24
    District of Columbia...................      5,350      1,260         24
    Washington.............................     20,357      4,738         23
    Utah...................................      6,543      1,479         23
    Massachussetts.........................     24,267      5,456         22
    Arkansas...............................      9,463      2,050         22
    Illinois...............................     31,416      6,675         21
    Maryland...............................     17,116      3,533         21
    Florida................................     46,213      9,349         20
    New Jersey.............................     26,788      5,371         20
    Minnesota..............................     17,592      3,444         20
    Wisconsin..............................     22,797      4,349         19
    Oregon.................................     12,891      2,457         19
    Virginia...............................     21,535      3,504         16
    Hawaii.................................      6,496      1,015         16
    Delaware...............................      4,701        682         15
    Nevada.................................      6,947        928         13
    Ohio...................................     36,210      4,413         12
    Connecticut............................     14,772      1,351          9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 1999 State
      Expenditure Report.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you again for that excellent
    statement.
        I'm sorry. The shadow Senator is here, and I did not
    recognize Senator Paul Strauss. Would you stand and be
    recognized please? Thank you very much for your attendance.
        Dr. Rivlin?

                        STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN

        Dr. Rivlin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very pleased to
    be here, and I am pleased that it is the last time I will be
    here. I want to join with my colleagues in recognizing not only
    your leadership, Madam Chairman, but the very significant
    contributions of Senator Hutchison when she chaired this
    committee, particularly but not exclusively on the question of
    the cash reserve.
        Senator Hutchison. Dr. Rivlin, I would just say I do not
    know if it is a blessing or a curse, but you have two
    successive State treasurers now as chairman of D.C. Approps.
    So, I think it is good. I do not know if you do.
        Dr. Rivlin. We think so too.
        I appear this time in a limited transitional role. This
    year, as you know, the Authority was required to review but not
    to approve of the District budget, a very significant
    difference. Even last year we played a less active role than in
    prior years. That budget was worked out between the Mayor and
    the council, not without some difficulties, and we played a
    less active role in the process, but approved the budget when
    it came forward to us.
        We also approved the supplemental budget for 2001 and we
    appreciate the subcommittee's support of that measure.
        In 2002, we have reviewed the budget that was put together
    by the Mayor and the council. We have sent a letter to which we
    attached our review of the District's budget for the
    subcommittee's use.
        We believe the budget is a good one, that it is based on
    realistic revenue and expenditure projections.
        The District's financial condition, as has been detailed by
    my colleagues, has improved greatly over the last few years.
    Lots of work does remain to be done.
        The financial management system needs to be fully
    implemented with particular emphasis on training and training
    at the agency level.
        Management reforms and improved operations must continue
    with, we believe, particular emphasis on the procurement
    process.
        The independence of the Chief Financial Officer needs to be
    assured.
        The legislative package passed by the council at its final
    session we believe to be a good one.
        But a law is not enough. The Mayor and the council need to
    work with the Chief Financial Officer to enable the Chief
    Financial Officer and the CFO's at the agency level to build a
    strong, continuing staff of professionals that are respected
    all over the country. That is what it will take to give this
    city the financial credibility on the continuing basis that it
    needs.
        The council too, we believe, needs a stronger professional
    staff, particularly in the area of financial analysis.
        Finally, a couple of points. We strongly support the Mayor
    and the Council in their efforts to regain the city's control
    over the allocation of our own money.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And we believe that the Congress should come back to the
    question of the long-run fiscal viability of the District of
    Columbia. The District of Columbia has a very narrow tax base,
    we believe too narrow, to support the high quality of services
    that the Nation's capital ought to have. There is a very strong
    need to grow the city's tax base by economic development and
    increased population, but in addition, we believe there is a
    need for additional Federal support, either through a payment
    in lieu of taxes or through a tax bill similar to the one
    proposed by Congresswoman Norton. It does not really matter how
    this is accomplished, but the city needs to supplement its
    narrow tax base in order to provide excellent services.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Alice M. Rivlin

        Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I
    am pleased to be here, today, representing the District of Columbia
    Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (``the
    Authority''), to present testimony on the proposed fiscal year 2002
    District of Columbia Budget and Financial Plan. I am particularly
    pleased to appear on this panel with my able colleagues, the Mayor of
    the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, the Chairman of the Council
    of the District of Columbia, Linda Cropp, and the Chief Financial
    Officer (``CFO''), Natwar Gandhi, as you assume leadership of the
    Subcommittee.
        On behalf of the Authority, I want to commend the Mayor and the
    Council, as well as the Chief Financial Officer for an exceptionally
    cooperative and productive approach to developing the District's
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2002. We believe the Mayor and the
    Council have shown an ability to work together on the budget that
    augurs well for future cooperation in the post-control era.
        This is the last time that the Authority will appear before this
    Subcommittee to discuss the proposed District of Columbia Budget and
    Financial Plan, because, as you know, the Authority has fulfilled its
    statutory mission and will sunset at the end of the current fiscal
    year. Indeed, today we already appear in a transitional role that
    differs from our role in previous years.
        In the past, the Authority was required to approve the District's
    budget. The approval (and disapproval) power gave the Authority
    considerable leverage in the formulation of the budget, which it used
    effectively to broker compromises between the Mayor and the Council,
    and to ensure that the budget was solidly in the black. Last year at
    this time, the Authority reported to the Subcommittee that we played a
    less active role in the formulation of the 2001 budget, because we
    believed the District increasingly capable of operating without the
    heavy participation of the Authority. The fiscal year 2001 budget was
    the product of a consensus process in which the Mayor and the Council
    played the leading roles and the Authority provided oversight and final
    approval.
        The Authority also approved the proposed fiscal year 2001
    Supplemental Budget Request for the District of Columbia recently
    submitted for your consideration. This supplemental request allocates
    additional revenues (certified by the Authority) not foreseen in the
    original budget for fiscal year 2001, and the Subcommittee's support
    for this request to use these local resources is very much appreciated.
        Now we have reached a new stage in the District's return to fiscal
    autonomy. Public Law 104-8, the Authority Act, provides that the
    Authority in this last control year simply reviews the District's
    proposed budget and makes appropriate comments to the District
    government, the Congress and the President. That process is complete,
    and the Authority is pleased to have transmitted the findings to the
    Subcommittee, Madame Chairman, as you begin your consideration of the
    fiscal year 2002 Budget and Financial Plan (attachment).
        Traditionally, the Authority has focused its attention to the
    budget process on the operations of the entire District government in
    significant detail. This year, the Authority determined that its most
    useful role would be to narrow our review to major service and cost
    areas. This approach permits us to provide the most useful information,
    and as appropriate, recommendations for policy-makers as management of
    the District's government operations and fiscal affairs return to local
    authorities.
        Overall, the Budget and Financial Plan reflect realistic
    expenditure projections. The figures prepared by the District appear to
    be generally consistent with and supported by available data. The
    Authority has also identified areas in which the District may have an
    opportunity to achieve significant savings relative to the current
    projections.
        The District assumes, for example, in developing budgets for large
    agencies, that the net cost of salary step increases will be offset by
    salary lapses. Although the offset may occur, it is not always the
    case. Consequently, we recommend that the District analyze historical
    data on salary lapses and step increases to determine the
    appropriateness of this practice. The District is now better equipped
    to collect and analyze this type of information allowing it to better
    manage its operations and finances.
        Years ago, however, the District and the public lacked access to
    credible financial information, and by 1995 the government faced a
    fiscal emergency. The Congress and the President responded by enacting
    Public Law 104-8, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
    Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995.
        Since that time, the District has achieved a remarkable financial
    turnaround to which a growing economy and the Revitalization Act of
    1997 have contributed. Much of this success is owed to the numerous
    examples of the District's strong effort to manage its fiscal affairs
    responsibly:
      --The level of District total local source tax collections increased
            by 28 percent
      --The District and the Authority successfully developed a program to
            secuntize the proceeds from the tobacco settlement to reduce
            the District's debt burden
      --With the leadership of Senator Hutchison, the District also worked
            in fiscal year 2001 to use the debt services savings from the
            tobacco securitization initiative to build a cash reserve
            position
      --Following the completion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
            Report (``CAFR'') for fiscal year 2001, the Authority certified
            the District's fourth consecutive balanced budget, and with a
            significant fund balance a The District has recovered from the
            fiscal year 1996 cash deficit of over $200 million to
            dramatically improve its cash position, and reduce dependence
            upon short term borrowing
      --The District convinced the marketplace that it deserves improved
            ratings for its bonds--an achievement that will tangibly
            benefit the District's taxpayers in the future because of lower
            borrowing costs.
        In a less visible, but critically important area, financial
    management, the District has made progress in improving systems and
    procedures. The unfortunate delay in completing the fiscal year 2000
    CAFR, was the result of a very ambitious but necessary implementation
    schedule for SOAR (the District's financial accounting system) in
    response to Y2K. There have also been difficulties because of
    inadequate staff training SOAR is a financial accounting system, not
    simply a program for issuing financial reports.
        The implementation of SOAR is not yet complete, as GAO has pointed
    out, but there are no magic bullets, just hard work. The District is
    aware of the challenges. It is implementing business process
    improvements and better employee training to capitalize on the
    strengths of the accounting system. Other high priority areas, like
    performance based budgeting, are important works-in-progress.
        Nevertheless, with the exceptions of the former Public Benefit
    Corporation and the University of the District of Columbia, auditors
    have issued clean opinions for the District's overall performance in
    recent years. The District has made progress on cash management,
    budgeting and treasury functions.
        The District has also made progress in managing the delivery of
    municipal services. For example, tax payers are routinely issued
    refunds within a matter of weeks; the Department of Consumer and
    Regulatory Affairs now provides the means for businesses and homeowners
    to pay for and obtain some permits electronically; and wait-times for
    obtaining drivers licenses and related permits have been reduced.
        The District is strongly committed to management reform. The
    management supervisory service and the annual ``score cards'' are
    helping to change the workplace environment by making service agencies
    both aware of and accountable to the public interest in improving the
    quality of service delivery. Elected officials and agency directors now
    understand and support plans to move agency managers and frontline
    employees to a culture of goal setting, performance measurement and
    accountability.
        Voters must ensure the District's commitment to this primary goal
    in the years following the Authority's sunset, but the Authority, the
    Council and the Mayor are working together to prepare for the
    resumption of normal governance.
        Since January 2, 1999, the District Government assumed operational
    control of the government functions in a Memorandum of Agreement (``the
    MOA'') with the Authority (the District's Board of Education resumed
    responsibility for system governance in January, 2001.) So although
    Fiscal 2001 is the last control year, calendar 2001 will actually be
    the third year in which the District has been accountable for managing
    the day-to-day operations of the city. It is extremely important to
    build on the progress of recent years. The essential challenge is to
    assure strong financial management for the District as it returns to
    normal governance.
        One of the most significant weaknesses of the local government
    before 1995 was the lack of information. Information on the
    government's finances must be credible and available to citizens,
    decision-makers, financial markets and the Congress. A chief objective
    for the post control period is ensuring that the District has a
    financial management structure that provides such information.
        Achieving this goal requires a structure that both requires and
    encourages the OCFO to rely upon capable, professional staff to provide
    expert projections, judgement, and analysis without political influence
    or fear of retribution. The District must continue to build such a
    staff with expertise in accounting, costing, budgeting, expenditure
    control, finance and related disciplines. It must attract and retain
    excellent staff, invest in their training and development, and assure
    them of a professional working environment that encourages initiative
    and supports a culture of responsibility with clear accountability. The
    Council also needs strong professional budget and financial staff.
        Recognizing that no structure will work well unless the elected
    leadership of the city works together, and the voters hold the
    leadership responsible for sound financial management and effective
    delivery of services, the structure for carrying out the District's
    financial management functions remains a critically important factor.
        The Mayor, the Council and the Authority have discussed this
    central goal at great length and have developed legislation for
    strengthening the financial management infrastructure in a manner that
    will support these shared goals. The principal provisions of the
    ``Independence of the Chief Financial Officer Establishment Act of
    2001'' are that:
      --the District's Mayor appoints the District's CFO to a fixed term
            with a resolution of the Council (the Mayor may terminate the
            CFO only for cause and with a two-thirds vote of the Council.)
      --the agency CFOs shall be appointed by the District CFO from a list
            of qualified candidates developed by the District CFO (the
            agency head shall measure the agency CFO performance relating
            to agency mission support)
      --the OCFO must provide a financial impact statement to measure the
            impact of District contracts that exceed a certain threshold,
            legislation and regulations.
        Local government enactment of these provisions will help cement the
    District's steady progress in developing and maintaining the structure,
    administration and integrity of the financial management
    infrastructure. Thank you for your interest in these matters, and I
    would be pleased to respond to any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Dr. Gandhi?

