    [Senate Hearing 107-891]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-891

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 5521/S. 2809

      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,
                          2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                              District of Columbia
      Putting Families First: The Road to Reform of the D.C. Family Court
              Regional Emergency Planning for the Nation's Capital

                                   __________

             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
    78-468                         WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    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

                    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
                      Terrence E. 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
                                  Kate Eltrich
                            Mary Dietrich (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            Thursday, March 14, 2002

    Regional Emergency Planning for the Nation's Capital.............     1

                            Thursday, March 21, 2002

    District of Columbia: Court......................................    53

                            Tuesday, April 16, 2002

    District of Columbia: Education..................................   101

                           Wednesday, April 24, 2002

    Putting Families First: The Road to Reform of the D.C. Family
      Court..........................................................   153

                             Tuesday, June 11, 2002

    District of Columbia.............................................   237

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, at 2:39 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Landrieu.

              REGIONAL EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL

    STATEMENT OF MARGRET NEDELKOFF KELLEMS, DEPUTY MAYOR
                FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            PETER G. LaPORTE, DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                AGENCY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
            RICHARD A. WHITE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WASHINGTON
                METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
            MICHAEL ROGERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
                COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
            DONALD KELDSEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, MARYLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
                AGENCY
            MICHAEL CLINE, COORDINATOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR VIRGINIA
            JAMES SCHWARTZ, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, ARLINGTON,
                VIRGINIA FIRE DEPARTMENT

                 opening statement of senator mary l. landrieu

        Senator Landrieu. Let me begin by reminding our witnesses
    and everyone attending that the meeting is not only being
    covered in our usual ways, but Senator Byrd has--and we have
    agreed, to have this meeting covered on the Internet. So this
    is going to be live. And it is not the first time, but it is a
    new policy that we have adopted. So I just wanted to let you
    know that we are wired for sound.
        Welcome to the District of Columbia Subcommittee Hearing on
    Emergency Preparedness. At our last meeting last year both the
    ranking member, Senator DeWine, and I had committed to having
    as one of our first meetings this year an update of the
    Districts' emergency management plan.
        We are all very familiar, too familiar, with what happened
    on September 11. And we are aware that it is our responsibility
    to do everything in our power to make sure that if there is
    another such attack, we hope that there won't be, but we
    prepare as if there will be, that we would be ready, first of
    all, if we can, to prevent the attack. But if we fail at
    detecting and preventing an attack, then we must deal with the
    consequences of it as effectively and as professionally and as
    carefully and as thoroughly as we can.
        And none of us can do that alone. Therefore, the purpose of
    this meeting is to see how the District of Columbia, which is a
    rich target, and surrounding areas, which are rich targets,
    emergency operations plans are coming along to work together in
    that way.
        Coordination between jurisdictions is essential. I hear
    this from many of my colleagues, from Senator Mikulski, from
    Senator Sarbanes, from Senator Warner, from Senator Allen, as
    well as from Mayor Williams, representatives of the District
    and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about this issue.
        I have four specific goals and I'm going to submit my
    longer statement for the record. But I hope that our committee
    can help, with other committees of jurisdiction, to help create
    a seamless emergency response plan for the region; to establish
    rigorous training under the plan for regional first responders;
    that the plan, once implemented and signed off on, must be
    communicated to the public in a way that they understand their
    role; that we just don't understand our roles, but the
    residents and the workers and the people who live in this
    region understand the plan and can respond appropriately should
    something happen.
        And the end result of all of this, I hope we have the
    highest level of security, but that we keep the welcome sign
    out in the District of Columbia and in the region that we are
    so proud of.
        So those are my four goals. After I hear some additional
    testimony I may add some additional goals, but just to get us
    started, I thought I would throw those goals out.
        Let me remind everyone here that this subcommittee
    appropriated over $200 million, $175 million to the District of
    Columbia, $39 million to Metro, and $5 million to the Council
    of Governments, and tasked those entities with coming up with a
    response plan and coordinating it with regional
    representatives. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
    as to how this $175, $39 and $5 million has either been
    partially spent or is planning to be spent. We also have
    representatives from Maryland and Virginia, who we hope will
    comment about how the District's particular efforts are either
    complementing or meshing or not, or conflicting, whatever the
    case might be, with the States plans.
        I am going to submit, without objection, a longer statement
    for the record, and also submit this fact sheet that was part
    of an assessment recently done by CNN when assessing resources
    for the District of Columbia.
        Washington was ranked seventh overall among the Nation's 30
    largest cities in a study of resources and training focused on
    disaster preparedness. In addition, D.C. was ranked second in
    the category of medical response resources, with 328.7
    physicians per 10,000 people. It ranked second for Federal
    emergency preparedness grants, 19,613 per 10,000 residents. It
    ranked first for the ratio of police officers to the
    population, 63.4 officers per 10,000 residents, but it ranked
    27th out of 30 of the Nation's largest cities for the
    efficiency of its transportation system in the event of
    emergency.
        I am sure Metro may want to comment. My question when I was
    shown this is that resources do not necessarily translate into
    readiness. You can throw a lot of resources at something, but
    if you do not have a good plan and those resources were not
    either invested or spent wisely, you could be no more ready
    except to have $100 million.
        So while I am happy to see that we are ranking in the top
    in terms of resources, I would be very happy when I am
    convinced, not to say that I am skeptical at this point, but I
    think the record is just open about, that we are turning our
    resources into readiness and into security. And that is the
    point of this hearing; in addition, we must determine if we are
    planning in a regional way that will result in a seamless
    regional emergency plan so our residents and our workers and
    our Nation can be confident that we are doing the very best we
    can. I would like to include in the record my full prepared
    statement and the statement of the ranking member, Senator
    DeWine.