                       STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR M. GANDHI

        Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Senator Hutchison.
    I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer of the District
    of Columbia, and I am here to testify about the District's
    fiscal year 2002 budget.
        Before I turn to the fiscal year 2002 budget, let me thank
    you, Senator Hutchison, the subcommittee, the Senate, and the
    House and House subcommittee for the positive action on the
    District's fiscal year 2001 supplemental.
        In terms of the fiscal year 2002 budget, the total budget,
    as amended, is about $5.3 billion, which represents an increase
    of about $439 million, or about 9 percent over fiscal year
    2001. The total number of positions in fiscal year 2002 from
    all funding sources is about 33,364, which represents a
    decrease of about 1,000 from 2001.
        The budget for the District projects positive net operating
    margins through fiscal year 2005. The projection appears to
    show a positive financial picture and is based on a revenue
    forecast built using realistic economic assumptions generally
    accepted by the forecasting community and used by the Federal
    Government.
        A closer examination of our 5-year plan, however, suggests
    that the District is operating on a tighter financial margin.
    While we believe the costs of maintaining current services can
    be kept within the amounts projected, it is unlikely the
    District will operate over the next several years without
    program initiatives or finding a reason to tap its budget
    reserves. Should either of these likely events occur, the
    District would be operating on a very thin margin indeed. This
    means the District needs to continue to build financial
    diligence in managing its resources and looking for ways to
    contain costs, while improving services through new business
    processes instead of additional spending.
        It also suggests that there is a long-term structural
    imbalance inherent in the city's budget which, if not
    addressed, may eventually precipitate spending in excess of
    revenues or serious cuts in the city's services. The sources of
    this imbalance are well known and documented.
        First, the District provides as much as $227 million in
    public services to support Federal property, which comprises
    over 40 percent of the District property by area.
        Second, the District spends as much as $486 million per
    year on state-like expenditures even after accounting for the
    net contributions for the 1997 Revitalization Act changes.
        Third, the District can tax only 34 percent of the income
    earned in the city.
        And finally, tax exemptions of Federal commercial activity
    reduce District revenues by as much as $193 million.
        The Federal assumption of certain pension and Medicaid
    liabilities, courts, and prison functions was an important step
    in correcting this imbalance, but I believe that even good
    government and fiscal prudence will not be enough in the event
    of a serious sustained economic downturn. The long-term
    solutions to this imbalance are matters to be addressed by
    District and congressional leaders, and there are several
    options. Federal tax incentives may be part of the answer.
    Revising restrictions on the District's local taxing power
    might be another. Congresswoman Norton sponsored legislation in
    the 106th Congress to enact a nonresident wage tax with a
    corresponding Federal tax credit. These funds could be used
    either to equitably compensate the District for services
    provided to the Federal Government or to create an
    infrastructure fund for city improvements. Now is the time,
    while the District is in good financial condition, to begin
    working on this issue and to put a permanent solution in place.
        Now I will turn to a recommendation for a change in the
    District's reserve policy. Today the District has $102 million
    in its cash reserves, an amount projected to grow to nearly
    $260 million by the end of 2003. Now that the District is
    building cash reserves and will have an accumulated fund
    balance of over three-quarters of a billion dollars by fiscal
    year 2005, we would like to revisit the requirement that the
    District have an annual budgeted reserve of $150 million. This
    is prudent because the growing cash reserves lessen the need
    for the budgeted reserve, and because removing the budgeted
    reserve provides the elected leaders with greater flexibility
    to manage the city.
        Existing District requirements, both budgeted and cash
    reserves, total about 11 percent of local funds. By contrast,
    median State reserves are only about 3.5 percent of total
    expenditures and are generally held as fund balances, and a
    common benchmark reserve rate for cities is about 5 percent of
    operating expenditures. Our proposal would ultimately set the
    District's combined cash reserves at over 8 percent.
        The proposal for your consideration is to phase out the
    budgeted reserve beginning with a reduction of fiscal year 2002
    and concluding, as already scheduled, in fiscal year 2004. At
    the same time, we would establish a new $50 million operating
    cash reserve in fiscal year 2004. The new cash reserve would be
    held at the $50 million level and be replenished as needed.
    Funds in this new reserve would be available as certified by
    the Chief Financial Officer.
        We believe this new structure would provide the District
    with much needed financial flexibility for the future, and we
    urge your consideration of it.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Madam Chairwoman, Senator Hutchison, this concludes my
    prepared remarks. I request that this testimony be made part of
    the record. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may
    have. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Natwar M. Gandhi

        Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, Congresswoman
    Norton and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief
    Financial Officer for the District of Columbia, and I am here to
    testify about the District's fiscal year 2002 budget. My remarks will
    briefly touch on the fiscal year 2001 supplemental, the fiscal year
    2002 budget request and process improvements in its formulation,
    planned improvements for the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle, and two
    proposals that would help improve the District's overall financial
    picture.
                                    overview
        When I was confirmed as the Chief Financial Officer just over a
    year ago, I noted three overarching goals that had to be achieved for
    my office to be successful: (1) obtaining a clean opinion on schedule
    from the District's independent auditor for fiscal year 2000 and all
    subsequent years; (2) ensuring a balanced budget; and (3) providing
    effective, efficient financial systems and business methods to support
    the decision processes of District policymakers. Since then, we have
    met the first two goals and made progress on the third, although
    additional improvements are needed and possible. In addition, we have
    completed the securitization of the District's tobacco settlement funds
    and achieved a round of bond upgrades from all three rating agencies.
              the district's fiscal year 2001 budget supplemental
        Before I turn to the fiscal year 2002 budget, let me thank our
    House subcommittees and the House, and our Senate subcommittees and the
    Senate, for your positive action on the District's fiscal year 2001
    supplemental.
                     the district's fiscal year 2002 budget
        Now I will turn to fiscal year 2002. In total, the District's
    budget for fiscal year 2002 as amended is $5.3 billion from all funding
    sources, which represents an increase of about $439 million or 9
    percent over approved fiscal year 2001 levels, or an increase of about
    $283 million or 6 percent over revised fiscal year 2001 levels. The
    total number of positions in fiscal year 2002 from all funding sources
    is 33,364, which represents a decrease of 1,016 positions or 3 percent
    from approved fiscal year 2001 levels.
        The budget for the District projects positive net operating margins
    through fiscal year 2005. This projection appears to show a positive
    financial picture, and is based on a revenue forecast built using
    realistic economic and demographic assumptions generally accepted by
    the forecasting community and used by the federal government. We can
    safely say these estimates represent a professional consensus view.
        But a closer examination suggests the District is operating on a
    much tighter financial margin. While we believe the costs of
    maintaining current services can be kept within the amounts projected,
    it is unlikely the District will operate over the next several years
    without program initiatives or finding a reason to tap its budget
    reserves. Should either of these likely events occur, the District
    would be operating on a very thin positive margin. This means the
    District needs to continue to build financial diligence in managing its
    resources and looking for ways to contain costs, while improving
    services through new business processes instead of additional spending.
    It also suggests a long-term structural imbalance in the budget that
    needs to be addressed, as I will discuss later.
                   development of the fiscal year 2002 budget
        The role of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) in the
    budget process is to provide timely, quality analyses and alternatives
    built around the policy interests and directions of elected officials.
    The Office of Budget and Planning (OBP) leads this effort, and was
    quite successful in assisting both the Mayor and the District Council
    in the formulation of the fiscal year 2002 budget now before the
    Subcommittee. This success was the result of many improvements,
    including the following:
      --instituting structured, advance consultation and information-
            sharing with the Mayor and the Council;
      --estimating the effects of key budget drivers, such as salary
            increases, inflation, and non-recurring items, more precisely;
      --eliminating unspecified savings in favor of identified savings in
            particular agencies that were achievable and were included in
            those agencies' baseline budgets; and
      --costing fully program initiatives and legislative changes.
        In addition, and in a larger sense, the Office of Budget and
    Planning has made great strides in working with the Mayor and the City
    Administrator to enhance ``truth in budgeting,'' so that the budgets
    presented to the Council and the Congress are realistic and can be
    delivered for the District's citizens.
                  improvements for the fiscal year 2003 budget
        We have already begun planning for additional improvements to the
    budget process for fiscal year 2003. We will devise a plan for Mayoral
    and Council approval that will implement performance budgeting, while
    at the same time streamlining the reprogramming process. A new account
    structure will ensure that we capture accounting information at levels
    necessary to monitor spending effectively and build budgets more
    accurately. This will provide the kinds of information the recent GAO
    report on our financial management system noted are not now available.
        On April 26, the City Administrator and I signed a memorandum to
    all agency directors and agency CFOs officially beginning the
    transition to performance-based budgeting. This multi-year effort will
    begin in the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle. We believe this new
    approach, once implemented, will improve policy development, service
    delivery, and accountability for District programs.
                  structural imbalance in the district budget
        I believe there is a structural imbalance inherent in the city's
    budget, which if not addressed may eventually precipitate spending in
    excess of revenues or serious cuts in city services. The sources of
    this imbalance are well known and documented:
      --the District provides as much as $227 million in public services to
            support federal property, which comprises over 40 percent of
            District property by area;
      --lacking a state or state-like support from the federal government,
            the District spends as much as $486 million per year on state-
            like functions, even after accounting for the net contributions
            of the 1997 Revitalization Act;
      --the District can tax only 34 percent of income earned in the city;
            and
      --tax exemptions of federal commercial activity reduce District
            revenues by as much as $193 million.
        The federal assumption of certain pension and Medicaid liabilities,
    courts, and prison functions was an important step in correcting this
    imbalance, but I believe that even good government and fiscal prudence
    will not be enough in the event of a serious or sustained economic
    downturn. The long-term solutions to this imbalance are matters to be
    addressed by District and congressional policy-makers, and there are
    several options. Federal tax incentives may be part of the answer.
    Revising restrictions on the District's local taxing power might be
    another. Congresswoman Norton sponsored legislation in the 106th
    Congress to enact a nonresident wage tax with a corresponding federal
    tax credit. These funds could be used either to equitably compensate
    the District for services provided to the federal government, or to
    create an infrastructure fund for city improvements. Now is the time--
    while the District is in good financial condition--to begin working on
    this issue and to put a solution in place.
                    change in the district's reserve policy
        Today, the District has $102 million in its cash reserves, an
    amount projected to grow to nearly $260 million by the end of fiscal
    year 2003. Now that the District is building cash reserves, and will
    have an accumulated fund balance (representing an accumulated excess of
    revenues over expenditures) of over \3/4\ of a billion dollars by
    fiscal year 2005, we would like to revisit the requirement that the
    District have an annual budgeted reserve of $150 million. This is
    prudent because the growing cash reserves lessen the need for the
    budgeted reserve, and because removing the budgeted reserve provides
    the elected leaders with greater flexibility to manage the city.
        Existing District reserve requirements--both budgeted and cash--
    total about 11 percent of local funds. By contrast, median state
    reserves are only 3.5 percent of total expenditures and are generally
    held as fund balances, and a common benchmark reserve rate for cities
    is 5 percent of operating expenditures. Our proposal would ultimately
    set the District's combined cash reserves at over 8 percent.
        The proposal for your consideration is to phase out the budgeted
    reserve, beginning with a reduction in fiscal year 2002 and concluding
    (as already scheduled) in fiscal year 2004. At the same time, we would
    establish a new $50 million operating cash reserve in fiscal year 2004.
    The new cash reserve would be held at the $50 million level, and be
    replenished as needed. Funds in this new reserve would be available as
    certified by the CFO.
        We believe this new structure would provide the District with much
    needed financial flexibility for the future, and we urge your
    consideration of it.
                                   conclusion
        Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request
    that this testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to
    answer any questions you or the other Subcommittee Members may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much. All of the
    statements will be made part of the record, and I really
    appreciate you all keeping within the time frame.
        I would like to start with just a few questions. Senator, I
    do not know what your time is. I will take about 5 or 6 minutes
    or so, and then we will do a round of questioning. There may be
    some things that you all want to add to your prepared
    testimony.