                              prepared statements

        So with that, let me just introduce our witnesses.
        We have Mrs. Margret Kellems, Deputy Mayor for Public
    Safety, who's taken a leadership role here; Mr. Peter LaPorte,
    Director of the Emergency Management Service Agency. We have
    Metro represented by Mr. Richard White; we have our Council of
    Governments represented by Mr. Michael Rogers; and we have
    Maryland and Virginia represented by the acting director of the
    Maryland Emergency Management Agency, Mr. Donald Keldsen, and
    Virginia represented by Mr. Michael Cline, the coordinator of
    Emergency Management for Virginia, and Mr. Jim Schwartz,
    assistant chief of operations for the Arlington County fire
    department. Chief Schwartz, we are happy to have you here.
        Mrs. Kellems, why do you not begin?
        [The statements follow:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Welcome to the Senate District of Columbia Appropriations
    Subcommittee hearing on regional emergency planning for the Nation's
    Capital. I want to give a special welcome to our witnesses this
    afternoon: Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Margret Nedelkoff Kellems;
    Peter LaPorte, the District's Emergency Management Agency Director;
    Richard White, CEO of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    Authority; and Michael Rogers, Executive Director of the Washington
    Council of Governments.
        I am also happy to have representatives of the State and local
    governments surrounding the District to hear their views on the
    regional preparedness planning needs for the area. I want to thank:
    from the State of Maryland, Donald Keldsen and from Virginia, Michael
    Cline for attending today's hearing and answering questions. I also
    want to thank Jim Schwartz, Assistant Chief of Operations for the
    Arlington Fire Department, for coming today. Mr. Schwartz was the on-
    site commander at the Pentagon on 9/11.
        Last November, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the District's
    emergency planning efforts and funding needs in the wake of the
    terrorist attacks of September 11. That hearing bolstered my commitment
    to provide the necessary resources for the District to prepare for an
    respond to an emergency. The Congress approved $200 million for the
    District Government, the Metro transit system, and the Council of
    Governments to train and equip your personnel and increase security in
    the Capital. I would like to hear from each of you how those resources
    are contributing to a higher state of readiness. I thought it was
    appropriate for our first hearing this year to look back for
    accountability for funds appropriated last year and to look ahead to
    developing a regional emergency strategy.
        I hope this hearing will serve as a springboard to four principle
    outcomes for emergency planning and security in the region. First, the
    creation of an easy-to-understand, seamless regional emergency response
    plan that incorporates best practices. Second, the plan should have a
    rigorous regional training component. Third, the public needs to be
    educated about the plan which evacuation routes should people use and
    the locations of shelters. Finally, I hope we can begin to move toward
    a longer term goal of creating security systems for the region that do
    not take away from the beauty and the majesty of our Nation's Capital.
        The terrorist attacks of September 11, just 6 months ago, united
    the nation. In this, the terrorists failed because they sought to tear
    us apart. Instead, we as a people came together as one. But the attacks
    also taught us a number of valuable lessons and gave us a renewed
    awareness of the value of emergency planning and a strong civil
    defense.
        The attacks also underscored that the District of Columbia faces
    unique emergency preparedness challenges that go beyond those that
    would normally face a living, breathing city of over 500,000 people.
    The District is vulnerable to a terrorist attack because it is the seat
    of government of the nation that symbolizes freedom and democracy in
    the world so this City must be prepared for the worst. The larger
    challenge is that any emergency in the City be it a terrorist attack or
    a snow storm will have an immediate impact on at least 17 other cities,
    towns, and counties in the two States on Washington's borders. Until
    September 11 it was not unusual for all 17 of these State and local
    governments as well as the Federal Government and the mass transit
    system, Metro, had their own emergency operations plans.
        The challenge, as a Capital, a City and a Region, is to ensure that
    these plans are at the very least coordinated on an operational basis,
    and that consistent policies govern decision making across the region.
    Without a seamless regional plan, this area could become crippled at
    the worst possible time.
        The City has developed a comprehensive emergency response plan,
    called the ``District Response Plan'' or ``DRP.'' The DRP identifies 15
    Emergency Support Functions such as transportation, law enforcement,
    fire fighting, mass health care, and public communications and
    identifies the lead City agencies responsible for each. The DRP also
    identifies agencies that will provide valuable support in each of these
    functions. I must congratulate the City, Mayor Williams, and his team
    for putting this Plan together. It anticipates a wide range of
    emergency scenarios from the routine to the devastating and sets forth
    systems for how City agencies will respond to these events.
        I understand the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, was
    actively involved in the formulation of the DRP. Cooperation between
    the District and the Federal Government is essential. I believe a
    higher degree will be necessary as we go forward. I will be interested
    to hear whether District officials have been briefed on the so-called
    ``Shadow Government'' that we have heard about in media reports. For
    some emergencies the District Response Plan indicates that one of the
    first calls the City might make will be to a Federal agency the
    Department of Justice or the Department of Agriculture for example. If
    either one of those agencies has been severely disrupted or destroyed,
    District officials should be able to find out how to contact the
    Federal agencies wherever they may be.
        In reviewing the District's plan, I did not get a sense as to
    whether Maryland, Virginia, and the communities in suburban Washington
    played any role in developing the District's Plan. Some State and local
    agencies from the surrounding suburbs are identified as having a
    support role in some of the Plan's Emergency Support Functions for
    example, in the transportation area. However, it does not seem that
    those suburban communities play a role in some of the other Emergency
    Support Functions when perhaps they could.
        Developing a regional emergency response plan for the Washington
    area will be a highly complicated and monumental task. Coordinating the
    emergency planning needs and systems of 17 local and State
    jurisdictions, plus the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    will be very difficult. In December, as part of the Defense
    Supplemental Appropriations bill, we included funding for the
    Washington Area Council of Governments, COG for short, to develop a
    regional plan. I understand that COG has made progress in this area and
    I look forward to hearing the testimony about how this planning is
    proceeding.
        I want to thank you all for attending this hearing today and for
    contributing to the highest state of preparedness in the nation. We
    will forward additional questions for the record to each witness, if
    necessary.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine

        Madam Chairman, the attacks of September 11 Dealt direct blows to
    the cities of New York and Washington, DC. it is little wonder why
    terrorists targeted these two cities. They represent our economic
    strength and our military and democratic strength. That is one of the
    main reasons that Congress provided $200 million in the fiscal year
    2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill to secure the District of
    Columbia from future attacks.
        Without question, Washington, DC, Is a unique city. It has the
    honor and the immense responsibility of being home to the Federal
    Government. This is a burden that we recognize every year when we
    provide specific appropriations for the city. We understand, however,
    that although we provide some of the city's resources, it is the
    District officials who are on the front lines in deciding how to spend
    a majority of those funds.
        Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the
    District plans to use these resources and how we--as Federal partners
    in this effort--can support the goal of securing our people and our
    institutions from terrorists.
        I am particularly interested in hearing how the city is equipped to
    provide emergency assistance to children. because of their size,
    metabolism, and body development, children are more vulnerable than
    adults in certain crisis situations. Yet, emergency equipment--such as
    oxygen masks--is usually designed for adults and cannot be used
    effectively to assist children. Often, staged emergencies do not
    include children and rescue workers are not trained to handle the
    special needs of children. So today, I'd like you to discuss how
    prepared the city is in assisting our youngest citizens in the event of
    an emergency.
        Before September 11, I was concerned about reports that local,
    regional, and Federal law enforcement officers were unable to
    communicate with one another because their communications systems were
    not compatible. I included funds through the fiscal year 2002 DC
    Appropriations Bill so that we could begin to make these systems
    interoperable. After September 11, the need for communications
    compatibility became urgent. In the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Bill,
    we provided an additional $45 million to continue this effort. I'd like
    to hear from our witnesses today about the progress that's been made in
    ensuring that the many law enforcement officers in the region can
    communicate and coordinate with one another.
        In conclusion, we are pleased to have this group of witnesses
    before us today to discuss how they are working to ensure that the
    metropolitan area is prepared for future emergencies. As I noted
    earlier, they are the ones on the front lines of this effort. We thank
    them for their hard work and dedication and we look forward to
    continuing to partner with them to protect our Nation's Capital.

        Ms. Kellems. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairperson
    Landrieu.
        I am Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, the Deputy Mayor for Public
    Safety and Justice for the District. And with your permission,
    I would submit my written testimony for the record. And also
    with your permission, I would like to deviate from it in
    response to some of the issues that you raised just at the
    outset.
        In my written testimony I outline some of the management
    infrastructure that's been put into place to make sure that we
    are using all our money and resources wisely, that we are
    tracking them well and that we are integrating them. And that's
    all included in the written testimony. But listening to you at
    the beginning, I thought maybe I should speak a little more
    about the planning process that's been going on. Of course I'll
    be happy to answer any questions about the resources as well.

                        DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE

        Just after the 11th the Mayor convened a Domestic
    Preparedness Task Force among the District agencies. The
    members were the agency heads from the primary, not just the
    first responders, but all of the primary response and recovery
    agencies. So included in it we have Department of Public Works,
    the Department of Transportation--to mention an issue you just
    raised--in addition to police and fire and emergency management
    and emergency medical services. Also, the Department of Health
    and many others.
        The goal of the task force at the outset was to make sure
    that in these days when we felt like we were living on borrowed
    time that we address some of the most immediate issues. God
    forbid something should happen in a few days or a few weeks
    after the 11th. He wanted to be sure that we had done
    everything we could to improve our state of readiness as
    quickly as possible.
        The task force met weekly and very quickly broke into
    subcommittees. The subcommittees were organized around
    something called emergency support functions, which is the term
    of art that the Federal Government also uses in its Federal
    response plan. They include things like communications,
    transportation, firefighting, hazardous materials response,
    urban search and rescue, and that sort of thing.
        There are in our plan a few additional ESFs, emergency
    support functions, that do not appear in the Federal response
    plan, because they are things that are really purely local.
    Then a number of the members of the task force went to New York
    and visited with the folks there to understand what kind of
    challenges they faced. They had a plan, they implemented it,
    and yet of course they faced many new and additional
    challenges. And we folded that into our thinking as we
    developed our new and improved District Response Plan. And some
    of those issues actually became part of ESFs, or emergency
    support functions.

                             DISTRICT RESPONSE PLAN

        That group, over the course of about 3 months, completely
    rewrote and redesigned the District Response Plan. It wasn't
    just the district agencies who were doing this. The district
    agencies took the lead in each of these functional areas, but
    they worked very closely with the Federal agencies that also
    have responsibilities in those same areas, private sector
    partners that we found were essential to our planning process;
    for example, the hospitals, the hospital association, the Red
    Cross, some of the volunteer organizations. So for each of
    those functional areas the District convened a subcommittee
    comprised of the Federal, the surrounding jurisdictions that we
    needed to work with, and the private sector and community
    organizations.

                                 TRANSPORTATION

        Of particular note, just because you brought it up in your
    opening remarks, was the transportation part of it. We
    recognized that within the four boundaries of the district what
    we faced on September 11 was a transportation emergency as much
    as anything else. We also realized that the transportation
    emergency extended beyond the four boundaries of the district.
    Our downtown area was clear within a few hours, within a couple
    of hours after the plane hit the Pentagon, but traffic was
    backed up horribly as people tried to get further and further
    out of the city.
        So the transportation subcommittee included members from
    MDOT, Maryland's Department of Transportation, and VDOT, as
    well as the Federal Department of Transportation. Their primary
    focus was to figure out how, in the event of a disaster, we
    would evacuate all of the people in this area as far away as
    they needed to. And I hope during the course of this hearing we
    can talk about some of the details of that area, but it is just
    one example of the kind of work that's happened since then.
        All of the folks sitting at this table I hope, I believe,
    are going to say that there's been an enormous amount of
    cooperation in the areas where we really needed it most, in the
    health care and health services response, in the transportation
    area, in the communications area, the communication
    infrastructure area, to which we've devoted a lot of our time
    and resources. So I hope I can answer more detail during the
    course of the hearing, and of course speak to some of the
    resources, without which we would not be able to implement this
    plan.
        But overall, I think that if we come away with nothing
    else, I think we should rest assured that there has been an
    enormous amount of progress; that the folks who live in the
    city, the many, many people who work here and the 20 plus
    million visitors we get each year should have a much higher
    degree of confidence that not only has the planning been done,
    but now of course thanks in part to you and your colleagues, we
    have the resources to actually implement that kind of plan.
    We've submitted just briefly spending plans on how we would
    expend the funds.
        We've expended a significant amount. I think the number as
    of today is about 17 million--and I think that number will grow
    significantly over the next couple of weeks as we sort out some
    of the initial paperwork that we had we just received. We
    actually took the Federal funds about a month ago, just about a
    month ago. So we've been spending at a very quick pace,
    focusing on our highest priority, things like preparedness,
    personal protective equipment a lot of training that's being
    done with the District and some of the surrounding
    jurisdictions jointly, and beginning to build out some of the
    communications and transportation infrastructure that we think
    is so essential.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So with that, I will be happy to answer your questions
    after my fellow panelists here speak. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Margret Nedelkoff Kellems