                                  Reserve Fund

        Let me just start with the reserve fund, since there seems
    to be a real consensus about what we need to do to be clear. I
    had, of course, supported and been supportive of the creation
    of the reserve fund under the Senator's leadership. I would
    like to point out, though, that the cash reserve that is
    required, although all of you have testified that you were
    willing to not only live with it, but embrace it and welcome
    it, it most certainly is a good thing. I did want to ask or
    just to get something on the record about the size of it
    compared to other cities and States in the Nation. I think it
    is a good thing that we have it. I think it has been one of the
    things that has helped directly to improve the bond rating.
        Both Senator Hutchison and I, as you said, have served as
    State treasurer, and we have both taken our States from very
    tough circumstances with falling bond ratings higher and were
    engaged in this in a very direct way.
        But we have got a cash reserve of almost 7 percent or a
    goal of that, as well as a $150 million budgetary surplus.
    There any other cities and States that have similar
    requirements. We have not been able to find any that have such
    rigorous requirements. Have we looked in the wrong places, or
    is that true? So, I just wanted to ask any of you all. Because
    what we have found is they range anywhere from 3.5 to 5 percent
    in terms of cash reserves, and most do not have any additional
    budget reserves.
        That is not to say that we do not want to stay the course
    that we have outlined here and generally pretty much all agreed
    to. But I was asking, do you all know of any other city or
    State that has this kind of requirement?
        Dr. Gandhi. If I may answer. We have looked at the State
    budget requirements in terms of the reserves, and there are
    States like, say, Michigan, which had about 12 percent and then
    a State like Minnesota had about 14 percent of the reserve
    requirement. But when you really look into the average, the
    median there is about 3.5 percent for all States. In some
    cities, they do not have anything; in some other cities, there
    are reserves of 6 or 7 percent. But on average it is about 5
    percent.
        But again, I want to point out that given our past history,
    I think the emphasis that Senator Hutchison had put on the
    requirement of a cash reserve is very well taken, very well
    received in the financial markets. As the Mayor and Mrs. Cropp
    and Dr. Rivlin pointed out, we welcome that. I think, as we
    pointed out, we have already accumulated $102 million. We will
    have $260 million-plus in 2003, which as the Senator pointed
    out herself, is about 4 years ahead of time, and we are very
    proud of doing that.
        But at some point you want to wonder that should we be
    accumulating cash or should we use our resources wisely to
    provide services? I think by the year 2004, for example, with
    our adding another $50 million, we will have $317 million all
    in cash. All in cash. So, I think what this would do, the
    phasing out of the reserve, is basically harmonize the reserve
    requirement as it is currently imposed.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I just wanted to point that out for
    the record. Again, I am supportive of this effort, but there is
    a proper balance and we will work together to make sure that we
    keep that balance. The Senator has gotten us off, I think, to a
    very good start. As you all testified, we are 4 years ahead of
    schedule. We do want to, as a philosophy, not necessarily
    require any more or expect any less than the averages or
    hopefully above the averages. I was just wondering, because I
    know in Louisiana we would be quite envious to have such a cash
    reserve.
        Senator, go ahead.
        Senator Hutchison. If I could just speak. When we were
    trying to do something that would be more concrete than the
    budget reserve, we did call to AAA-rated cities and to bond
    rating agencies and we found that the norm was 5 to 7. There
    were different ways. Sometimes it was a strict 4 percent
    emergency fund and then the contingency was structured a little
    differently. But when we did this, it was never my intention to
    also keep the $150 million budget reserve on top of that. I
    think that may be unusual. That was never my intention because
    I wanted to do away with the budget reserve, although your
    operating cash reserve is a safety net and very prudent. But
    what I wanted was to have real money in the bank for
    emergencies so you would never be up a creek without a paddle
    or you would never be judged by the rating agencies to be in
    peril.
        So, I think your plan of phasing down the budget reserve is
    fine. My only request would be that you never go below $150
    million in real reserves. So, after you reach the $150 million,
    hopefully you will keep moving as you have scheduled for the
    rest of the real reserves, emergency and contingency. But if
    you ever fall below it, then I think you would want to be
    looking at that budget reserve to be there. But I do not think
    you will, from everything that you are doing, and it was never
    my intention to put that on top of the 7 percent.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, that will be very helpful because
    that will provide us some additional room. We will revisit this
    issue in terms of the percentages. Dr. Gandhi, perhaps you
    could outline, based on some of the things that we have said.
        Ms. Cropp. Senator, may I just add one other issue that we
    hope that we could look at in the future? That is the
    District's lack of ability to roll over additional funds into
    the next fiscal year. I do not think you have too many
    businesses or governments that if, in fact, at the end of the
    fiscal year they have dollars left over that they cannot roll
    it over. In many instances, actually it encourages individuals
    possibly not to spend as wisely as they would normally if they
    could roll it over and know that they could use it for programs
    or to pay off debt, if that is what the decision is. So, that
    is something else that is really unique in the District of
    Columbia and I hope that we can look at that.
        Senator Landrieu. I thank you for raising that. I have
    often thought that was even a problem at the Federal level that
    sends out grant money and requires people to spend it or lose
    it by x. That process really sometimes not only does not
    encourage but prevents and really encourages unwise spending
    and quick decisions because of that time limit. So, let us note
    that, and perhaps at another hearing we can get into more
    detail about that. I thank you for raising it.
        Dr. Gandhi. May I add a point to what Chairman Cropp is
    saying? Because of that--that is, everything that is left over
    goes to the bottom line and keeps accumulated--we will have, as
    I pointed out in the testimony, three-quarters of billion
    dollars of fund balance, in addition to a 7 percent reserve.
    So, we simply cannot touch it once it goes to the bottom line
    and it just stays there. So, that is why we are really piling
    up a lot of money, which is simply not touchable. We are kind
    of a reserve-rich, cash-happy jurisdiction.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I really appreciate that. We want
    to address that because there is a fine balance between being
    fiscally conservative and smart and then being, on the other
    side, too stingy because they have got lots of needs in the
    District in terms of education and transportation and health
    care. So, it is very important to strike that balance, and I
    thank you all for wanting to do that. We will revisit.
        Let me just recognize that Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
    has just arrived. Congresswoman, where are you? There you are.
    Thank you very much. Of course, if you have anything to add at
    a later time, we will be happy to hear from you.
        Let me ask another question, and then I will ask Senator
    Hutchison for her questions.