        Good afternoon, Chairperson Landrieu and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, Deputy Mayor for Public
    Safety and Justice for the District of Columbia. I am pleased to have
    the opportunity to testify today before you today about regional
    emergency planning and the level of emergency preparedness and
    coordination with surrounding jurisdictions. As Director LaPorte's
    testimony reflects, the District has made great strides in developing
    an operational infrastructure to ensure that our nation's capital will
    be prepared for any emergency that may arise. As the co-chairs of the
    Mayor's Emergency Preparedness Council, a cabinet level organization
    arising from the Mayor's Domestic Preparedness Task Force, John
    Koskinen, the City Administrator, and I are responsible for ensuring
    that we are in close contact with other jurisdictions in the
    Washington, D.C. Metro Area in an effort to promote and ensure
    coordinated emergency response. As Mr. LaPorte mentioned, the District
    is participating in the development of a regional communications and
    communication plan, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Washington
    Council of Governments.
         Additionally, earlier this week, representatives from the District
    participated in the Senior Leaders' Seminar, hosted by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This
    exercise highlighted the need for strong regional coordination in any
    major terrorist incident in the DC Metropolitan area and tested the
    interoperability of the District and Federal Response Plans.
        Developing an operating infrastructure, however, is only the first
    step in ensuring preparedness. Thanks in large part to the support of
    members of this Subcommittee, the District government received
    approximately $156,000,000, along with $39,100,000 going to WMATA, to
    support the implementation of the District Response Plan. We recognize
    the significance of this federal support and we are committed to
    spending these funds on time, in accordance with Congress's intent, and
    in a way that maximizes the District's state of preparedness to deal
    with any disasters that may arise.
         As you may well imagine, such a large influx of resources creates
    new management pressures on District support agencies. I would briefly
    like to discuss the management infrastructure that we have put into
    place to ensure the highest level of financial and programmatic
    accountability for the federal dollars we have received.
        As you know, the federal appropriation is split into 12 Federal
    Payment Categories to District Agencies that spell out specific use of
    funds, as well as payments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    Authority and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

    Protective Clothing and Breathing Apparatus...................$7,144,000
    Specialized Hazardous Materials Equipment..................... 1,032,000
    Chemical and Biological Weapons Preparedness..................10,355,000
    Pharmaceuticals for Responders................................ 2,100,000
    Response and Communications Capability........................14,960,000
    Search, Rescue and Other Emergency Equipment and Support...... 8,850,000
    Equipment, Supplies and Vehicles for the Office of the Chief
        Medical Examiner.......................................... 1,780,000
    Hospital Containment Facilities for the Department of Health.. 8,000,000
    Office of the Chief Technology Officer........................45,494,000
    Emergency Traffic Management..................................20,700,000
    Training and Planning......................................... 9,949,000
    Increased Facility Security...................................25,536,000
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority................39,100,000

        All of these funds have been strategically allocated across
    District agencies based on identified needs. Every agency that is to
    receive federal funds has developed a spending plan that identifies
    what resources will be purchased and over what time period. These
    spending plans ensure that we have a mechanism to track and benchmark
    our progress in spending federal emergency preparedness funds. I have
    submitted with my testimony a graphic that depicts agency spending
    plans, by fiscal quarter.
        In addition to agency-specific spending plans, we also are creating
    a centralized procurement unit to focus exclusively on purchasing
    against domestic preparedness funds. This unit will ensure that
    emergency preparedness procurement requests, particularly the most
    time-sensitive, are processed on their own, prioritized procurement
    schedule, utilizing expedited procurement techniques. Having a unit
    dedicated to cover these funds has an added advantage of ensuring a
    level of consistency and cost effectiveness across District agencies
    that may be purchasing similar goods or services.
        From the financial perspective, expenditures are monitored closely
    to ensure that they are in line with the spending plans submitted by
    each agency and are in accordance with the agency quarterly
    apportionment request.
        The District received its first quarterly allocation of funds in
    mid-February, or approximately one month ago. Nevertheless, because of
    the work we already had done in preparation, in that short time we have
    been able to expend or obligate over $6 million. We will be submitting
    our first quarterly report on the use of the funds tomorrow. Among the
    items that we already have begun to procure are Fire/EMS response
    apparatus and hazmat equipment for our first responders. Furthermore,
    we have expedited training for our Fire/EMS specialized response units.
    Starting on February 11, the District's Hazmat Task Force Unit and
    Rescue Squads began specialized training. As of today, 48 individuals
    on these teams already have been certified in levels 1, 2, and 3 hazmat
    response. By April 19, all 125 individuals on these specialized units
    will be certified at all three levels. On a parallel track, starting on
    February 17 we began a broader training initiative for the rest of the
    F/EMS Department, and by mid-October 2002, approximately 1,000
    firefighters will be certified at hazmat levels 1 and 2. All
    individuals are being trained at the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute
    (MFRI), which ensures that District firefighters will share a common
    training foundation with surrounding jurisdictions. As you can see, our
    first priority is to ensure that our first responders are equipped and
    trained and that our technological and communications infrastructure is
    in place, as these are the pillars on which the success of an effective
    response will stand.
        In fact, our actual expenditures are lower than our first quarter
    expenditure projections; however, this is not unexpected during this
    initial ramp up period. With our expenditure tracking system in place,
    I have no doubt that we will expend all of these funds timely and to
    the benefit of all of the residents and workers in the District.
        I am pleased to report that as a city, we are developing
    performance standards and measurements for all agencies within the
    District of Columbia participating in the emergency management program.
    Every agency director in the District has in his or her performance
    contract with the Mayor a requirement that he or she participate in the
    relevant planning groups and training sessions. We are also developing
    specific performance standards for the expenditure of these funds.
        These preparedness efforts and budget allocations move the District
    closer to the goal of becoming the first city to meet the national
    standards for emergency management and business continuity programs
    endorsed by FEMA, the National Emergency Management Association, and
    the International Association of Emergency Managers. Meeting these
    standards will position Washington, D.C. to be the first city
    accredited under the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, once
    the program is online.
        We have come a long way in the six months since September 11 but we
    recognize that there is much to do in our own city, in our region, and
    in our partnership with the federal government. We continue to focus on
    improving our communications and coordination through the Council of
    Governments, the D.C. White House Task Force Committee on Emergency
    Preparedness, and in our relationships with our counterpart agencies in
    the surrounding jurisdictions. We hope that the citizens of the
    District of Columbia, those who work here, and the more than 20 million
    people who visit annually know that this city is well prepared for the
    events that we all hope and pray will never happen.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. LaPorte.
        Mr. LaPorte. Good afternoon, Chairperson Landrieu, members
    of the committee. I am Peter LaPorte, Director of Emergency
    Management for the District of Columbia. I am pleased to have
    the opportunity today to testify about the level of emergency
    preparedness and coordination with the surrounding
    jurisdictions, both State, county, and local and regional
    entities.
        In July of 2001, D.C. Emergency Management, in cooperation
    with FEMA and the Department of Justice, as well as our
    regional partners in Maryland and Virginia, convened a regional
    meeting of Federal and local response and recovery agencies to
    discuss regional preparedness for a terrorist attack using
    weapons of mass destruction. A tabletop exercise, to which
    local responders, Federal partners and other key agencies, such
    as Metro, WMATA, and the Airport Authority responded to a
    scenario featuring an attack using weapons of mass destruction
    was a key feature of the meeting. The ultimate goal was to
    develop a coordinated regional response plan as soon as
    possible. Subcommittees charged with developing various aspects
    of the plans were established and met regularly until September
    11.
        On September 11, 2001, it became abundantly clear that
    although we had made a very good start at developing a regional
    plan, we were not prepared to mount to the extent we needed to
    a coordinated regional response to emergencies. The region's
    response to the September 11 crash at the Pentagon showed just
    how our jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan region,
    along with State and Federal Governments, are inextricably
    intertwined, and therefore, must develop a coordinated plan to
    respond to the level and types of terrorist threats we now
    currently face.
        Immediately following September 11, 2001, Mayor Anthony
    Williams convened an interagency Domestic Preparedness Task
    Force to review the District's emergency management planning
    and activities. Through its meetings and dialogues, the task
    force enhanced critical linkages, operational relations with
    Federal, State and regional partners, as well as our regional
    stakeholders. The task force identified as a top priority for
    the District, the development of a comprehensive emergency plan
    capable of responding to any incident. And I emphasize any
    incident because of the new component we are looking at,
    catastrophic type disasters. Our planning is well beyond just
    your simple flood and that type of response.
        The task force has since evolved into the Mayor's Emergency
    Preparedness Council, which is a full-time city body that
    includes among its members District agencies, businesses,
    schools, universities, the Council of Governments, and local
    utility companies.
        Working in consultation with the Deputy Mayor for Public
    Safety and Justice, the City Administrator, and under the
    Mayor's leadership, DCEMA led the effort to reform the City's
    Emergency Response Plan, renamed the District Response Plan to
    reflect its revision to mirror the Federal Response Plan.
        I think it really needs to be emphasized how important that
    is in the business of emergency management, the one language,
    the common architecture of a response plan, Federal, State,
    local; the idea that there's an accepted language and an
    accepted understanding of the architecture of how a response
    plan would work.
        The new DRP is organized by emergency support functions,
    those tasks that, in the aggregate, comprise the City's
    response to emergencies and disasters. As work proceeded to
    develop the current DRP, DCEMA gathered input from its regional
    partners and stakeholders and used it to help shape the plan. A
    draft of the District Response Plan is posted on the agency's
    web site, dcema.dc.gov. It was posted there till September 11
    as part of our public review. March 11, excuse me, for public
    review and the comment process.
        Following the comment period, the DRP now is under a
    revision and will be forwarded to the city council in a very
    short period of time.
        As part of our effort to educate the community about its
    role in disaster preparedness and response, in early October of
    2001 EMA published a family preparedness guide and distributed
    it to every household in the city, as well as additional 81,000
    copies to all schools for distribution to each teacher,
    student, and staff member. Thousands, literally hundreds of
    thousands of copies of this guide have been distributed to
    community meetings, to business groups, hospitals, regional
    partners, and other interested parties.
        A major focus during 2002 will be the implementation of
    Community Emergency Response Team Training, in which community
    members partner with the first responders to prepare for and
    survive disasters within their communities. The 8-hour training
    course was developed by FEMA to teach communities how to take
    responsibility for their own community preparedness, as well as
    personal preparedness.
        In order to insure our workers are prepared to respond when
    called, EMA has increased the number of and types of training
    it offers first responders, medical workers, and emergency
    personnel, as well as for citizens who expressed an interest in
    learning about personal and community preparedness. Examples of
    new courses are Personal Preparedness, the DRP, the Incident
    Command System, Stress Management, and so on. The agency has
    also increased its efforts to encourage neighboring
    jurisdictions to participate in regional training efforts and
    we've opened all of those courses to our regional partners at
    no expense. In fact, we are strongly encouraging their
    participation in all of these training classes.
        As part of its ongoing effort to ascertain the efficacy of
    the plan, the City took part in a tabletop exercise, Tuesday
    and Wednesday of this week hosted by the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers to test the
    effectiveness of our response plan and the overall capabilities
    of the greater Washington, D.C. area to respond to a terrorist
    attack. Participants included Maryland, Virginia, the District
    of Columbia, EPA, DOT. It literally was the entire Federal
    family. It was well over 300 people at the exercise, that
    simulated almost a, I would say a worse case scenario and how
    we'd respond to that.
        Through its membership again with the Washington Council of
    Government's, Homeland Security Task Force, EMA works with the
    16 other regional member jurisdictions to enhance regional
    preparedness. Michael--an example of that regional preparedness
    is the Regional Incident Communications and Coordination
    System, and I am sure Michael Rogers will talk about that,
    which was developed to fill the gap in interagency coordination
    exposed September 11. RICCS facilitates communication about
    regional incidents and events by providing a comprehensive,
    real-time communication link that gives decision-makers the
    ability to respond in a coordinated, consistent and efficient
    manner under all scenarios.
        The District also serves as the control point for the
    Washington Area Warning Alert System. EMA transmits emergency
    messages to 67 regional response organizations including State
    and county agencies in Maryland and Virginia, as well as
    airports, railways, District and Federal agencies. And the list
    is very impressive when you look at who participates of the 67,
    including literally three separate drops at the White House.
    When we do a roll call of those 67 agencies, I will tell you in
    the last month it has been 100 percent each and every time. It
    has really proven to be a very good tool.
        Over the past 6 months the city has hosted or taken part in
    numerous community meetings focused on preparedness. Mayor
    Williams has led these meetings. They've been on local cable TV
    and they've been very well attended, standing room only, and
    literally the questions have all been right on point from the
    community.
        One issue that always arises is how the city plans to
    evacuate residents, workers, and visitors in the event of an
    emergency. Oftentimes I do not like to talk about evacuation. I
    like to talk about an expedited commute, because in many ways
    it is a transportation issue to expedite folks who need to get
    home. And if an event is not causing a disruption, you do not
    want to evacuate people that could easily stay at home. And in
    some cases, we need to continue that education of how to
    shelter in place, of other things that people can do to prevent
    themselves from being part of the disaster and exacerbating the
    situation.
        One of the most important parts is the District's Division
    of Transportation, which has been collaborating on regional
    transportation planning and coordination with Maryland and
    Virginia and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    Authority. New signage identifying roads that are event roads
    and directing motorists to I-395 will soon be installed on
    major throughways through the city. And what I would like to do
    actually is share with you some of the new signage that we are
    expecting and part of the new evacuation routes that are about
    to be announced in coordination with Maryland and Virginia.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As you can see, the District is fully engaged in local and
    regional preparedness and training activities. I take a great
    deal of pride in what we've been able to do in 6 months,
    sitting around that tabletop, you know, for a day and a half
    and having literally every regional director from the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers
    there and putting our plan through the paces. We held up very
    well. And in fact, it is Mayor Williams' challenge to Margret
    and, myself is to be the best prepared regional jurisdiction in
    the country. And I think we can accept nothing but being the
    best. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Peter G. LaPorte