                      ROLE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

        One of the important fiscal reforms is this whole issue of
    the status of the Chief Financial Officer, as we move through
    this transition. This is a question I would imagine that every
    city and State has to ask itself. The role of the Chief
    Financial Officer. I have got the schematic here which is right
    under the jurisdiction of the Financial Responsibility
    Management Assistance Authority, which is going out, Dr.
    Rivlin. And then the Chief Financial Officer. It is on the
    schematic chart here independent, which I know we want it to
    remain. But do you all want to comment relative to the way
    other cities, just for the record, function with these
    financial officers and what you all think the best model, if
    you wanted to each do a minute, of how that would work? Because
    you are either going to have an independent agency that is
    equally responsive to the executive or legislative branch, but
    the legislative branch has to sort of have its own resources,
    the executive branch have its own resources. Then do we then
    also need the Chief Financial Officer? And if so, those roles
    and responsibilities. And every jurisdiction struggles with
    this, whether it is New Orleans or the State of Louisiana. We
    have gone through round for round, and every good government
    group has a new idea of how to set it up.
        But what I think is important about it is some of the
    functions, that you have true revenue estimates that are not
    bogus but real, that you have real fiscal notes attached to
    what things will cost so you know ahead of time what they will
    cost. And there are some roles that kind of an independent
    financial officer that needs to give in addition to what the
    executive branch has to rely on their own budget information,
    budget force, and the council.
        So, I do not know, Dr. Rivlin, if you wanted to give a
    minute of opening on this, just to get into the record your
    particular thoughts. I know some of this is in your testimony.
    But as we look out to building in the future, I think this
    cornerstone is a very important cornerstone for the District to
    put down, the role of this financial officer, sort of the
    fiscal discipline of this, because everything else will rest on
    that, whether it is schools or transportation or economic
    development, et cetera.
        Dr. Rivlin. Different cities do it different ways, and I
    think you can get a whole list of options. Some have elected
    comptrollers. Some separate the budget and the control
    function. Some have particular ways of doing the revenue
    estimates.
        I think the District has, out of its catastrophe of the
    mid-1990's, come to what seems to be a very workable solution:
    a Chief Financial Officer with the responsibility for revenue
    and for budgeting and for the comptroller and treasurer
    functions. I guess my view is we have got this working now, and
    we have an able Chief Financial Officer. The most constructive
    move I think at the moment is to keep it going.
        The legislation, which we all discussed, which has recently
    been passed by the council, seems to me to preserve the
    strengths of the existing system while moving the Financial
    Authority out of the way and having a Chief Financial Officer
    who must report to the Mayor and work closely with the Mayor
    and the council--otherwise, nothing good happens--but has a
    measure of independence in that he or she cannot be removed
    arbitrarily. It takes a rather elaborate process to remove the
    Chief Financial Officer. That provides a measure of
    independence.
        As I said in my testimony, it is not the whole thing. Once
    you get the law in place, it will only work if the Chief
    Financial Officer is a very able person with a very good staff,
    and if the Mayor and the council work well with that Chief
    Financial Officer and respect the importance of good numbers.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor, would you care to add anything
    or Mrs. Cropp to that?
        Ms. Cropp. Let me say yesterday the council passed
    legislation creating the independent CFO, and in that
    legislation, we are requesting that Congress repeal its current
    law so that it can be legislated locally. Actually that law is
    more enhanced than what had been done initially by Congress.
    The law that was passed by the council is legislation that was
    worked on by the Chief Financial Officer, the Financial
    Authority, the Mayor, and the Council. We all worked together
    on that legislation, even though the chair of the Finance
    Committee and I introduced it. It was a consensus piece. And we
    think it is an excellent piece.
        We all started with the premise and understanding that we
    believe that we needed to continue to have strong financial
    stability in the District of Columbia, and in order to achieve
    that, we needed to have a CFO that had some independence. We
    needed to make sure that we could all believe, trust, and have
    valid revenue estimates. We also strongly believe that we
    needed to make sure that the costs, upon which we were basing
    our budget, ought to be based upon reliable figures. In fact,
    this legislation does that.
        It goes beyond what Federal law had done in that we also
    have the CFO creating standards and procedures by which what we
    call the Deputy CFO's in our agencies will operate under. We
    did not have that in the past, and I think we have had sort of
    a loose method of doing that recently. But this will make sure
    that our agencies are not overspending, that the cost analysis
    that happened there is okay.
        It also very clearly puts out that it is the CFO who deals
    with those financial revenue estimates and gives us the
    appropriate costs. But we also feel very strongly that it is
    the Mayor who sets the policy and the legislative branch who
    sets the policy, and then the CFO would give us the costs of
    it.
        The independence that Dr. Rivlin talked about is there for
    the CFO with the Mayor making a recommendation to the council.
    He can only be removed by a two-thirds majority of the council.
    So, we think that it is an extremely good piece of legislation.
    We will submit that to the committee for your records.
        We also will submit an attachment of a table that I had
    that shows the difference in what the congressional act had
    done and what our legislation does to even strengthen the CFO
    so that we will have more financial stability in the city.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Landrieu. So, currently under the proposal--Mr.
    Mayor, I would like to ask you to comment--the CFO can only be
    removed by two-thirds vote of the council under this new----
        Ms. Cropp. Recommendation by the Mayor.
        Senator Landrieu. By the Mayor and with two-thirds.
        Ms. Cropp. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. So, it has to take both.
        Ms. Cropp. Yes. A recommendation by the Mayor and then two-
    thirds of the council.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor, did you want to add anything?
        Mayor Williams. Madam Chair, a couple of things. First of
    all, the legislation that was passed by the council, underway
    at the council, really represents the combined thinking of the
    council, the Mayor, and the board. So, Alice and Linda and I
    are in joint agreement with Nat on what we need to do with the
    CFO office going forward. I certainly believe in almost the
    sanctity of the revenue estimate, on the importance of having
    the budget function with the CFO function so you are reducing a
    lot of duplication. I support a very, very strong, vigorous
    financial and budget function in the council. All of those
    things are very important.
        But when I was in Nat's position, when I was CFO in the
    middle of the mess back in 1996, whenever it was, my view of
    the whole situation was that the District got where it was
    because we had an underpowered, overloaded, badly driven car.
    Now, through better management and people like John Koskinen,
    we are driving the car better through the efforts of this
    council and the control board, certainly with Congresswoman
    Norton and the Revitalization Act, people like Frank Rains,
    President Clinton, needless to say, we have reduced this
    tremendous overloading of the car. So, now we have got a better
    driven car that is properly loaded.
        But what Nat is saying and what Alice is saying is very,
    very important in their official jobs. Excuse me. In their
    official jobs, what the chairman and the CFO is saying is very,
    very important because if we do not do anything to address the
    long-term structural imbalance, we can have a perfect setup for
    the CFO, we can have beautiful cash reserves, beautiful this
    and that kind of reserve, but the long term is a long term. And
    long-term structural imbalance means that sooner or later, if
    we do not do something about it, despite all the best
    intentions and best architecture and design, tragically we
    could end up right back where we started.

                          LONG-TERM STRUCTURAL REFORM

        Senator Landrieu. Well, that is a perfect segue into the
    third question that I wanted to ask, and that has to do with
    the long-term structural reforms. I would like to ask your
    comments. I certainly would be willing to either conduct
    another hearing at an appropriate time where you all could
    suggest to me--yourselves and other experts on this topic that
    could come in and we could spend an afternoon kind of reviewing
    some of this information that I think would be very helpful
    because, again, every city in the Nation struggles with this. I
    think the District has an even more intense, more difficult
    situation which makes it even more important that we address it
    because the Mayor is absolutely right.
        While the situation looks good now, I am mindful what
    President Kennedy said and we say in Louisiana all the time:
    The time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining. And the
    sun is shining now. So, now is the time, not to wait until the
    storm clouds gather again, to get some of this done. It is
    difficult because it requires regional cooperation and all
    sorts of give and take. Back when the model cities program was
    created many, many, many years ago and all the difficult
    versions of that recognized that cities everywhere struggle
    with a shrinking tax base, rising expectations, rising costs,
    and the long-term future will look dim if it is not addressed.
        So, do you all like the idea of another committee time, or
    would you like to comment for the record now?
        Mayor Williams. I personally think, Madam Chair, it is a
    level of importance that I would welcome a separate session on
    the matter of long-term structural balance or viability of the
    finances of the District.
        Ms. Cropp. Madam Chair, if I could just make one comment. I
    concur with the Mayor, but I must take this opportunity to make
    one comment. Not unlike any other major city in this country,
    the District's population is older, sicker, and poorer. One big
    difference. Usually the surrounding, more affluent suburban
    jurisdictions help to offset the costs of that urban poor. In
    the District of Columbia, we are totally different. We have a
    different State, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of
    Maryland. In fact, the citizens of the District of Columbia
    help to offset their urban areas because more than 60 percent
    of the folks who work for the District of Columbia, not the
    Federal Government, not the private sector, but people who work
    for the District of Columbia, take the money outside of the
    District of Columbia to help pay for the urban problems of
    Maryland and Virginia. It is an untenable position for us to be
    in, in addition to the fact that 50 percent or more of our tax
    base we cannot tax in the District for many reasons and we have
    revenue denied in the District for many reasons.
        Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced
    legislation, that I hope the committee will look at and can
    support, that would at least provide us an opportunity to
    address this issue where we can get some of the money that we
    send outside of the District back.
        But, yes, I concur. We do need to have a separate hearing.
    It is a very crucial issue that can send us belly up if we do
    not address it.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead, Dr. Rivlin.
        Dr. Rivlin. I think you have got a consensus here. It would
    make a subject for a very good hearing and one at which I would
    be delighted to appear.
        But I do think Ms. Cropp has an important point. The
    District has in common with other cities some serious urban
    problems, but we are different. There is not any other city
    that does not have a State and there is not any other city that
    has the prohibition on the taxation of non-resident income that
    we have.
        Dr. Gandhi. I strongly endorse this idea. The only thing
    that I would suggest here is that, as was pointed out earlier,
    that practically every major city generally is subsidized by
    its own State, in the case of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
    Baltimore, Maryland. The question is, who is going to subsidize
    the District? As Mrs. Cropp has pointed out, the subsidy here
    is in the reverse fashion.
        The other thing we want to keep in mind here is that
    because of the limited tax base that we have, our expenditures
    are rising faster than our revenues. That is a fundamental
    fact, and we will not be able to get away from it. The Mayor is
    exactly right. You can have as much cash reserve as you want to
    have, and we would always try to maintain our expenditures with
    lower revenues because we never want to generate a deficit and
    have a control board again.
        The point here is, though, is that a good government? Is
    that a good government?
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Well, we will work with you
    all and perhaps use the Congresswoman's bill as a basis for
    some sort of hearing and hopefully we can do that.