        Good morning, Chairperson Landrieu and Members of the Committee. I
    am Peter G. LaPorte, Director of the District of Columbia Emergency
    Management Agency (DCEMA). I'm pleased to have the opportunity to
    testify today about the District's level of emergency preparedness and
    coordination with surrounding jurisdictions.
        In July 2001, the District of Columbia Emergency Management Agency,
    in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and our
    regional partners in Maryland and Virginia convened a regional meeting
    of federal and local response and recovery agencies to discuss regional
    preparedness for a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction.
    A tabletop exercise in which local first responders, federal partners
    and other key agencies, such as Metro, were asked to respond to a
    scenario featuring an attack using weapons of mass destruction was a
    key feature of the meeting. The ultimate goal was to develop a
    coordinated regional response plan as soon as possible. Subcommittees
    charged with developing various aspects of the plan were established
    and met regularly up until September 11.
        On September 11, 2001, it became abundantly clear that although we
    had made a good start at developing a regional plan, we were not
    prepared to mount a coordinated regional response to emergencies. Prior
    to September 11, 2001, many of the threats to the District of Columbia
    were localized, requiring minimal inter-jurisdictional coordination.
    The region's response to the September 11 plane crash at the Pentagon
    showed us that the jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan region,
    along with their state governments and federal partners, are
    inextricably intertwined and therefore must develop a coordinated plan
    to respond to the level and types of terrorist threats we currently
    face.
        Immediately following September 11, 2001, Mayor Anthony Williams
    convened an interagency Domestic Preparedness Task Force to review the
    District of Columbia's emergency management planning and activities.
    Through its meetings and dialogue, the task force enhanced critical
    linkages and operational relations with federal, state and regional
    partners, as well as with regional stakeholders. The task force
    identified as a top priority for the District of Columbia the
    development of a comprehensive emergency management program capable of
    responding to any incident. This task force has since evolved into the
    Mayor's Emergency Preparedness Council and includes among its members
    District agencies, businesses, schools and universities, the
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and local utility
    companies.
        Working in consultation with the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and
    Justice and the City Administrator and under the Mayor's leadership,
    DCEMA led the effort to reformat and refine the city's emergency
    response plan. Renamed ``District Response Plan'' (DRP) to reflect its
    revision to mirror the Federal Response Plan (FRP), the new DRP is
    organized by Emergency Support Functions (ESF)--those tasks that in the
    aggregate comprise the city's response to emergencies and disasters. As
    work proceeded to develop the current version of the DRP, DCEMA
    gathered input from regional partners and stakeholders and used it to
    help shape the plan. A draft copy of the DRP is posted on the agency's
    website through March 11 as part of the public review and comment
    process. Following the comment period, the DRP will be revised to
    incorporate appropriate changes and forwarded to the City Council.
        As part of its effort educate the community about its role in
    disaster preparedness and response, in early October 2001, DCEMA
    published a family preparedness guide and distributed it to every
    household in the city. An additional 81,000 copies were made available
    to the District of Columbia Public Schools for distribution to each
    teacher, student and staff member. Thousands of copies have also been
    distributed at community meetings and to business groups, hospitals,
    regional partners and other interested parties.
        A major focus during 2002 will be the implementation of Community
    Emergency Response Team (CERT) training in which community members
    partner with first responders to prepare for and survive disasters
    within their communities. The 8-hour training course was developed by
    FEMA to teach communities how to take responsibility for community and
    personal preparedness.
        In order to ensure that emergency workers are prepared to respond
    when called, DCEMA has increased the number and types of training it
    offers for first responders, medical workers and other emergency
    personnel as well as for citizens who have expressed an interest in
    learning more about personal and community preparedness. Examples of
    new courses are ``Personal Preparedness'', ``The DRP'', ``The Incident
    Command System'', and Stress Management''. The agency has also
    increased its efforts to encourage neighboring jurisdictions to
    participate in regional training efforts.
        As part of its on-going effort to ascertain the efficacy of the
    plan, the city took part in a tabletop exercise, February 12 and 13,
    2002, hosted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers to test the effectiveness of the District
    Response Plan and the overall capabilities of the greater Washington,
    D.C. area to respond to a terrorist attack. Participants included
    representatives from Maryland, Virginia as well as the District of
    Columbia.
        Through its membership in the Metropolitan Washington Council of
    Government's (COG) Homeland Security Task Force, DCEMA works with the
    16 other regional member jurisdictions to enhance the region's
    preparedness. An example of this regional effort is the Regional
    Incident Communication and Coordination System (RICCS), developed by
    COG to fill a gap in interagency communications exposed on September
    11, 2001. RICCS facilitates communication about regional incidents and
    events by providing a comprehensive, real-time communications link that
    gives decision-makers the ability to respond in a coordinated,
    consistent and efficient manner under all scenarios.
        The District also serves as the control point for the Washington
    Area Warning Alert System (WAWAS). DCEMA transmits emergency messages
    to 67 regional response organizations including state and county
    agencies in Maryland and Virginia as well as airports, railways and
    District and federal agencies.
        Over the past six months, the city has hosted or taken part in
    numerous community meetings focusing on preparedness. One issue that
    always arises is how the city plans to evacuate residents, workers and
    visitors in the event of an emergency. The District Division of
    Transportation (DDOT) has been collaborating on regional transportation
    planning and coordination with the Maryland Department of
    Transportation (MDOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
    and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA).
    New signage, identifying routes as event routes and directing motorists
    to I-395 will soon be installed on major city thoroughfares.
        As you can see, the District of Columbia is fully engaged in local
    and regional preparedness planning and training activities. Thank you
    for the opportunity to share information with you about these efforts.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
        Mr. White.
        Mr. White. Chairperson Landrieu, good afternoon. My name is
    Richard White. I serve as the general manager and chief
    executive officer of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    Authority here in the National Capital region. Thank you for
    asking me to testify on emergency preparedness planning in the
    National Capital region.
        By way of background, WMATA was created by the Congress in
    1967 as an interstate compact agency. The Metro system was
    designed primarily to serve the employees of the Federal
    Government, the residents of our region, the citizens of our