                           EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT

        Let me move to education, if I could, just for a moment. I
    am particularly interested, Mr. Mayor, from your perspective,
    and because the Superintendent is here, he may want to address
    this, and he is welcome to. How is the city positioning
    itself--maybe the top two or three issues--regarding education
    reform? I use that term broadly because reform can mean
    different things to different communities.
        But generally, as you know, there is a great move across
    this Nation, and it expressed itself in congressional action
    just recently for cities everywhere, led in many cases by the
    mayors of those cities. Mayor Morial is leading this effort in
    New Orleans, Mayor Daley in Chicago. You have got former
    Governor Romer even taking over the L.A. situation in Los
    Angeles, trying to be part of this effort to try to bring our
    urban schools that are, in many instances, lacking a lot of the
    resources--but sometimes it can be often management
    difficulties--to a level so that every child really gets a
    quality education in a quality facility in ways that the city
    and the parents can have some knowledge about the
    accountability, how well the schools are doing, identifying
    schools that are not doing well, making the changes necessary,
    really focusing on the results and performance, believing every
    child can learn and not just saying it, but actually having it
    happen.
        Teachers all over the Nation are complaining. Obviously,
    they do not get enough pay. They do not get enough support.
    They have difficulty with discipline in their classrooms
    because of maybe local or Federal regulations.
        So, with that, would you like to just comment about the one
    or two things or steps you are taking, particularly on the
    accountability issue? How are we stepping forward to assure
    people here in the District? In your budget you start by
    indicating more support, which is good, a substantial increase
    in funding. But, as you know, some critics will say you just
    cannot throw money at a problem. Money without reform can be a
    waste of time. Reform without resources can be a futile effort.
    So, you need both the reform and the resources. So, could you
    comment about that and then maybe the others might want to for
    the record on education?
        Mayor Williams. Yes, Senator. If I could just answer very,
    very briefly and introduce Superintendent Vance and let him
    really answer the substance of the question.
        I really consider it my most important role as Mayor. I
    want to say, incidentally, that I am proud of our city for
    voting to change our school board, even where we do not have
    full representation. The vote to actually reduce the number of
    elected positions took a lot of courage by our citizens because
    we believe very, very strongly that we need to have a first-
    rate school board that supports our Superintendent.
        I consider it our first order of business. The schools are
    going to be coming out with a business plan in July. We really
    consider it our first order of business to work with the
    schools and support the schools and their facilities plans,
    support the schools where it comes to, for example, what we are
    doing with our parks and recreation, with what we are doing
    with our libraries, with what they are doing with schools.
        I will give you another statistic. Support the schools in
    the following sense. In a normal city, you may have 4 or 5
    percent of your youth in mental health. In the District, we
    have .5 percent of our youth in the mental health system.
        Senator Landrieu. I am sorry. I did not hear it. How much?
        Mayor Williams. .5 percent are in the mental health system
    here, whereas it tends to be 4 or 5 percent in a normal city, a
    normal place.
        What that means is this is feeding and driving this huge,
    exorbitant increase in folks into special ed at very, very high
    cost for the school system. That is an area where we need to
    combine. So, I consider it our highest priority to work with
    the superintendent in the business plan that he is creating to
    see that he is successful.
        Let me cede the rest of my time, to the extent I have it,
    to him, if I could.
        Senator Landrieu. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Vance. Thank you, Mayor Williams, and good afternoon,
    Senator.
        Very briefly, the major focus, as you have indicated, has
    to be on low performing schools. This year we have identified
    19 such schools, and 9 of the schools will undergo what we call
    a complete transformation; that is, the administrative teams
    and the entire staffs will be replaced. There will be those
    staff members who are eligible who will be able to reapply for
    their positions. The principal and the divisional
    superintendent will be able to select those whom they care to.
    Those schools will receive a complete overhaul, both with an
    imposed curriculum and other appropriate activities.
        Working with the departments of the city, we are developing
    plans for what we call wraparound activities, which will
    provide opportunities for preschool, starting at 6:30 and 7
    o'clock in the morning, going through after school activities,
    6:30 and 7 o'clock in the evening for the youngsters.
        We are establishing these schools with a set curriculum and
    we are imposing high standards on them over a period of 3
    years. We have established marks for each school to achieve
    during the first, second, and third years.
        There are 10 other schools where we have decided that, in
    spite of considerable support, both monetary and personnel,
    they have not progressed, but the failure to progress was
    primarily the fault of the administrative leadership. In 10 of
    those schools, we are replacing those administrative teams.
        We have recruited both internally throughout the
    metropolitan area and nationally. Thanks to the Lead Principal
    initiative and the additional funds in the budget, we have been
    able to create a salary scale, again based on performance, that
    we feel is competitive, at least with those administrative
    positions in this metropolitan area.
        Here again, we have established standards. All of these
    schools, of course, will have new models for parent and
    community involvement, and there will be a movement to improve
    the physical facilities in those schools.
        On the broader range, as the Mayor has indicated, we have
    had the good fortune for the past 4 months to have, pro bono,
    four associates from McKenzie and Company working with us in
    the school system on the creation of what we have decided to
    call a business plan. That business plan is, in effect, a 3- to
    5-year educational reform plan for the school system which will
    touch every aspect and component of our school system before we
    are finished, particularly in multi-year budgeting, greatly
    related to those aspects of student achievement and the
    complete transformation of our central office and its
    operations.
        Finally, our major input also, as the Mayor has indicated,
    is in the area of special education. Special education for the
    District is costly. It is more costly than normally what it is
    in urban and suburban areas in the school district. We are
    working with the Federal court system and the appointed court
    masters to exit from two very costly class action suits that we
    have been in for the past 6 years: the Pettys and the Blackman-
    Jones. We are within 8 to 10 months of exiting from Pettys and
    Blackman.
        At the point that we are able to do that, we will be able
    again to redirect much of the money spent for transportation
    and placement of those youngsters in private settings in three
    States outside of the District because we will be able to
    provide for them within our school district. Those youngsters
    have a right, as well as any youngsters, to attend schools in
    their community in programs that are appropriately designed and
    perfected for them.
        If there are other questions, I certainly will be glad to
    respond to them.
        Built into all this, I would just like to say, which
    closely corresponds with the national thrust in assessments, we
    have expanded our curriculum. Up to this point, we had what was
    known as a content standards approach. We will inaugurate this
    September a pre-K through 12 curriculum which subsumes the
    content standards, but also expands into enrichment in other
    activities. That will be highly directive. So, in our
    assessment of schools in the future, we will not only look at
    results from the norm of reference, SAT-9 test, but
    increasingly we will be looking at what we call criterion
    reference testing and their results, which in effect evaluate
    and test student progress based on the curriculum which has
    been designed for the school system.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I thank you for that. The reason I
    ask is it is not just because it is an important issue for
    education, but given that we have agreed now to have this
    follow-up meeting about the long-term stability and economic
    development expanding the tax base of the city, I would submit
    that having a first-class education system is one of the most
    important steps to encourage people to stay in this District,
    have their children educated in the District, to really put
    forward our best efforts. You all are seemingly moving inthe
    right direction.
        But this whole issue, even cities that are not of this mind
    are going to be of this mind if this Federal legislation passes
    because I was very vigorous in my support of it. But there are
    some pretty tough time lines about the kinds of tests that have
    to be given, about the consequences, about requirements for
    certified teachers.
        Just to give you a reference point, if Kathleen will tell
    me, in Louisiana what is our--we have 30,000 teachers in
    Louisiana. We have got a population, just to give you a
    reference, of 4.5 million people. We have 30,000 teachers that
    are not certified in the traditional certification.
        Under the bill that we just passed, every district in the
    city, in the State, including the District of Columbia, will
    have to have teachers fully certified by 2005. I say every
    district. Actually the compromise was the schools with 50
    percent of poverty or greater have to have certified teachers
    by 2005.
        So, this is going to be a tough hurdle for everyone in the
    Nation, one that we need to try to reach this goal. But it is
    going to take a lot of effort and a lot of resources and a lot
    of innovative moving teachers in from non-traditional roles,
    looking at alternative certifications, because you want to have
    really qualified teachers in the classroom. Maybe we need to
    revisit how specifically they are certified. But it is going to
    be a challenge. But I hope and think that we are all up to it
    because it is important to make sure that we provide students
    with regular teachers who are certified, the opportunity to
    have discipline in those classrooms so learning can actually
    take place.
        Does anybody want to add anything on education? I was going
    to move to the child welfare.
        Mr. Vance. Just one closing comment on your last comments.
    I do not want to come across as seeming overly optimistic or
    disregarding what the national statistics show us on teacher
    recruitment. But this past year, we have had a very aggressive
    national recruitment program. We are very pleased with the
    results of that. As the Mayor mentioned earlier, we also
    initiated the teaching fellows program this year where we got
    close to 1,200 applicants. It was a pleasure to narrow that
    list down to the 137 vacancies which we knew we were going to
    have.
        We worked closely with American and George Washington
    Universities, and initially they were telling us we just do not
    think you are going to get candidates for your more eclectic
    and esoteric areas. Well, we got some of the finest candidates
    possible in math, science, microbiology, physics, English
    speaking for other languages, and special education. We have a
    2-year program at an institute which will be conducting for
    these teaching candidates with American and George Washington
    and our own institute to better train them in terms of the
    pedagogy and the methodology of teaching.
        We recently, as the papers indicated, released 531
    provisional teachers who had up to 3 years, some 4 years to
    become certified. They had not become certified, and because we
    were so confident in our recruitment and the quality of the
    persons we were bringing in the school system, we felt able to
    release them.
        Our goal is by July 17 to have every classroom in our
    school system filled. In talking with our Director of Human
    Resources last night, we are currently at the 217 mark, but we
    had 217 vacancies to fill with over 800 positions and
    applicants to choose from. So, we are moving right along.
        Senator Landrieu. That is truly quite encouraging. I can
    say, as a person who has been actively engaged in this debate
    here, that those statistics are better than most communities
    that I have heard about and know about and been privileged
    really to work with on this issue. That really is
    extraordinary. But it is a testimony to, if you have the right
    kind of administration, there are people that not only want to
    do this work, you have got to pay them a decent wage. But
    people do not teach for the money. They would be doing
    something else, but to join with an effort, you will have any
    number of qualified individuals, and I really commend you for
    that.
        Let me move on to the next question. Really, after this, if
    there are other things that you want to add--as I said, I was
    hoping we could finish by 4:00.