    Nation who come to Washington to do business with the Federal
    Government, and the millions of people who visit the National
    Capital region from throughout the world.
        Since the mid 1960's, population and employment in this
    region have skyrocketed, and the expectations of WMATA have
    also grown exponentially. Each day we provide 1.1 million trips
    on our rail and bus systems. Approximately 40 percent of the
    daily work trips to the core of the National Capital region are
    delivered by mass transit. Half of the Metrorail stations serve
    Federal facilities, and nearly 40 percent of the locally-based
    Federal work force use the Metro system regularly.
        WMATA has long been considered one of the safest and most
    secure transit systems in the Nation. Our transit police force
    works closely with the many police departments in the region,
    as well as the FBI, the Capitol Hill Police, the Secret
    Service, the National Park Service, and the Military District
    of Washington. Since 1998, we have had a number of our police
    force assigned full-time to the FBI's Local Terrorism Task
    Force.
        When the Tokyo Subway system was attacked with a sarin gas
    release in 1995, we recognized that we needed to improve our
    preparation for previously unimagined threats. We now conduct
    annual counter-terrorism and explosive incident training for
    police and operations personnel, as well as provide a high
    level of interagency coordination and training programs and
    exercises with the many law enforcement, fire and emergency
    rescue agencies in the metropolitan area. Essentially
    everything you've already heard from Peter and Margret we
    certainly participate in when it comes to coordination with the
    District and all of the other various jurisdictions in our
    metropolitan area.
        September 11 demonstrated the critical role of transit in
    regional emergencies, and we were called upon to quickly
    evacuate the core of the region at the same time the highway
    network clogged from congestion. We provided many services to
    the Federal Government and the region, including transporting
    local police, rescue workers and emergency supplies, providing
    emergency transportation for fleeing victims of the Pentagon
    attack, and our buses serving as emergency shelters for rescue
    workers. In response to a request from the Department of
    Defense, we opened our rail system earlier than normal for 30
    days to help support essential operations at the Pentagon.
        I do want to take this opportunity to thank you, Madam
    Chair, and the members of this subcommittee, as well as the
    entire Congress and the Administration for the strong support
    and funding we have received to enhance the WMATA security. We
    were appropriated $49.1 million in fiscal year 2002 funds, of
    which $39.1 million was approved as emergency supplemental
    funding in last year's Department of Defense Appropriations Act
    and through your subcommittee. The remaining $10 million we
    received resulted from an allocation of discretionary funds
    from the Administration.
        Against the $49.1 million total we have now received $41.52
    million. And although the fund transfers have been received
    only in the last 30 to 60 days, we have already obligated our
    first $1.8 million for the approved purposes. We are moving
    forward to quickly obligate the remaining funds on a variety of
    projects, including purchasing additional protective clothing
    and equipment, acquiring additional explosive detective canine
    teams, placing vehicle locator systems on our bus fleet and
    security cameras on some of our buses, furnishing our rail
    system with bomb resistant trash containers, improving our
    intrusion detection warning systems, connecting our security
    cameras in rail stations with a central control facility, and
    initiating upgraded security features at some of our
    facilities.
        These funds have also allowed us to begin installing
    chemical sensors, initially at up to 13--or 12 of our Metrorail
    stations. We have been working for several years with the
    Department of Energy, Transportation and Justice and the
    National Laboratories in applying chemical detection technology
    in the transit environment. We are the first transit system in
    the world to become equipped with chemical detection
    capability. We are now in the process of working with the
    military on potential applications for early biological
    detection exposure as well.
        It is expected by the end of this calendar year,
    approximately fully $45 million will have been obligated of the
    amount of funds approved, with the remainder obligated in the
    early to middle part of the next calendar year. Based on our
    continual review of our capabilities in responding to an
    emergency, we are currently developing a supplemental funding
    request to the Congress. This request will enable us to
    complete security projects underway, as well as address some of
    the additional issues we have which have recently been
    developed.
        While in many respects the region was indeed successful in
    responding to the September attack, it is clear, as the
    previous testifiers have said, that communications among
    agencies can be improved. As a part of the Metropolitan
    Washington Council of Governments' emergency planning process,
    we are participating fully in the regional deliberations to
    better coordinate emergency planning and communications. Until
    these processes are finalized, the region has developed an
    interim communications protocol to link the region's
    transportation agencies, WMATA, and others involved in
    responding to a serious incident that either involves or
    affects the regional transportation system.
        WMATA has volunteered to be the primary contact for the
    region's many transit agencies. We are aware that in a crisis
    we may be called upon to play many roles other than moving our
    work force quickly home. And we wish to be prepared for those
    eventualities, whether it is assisting the military or civilian
    government agencies during a crisis to move personnel,
    equipment and potentially patients, or quickly evacuating an
    area or Federal facility not regularly served by transit, we
    are committed to working with the region and the Federal
    Government to be ready when called upon.
        It does bear mentioning, as you said, Madam Chair, in your
    opening comments, that in a recent study of emergency
    preparedness of the Nation's 30 largest cities by a team of
    national disaster experts, although Washington was scored as
    being, quote, well prepared; and we should all be proud of
    that; and did rank seventh of the 30th cities, it did, as you
    say, have one of the lowest rankings in the area of
    transportation due to our region's chronic road and bridge
    congestion problem. Although the Washington metropolitan area
    has one of the highest uses of transit service in the entire
    country, we nevertheless still do have one of the most
    congested road systems in the country. And I think it is merely
    an issue of capacity and investment that leave us in this
    situation.
        I greatly appreciate the support of this subcommittee as
    provided as we move to enhance security of the Metro system.
    Given the fact that WMATA is located in the National Capital
    region and is so integral to the continued operations of the
    Federal Government, there is an even greater need to upgrade
    our ability to respond in emergencies, particularly given the
    negative implications of the congest problem in the National
    Capital region. The leadership and Federal support you have
    provided is critical to our ability to meet the new and
    increased roles expected of WMATA.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for holding a hearing on this important subject.
    I look forward to continuing with this subcommittee, the
    Congress, and the Administration as we strive to meet these
    many challenges and as a full and complete participant with the
    region. And I would be happy to answer your questions after the
    others have completed their testimony.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Richard A. White