                                 CHILD WELFARE

        On the child reform issue, Mr. Mayor, this has been in the
    headlines, and in many years, some really tough cases that have
    come to the public's eye on this child abuse and neglect and
    the need to really streamline our system and have a better
    management here. This budget reflects your commitment and the
    council's commitment in terms of additional resources to that
    effort.
        Mayor, you yourself have been an outstanding role model, as
    a person who began in foster care and then to come into the
    wonderful family that you are in now, and have been quite
    wonderful about sharing your time as a role model for people
    all over this country in foster care and for policy makers in
    terms of what is possible.
        So, would you just comment for the record about some of the
    things in this budget that you have put as a priority? I would
    ask the City Council perhaps to do the same, any comments on
    the proposal the judges have made. Judge King was here just
    yesterday giving remarks about their restructuring because it
    is complicated to streamline. Some of it is under the
    jurisdiction of the city. Some of it is the courts. It is not
    just the judges and the magistrates, but the case workers, the
    whole system.
        Can you give us just a brief, maybe 2 or 3 minutes, on how
    you feel this is working, some of the challenges that are still
    out there? And is there anything that we can do or that I can
    do to facilitate this reform and expedite these changes?
        Mayor Williams. Let us see. Two minutes on child welfare.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, go ahead and take 5.
        Mayor Williams. One thing, Senator, I am very, very proud
    that we are now in the process and will be shortly completing
    and will be getting results from a commission that I
    established on juvenile justice in the city. It is headed up by
    Judge Gene Hamilton who, you will be pleased to know, was with
    me at the White House a couple of years ago at that adoption
    ceremony. Judge Hamilton I think has either fostered or adopted
    something like what? Fifteen children? Forty? Good Lord, 40-
    something children. When you talk about role models, he is a
    tremendous role model.
        We put together a first-rate group of citizens with funding
    from the Casey Foundation to do a study of where we are with
    juvenile justice with the expectation that they are going to
    find that we are nowhere near where we need to be, and a body
    of recommendations of what we need to put in place to set
    ourselves right both in terms of operations and also in terms
    of capital dollars because if you go out to Oxon Hill where we
    have our juvenile justice facilities--and I invite you to go
    out there with me--it would break your heart. It is a sad
    situation not because of the lack of effort by our employees,
    but just another one of these stories of just years and years
    and years of capital neglect. And now our children are
    suffering for it.
        Another area that I am pleased to say--in all humility, I
    will put it this way. The illumination I was able to give to
    the issue as an adopted son myself, we have increased adoptions
    in this city now over the last year period around 60 percent
    and are still climbing to greater effort in bringing more
    families into the realm of adoption by everything, by
    cooperating with other jurisdictions better, removing
    regulatory barriers, supporting our court counsel to support
    this effort better. That is moving along.
        Our child receivership has recently come back into the
    District. Not only has it come into the District--and I want to
    thank Carolyn Graham, our Deputy Mayor, and Grace Lopes, who is
    a special counsel to the Mayor for receiverships and other
    stuff, to have worked to bring this back in--but we have now
    working with us as the head of our Child and Family Services
    Agency, Olivia Golden who has a tremendous background in this
    area. Olivia Golden was head of children and family services
    for the Children's Defense Fund. She did the same thing with
    Donna Shalala. Secretary Shalala, at HHS, ended up being
    Assistant Secretary. She is now bringing that wealth of skill
    and ability to setting things right and really getting our
    program for Child and Family Services going in the right way.
        Finally, we insisted for a long, long time in open
    information, freedom of information, when it comes to getting
    our records out and information out, insisted for a long, long
    time in coordinating all of the different areas of government,
    including our Police Department when it involves the
    investigation of child abuse and neglect. While we have had
    some challenges there and some problems there, I believe that
    we are making headway in that effort.
        To wrap up, in terms of coordination when it comes to the
    family court, my philosophy I think is consistent with the
    philosophy of Congresswoman Norton and the leadership of the
    city, and that is to create in practice and to create in
    practical effect for families and children all the benefits of
    a family court without necessarily creating legally and every
    other way with all the associated costs of a family court
    itself, which means putting the right kinds of resources, to
    reducing the backlog, making sure that judges who are
    overseeing these cases have the right kind of expertise and
    continuity to make sure that cases are not falling through the
    cracks. Despite some controversy, I believe that that effort is
    taking shape, and I believe that there are only some small
    areas of disagreement that remain. I believe that we are going
    to get to our joint goal both up here in the Congress and down
    in the District and over in the Superior Court to see that the
    court is serving our children.
        Senator Landrieu. Maybe Mrs. Graham would like to come
    forward and just make a brief statement, if you want to add
    anything to that because of your good work.
        I would welcome any comments in writing about that specific
    proposal. As you know, there have been several bills filed
    about the establishment of a court. Senator DeWine and I are
    right in the middle of those negotiations now with
    Congresswoman Holmes Norton that is here and Congressman DeLay
    who is primary sponsor on the House side. So, any comments from
    the city or the council would be very welcome as to what your
    views are on the specifics because the devil is in the details
    here. While we all have this general idea, there are some
    conflicts about how this is going to be tackled. But it is very
    important again that we get this piece right.
        I do not know if you all are aware, Mayor, and you would be
    particularly happy to know that the Congress just passed an
    international treaty on adoption that for the first time
    establishes in the world, which is not an easy feat for
    countries of different cultures and different backgrounds to
    come together on the basic notion that every child deserves a
    family to call their own, preferably two parents, but at least
    one caring, loving adult--the children cannot raise
    themselves--that every child has a right, the treaty says, to
    remain in the family to which they were born, unless there are
    extenuating circumstances. In many cases there are terrible
    circumstances. And in that, the treaty goes on to say, the
    children will then be placed with the closest kin, responsible
    relative; if not, in the community then to which they were
    born; and if not, to find someplace in the world for them to
    be.
        This is an extraordinary treaty, if you think about it,
    because there are countries that say we do not care if our
    children grow up on the street. They are not going to go
    anywhere but here. There are States that say we do not care if
    children literally die in an institution. We do not believe
    that. But taking this step of faith and belief that every child
    deserves a family is no small accomplishment. We just passed
    that last year. So, literally every city and town and hamlet
    and village around this world is going to be, hopefully, in the
    next few years, working on this simple but profound notion.
        It is kind of like Habitat for Humanity has this idea.
    Every family deserves shelter. Every family deserves a home.
    Well, every child deserves a family, and we have lived for a
    long, long time in this world without thinking. They can grow
    up in orphanages. They can live on the street. Well, that is
    not the way God created this world.
        So, I am very excited about this and think it will have
    long-term, profound effects in many positive ways for our whole
    community and our Nation.
        So, I thank you for the part that you are playing in that
    here, but to know that every city and community is struggling
    with this. If you wanted to add anything to that, Mrs. Graham.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you so much for this opportunity. At the
    local level, Senator Landrieu, one of the issues I think for us
    in this metropolitan area is to work out the kind of
    arrangements with Maryland and Virginia that will allow ease of
    access for our children across these borders. I know that in
    discussions with Mrs. Norton, she certainly supports that, and
    we are going to be looking at some of the border agreements
    that are in place in various parts of this country right now
    that allow for this very thing. We will be working with her
    staff to design such an agreement that may be addressed in the
    family court legislation. So, we would ask that you be on the
    lookout for that when the legislation moves forward, as we move
    it into final form.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. In conclusion, this area is so
    important as we get this idea of one judge, one family so that
    families do not get lost in the system, that children do not
    get lost in the system, that parents and relatives are not
    frustrated, that we create a seamless, efficient way to help
    families deal with some of these very difficult issues. But
    even though the issues are difficult, there needs to be a
    definitive resolution not just going on and on and on and on
    because no one wants to make a decision because these decisions
    are tough. Well, they are tough, but some tough decisions have
    to be made in these cases or you have the tragedies that result
    when the system is not built in a way that can make not quick
    and not untimely, but timely, deliberative, but tough decisions
    so that children can be raised in the most nurturing
    environment possible because, over the long run, it is probably
    the most significant thing a government can do to ensure its
    own long-term health, for its children to be nurtured well. And
    they cannot do that by themselves. That is why we have prisons
    that are full and budgets that are overrun and a great deal of
    pain and suffering.
        So, while a lot of people do not like to focus on this
    issue or think it is soft, I think it is a very hard issue. It
    is a hard-cutting issue, and it needs a lot more attention than
    it gets in these walls. I hopefully can continue to try to stay
    focused on this for all of us, and we will help you to do that.
        Ms. Cropp. Senator?
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Cropp. The council yesterday passed a resolution with
    regard to the family court and we will forward it to your
    office.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
        We are about to wrap up. Does anybody have anything for the
    record?
        Let me just ask the staff if there is anything I need to
    put in the record.
        The record will be open until the 20th, if anybody wants to
    add anything to this record.
        Any closing comments?

                             conclusion of hearings

        Mr. Mayor, thank you all. It has been a good hearing and
    the meeting is concluded.
        [Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, July 11, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Clark, John L., Corrections Trustee, Courts, District of Columbia   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   160
        Statement of.................................................   158
    Cropp, Linda M., Chairman, Financial Responsibility and
      Management Assistance Authority, District of Columbia..........   173
        Prepared statement...........................................   188
        Statement of.................................................   185
    DeLay, Hon. Tom, Majority Whip, U.S. Representative from Texas,
      statement of...................................................     9
    DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:
        Opening statements........................................... 1, 77
        Questions submitted by.............................51, 68, 121, 123
        Statement of.................................................   136

    Gahdhi, Dr. Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of
      Columbia.......................................................   173
        Prepared statement...........................................   197
        Statement of.................................................   195
    Graham, Carolyn, Deputy Mayor for Children and Youth Services,
      District of Columbia...........................................   173
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
        Questions submitted to.......................................    49
        Statement of.................................................    10
    Grossman, Hon. David E., Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court
      Division, Cincinnati, Ohio.....................................    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    95
        Questions submitted to.......................................   121
        Statement of.................................................    94

    Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of   177

    Jackson, Sondra, Acting Chief, Child and Family Services Agency,
      District of Columbia:
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
        Questions submitted to.......................................    51
        Statement of.................................................    16
    Jones, Cynthia, Director, Public Defender Services, Courts,
      District of Columbia...........................................   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   149
        Statement of.................................................   148

    King, Hon. Rufus G. III, Chief Judge, D.C. Superior Court,
      District of Columbia:
        Prepared statements.........................................84, 146
        Questions submitted to.......................................   123
        Statements of......................................77, 82, 129, 144

    Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:
        Opening statements of......................................129, 173
        Prepared statements..........................................7, 133
        Questions submitted by..........................49, 67, 70, 71, 123
        Statements of................................................ 6, 80

    Meltzer, Judith, Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Social
      Policy:
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
        Questions submitted to.......................................    71
        Statement of.................................................    21

    Ormond, Jasper, Interim Director, Court Services and Offender
      Supervision Agency, Courts, District of Columbia...............   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   154
        Statement of.................................................   152

    Rivlin, Dr. Alice M., Chairman, Council of the District of
      Columbia, District of Columbia.................................   173
        Prepared statement...........................................   193
        Statement of.................................................   192
    Roberts, James, President, Family Division Trial Lawyers
      Association, prepared statement................................   100

    Sinowitz, Betty E., Co-Vice President, Family Division Trial
      Lawyers Association, prepared statement........................   100
    Strauss, Paul, statement of......................................    99

    Thompson, Eric, Staff Attorney, Children's Rights, Inc.:
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Questions submitted to.......................................    68
        Statement of.................................................    28

    Vance, Paul, Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools, District of
      Columbia.......................................................   173

    Wagner, Annice M., Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial
      Administration, Courts, District of Columbia...................   129
        Prepared statement...........................................   140
        Statement of.................................................   138
    Walton, Hon. Reggie, Presiding Judge, Family Division, D.C.
      Superior Court, District of Columbia...........................    77
        Statement of.................................................    92
    Williams, Hon. Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia..............   173
        Prepared statement...........................................   182
        Statement of.................................................   178

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                     Child and Family Services Receivership

                                                                       Page
    Abuse and neglect, consolidating.................................    31
    Additional committee questions...................................    48
    Adequate:
        Funding......................................................    30
        Legal counsel................................................    31
    Adoption and Safe Families Act...................................  4, 9
    At-risk children.................................................     2
    Authority over agency-related functions..........................    30
    Caseworkers/social workers.......................................    55
    CFSA:
        Accomplishments..............................................    18
        Information management system................................    12
        Update on role in the transition.............................    20
    Challenges.......................................................    16
    Children in the system...........................................    53
    Child welfare:
        Steps to regaining administration of.........................    28
        System.......................................................    21
    D.C. Child Welfare System........................................     1
    Faces............................................................    12
    Fiscal year 2001 highlights......................................    19
    GAO report.......................................................     2
    LaShawn:
        Decree.......................................................    21
        Order........................................................23, 29
    Mayor's reform plan..............................................    11
    Progress report on implementation of October 23, 2000 consent
      order governing transition of the LaShawn receivership.........    25
    Receivership..................................................... 2, 11
    Reforming the system............................................. 5, 10
    Reporting and investigation......................................    57
    Sexual abuse, reports of.........................................     5
    Structure of the agency..........................................    30
    Transition:
        Order........................................................    22
        Out of receivership..........................................    28
        Prerequisite for.............................................    22

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Anacostia River initiative.......................................   180
    Chief Financial Officer, role of the.............................   202
    Child welfare....................................................   216
    Council period XIV...............................................   188
    Council-Mayor budget process, the................................   189
    Budget:
        Development of the fiscal year 2002..........................   198
        District's fiscal year 2001 budget supplemental, the.........   197
        District's fiscal year 2002..................................   198
        Highlights of the fiscal year 2002...........................   189
        Improvements for the fiscal year 2003........................   198
        Structural imbalance in the District.........................   198
    District's reserve policy, change in the.........................   199
    Education in the District........................................   212
    Federal contribution.............................................   189
    Fiscal responsibility............................................   181
    Investing in critical priorities.................................   183
    One government, good government, and self-government.............   185
    Local funds budget...............................................   186
    Long-term structural reform......................................   210
    Maintaining fiscal responsibility................................   184
    School budget....................................................   178
    Reserve fund.....................................................   199

                                     Courts

    Background.......................................................   160
    Cases handled by agency, increase in number of...................   150
    Courthouse facility renovation...................................   168
    Courts:
        And the community............................................   142
        Improving defender services operations at the................   142
        Performance measurement at the...............................   143
    Criminal Justice Act, assistance to the court in administering
      the............................................................   150
    Criminal justice process, initiatives to improve the within the
      District of Columbia...........................................   163
    Enhancing management practices...................................   141
    Family court reform..............................................   165
    Fiscal year:
        2000 initiative: parole revocation...........................   151
        2002 budget:
            Priorities of the courts.................................   143
            Request:
                Community re-entry...................................   153
                Of the corrections trustee...........................   164
    Implementation of the act and the Lorton closure process.........   161
    Lorton Correctional Facility closing.............................   170
    Mental health treatment program, creation of a...................   151
    Progress and new initiatives.....................................   155
    Progress on agency functions and fiscal year 2000 initiatives....   150
    Space needs......................................................   147
    Staffing.........................................................   147
    Perspectives on current operations...............................   162
    Strengthening financial management at the Courts.................   140
    Training.........................................................   147

                              D.C. Superior Court

                                                                         79
    Additional committee questions...................................   121
    Assignments......................................................    86
    Backlog..........................................................   117
    Case backlogs....................................................    98
    Cases currently under review.....................................   126
    Child protection mediation.......................................    87
    Court-based data information system..............................    98
    Family division reform plan......................................    84
    Filled as a family court.........................................   105
    4,500 cases currently under review by judges.....................    87
    Judicial:
        Officers/magistrates.........................................    97
        Tenure.......................................................    97
    Facilities.......................................................    98
    Magistrate judges................................................    87
    National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.............    95
    Permanency Branch................................................   123
    Planning.........................................................   126
    Reduction in caseload and length of stay for children............   121
    Resources........................................................    98
    Specialization.................................................86,  125
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court Reform
      Plan (DRAFT)..................................................86,  87
    System accountability............................................    87
    Training........................................................87,  98
    Unified family court.............................................    86

                                       -