        Chairman Landrieu and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon,
    and thank you for asking me to testify on coordination of regional
    emergency preparedness planning in the National Capital Region. I am
    Richard White, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) here in the
    National Capital Region.
                                   background
        By way of background, WMATA was created in 1967 through enactment
    of legislation by the U.S. Congress, and by the Commonwealth of
    Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The
    Metro System was designed primarily to serve the employees of the
    Federal Government, the residents of our region, the citizens of our
    Nation who come to Washington to do business with the Federal
    Government, and the millions of people who visit the National Capital
    Region from throughout the world.
        Since the mid 1960's, there has been dramatic growth and change in
    the National Capital Region. As population and employment in this
    region has skyrocketed, the demands on and expectations of WMATA have
    also grown exponentially. Each day we provide 1.1 million trips on our
    rail and bus systems. Approximately 40 percent of the daily work trips
    to the core of the National Capital region are delivered by mass
    transit service. Half of Metrorail stations serve Federal facilities,
    and nearly 40 percent of the locally based Federal workforce use the
    Metro system regularly to commute to their jobs. Across the Nation,
    transit has experienced the highest ridership growth rate of any
    transportation modes over the past 5 years.
                        wmata's emergency response role
        WMATA plays a critical role in ensuring that the important work of
    the National Capital Region continues under all circumstances.
    September 11 demonstrated the importance of transit in this region when
    we were called upon to quickly evacuate the core of the region at the
    same time that the highway network clogged from congestion. Every mode
    of transportation is important during emergencies, but transit is able
    to move people much more quickly and efficiently than automobiles which
    rapidly congest roads and highways.
        WMATA has long been considered one of the safest and most secure
    transit systems in the Nation. We have our own police force of 357
    sworn officers who are trained and certified in all three
    jurisdictions, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. We work
    closely with the many police departments in the region, as well as the
    FBI, the Capitol Hill Police, the Secret Service, the National Park
    Service, and the Military District of Washington. Since 1998, we have
    had a member of our police force assigned full-time to the FBI's local
    Terrorism Task Force.
        When the Tokyo Subway System was attacked with a sarin gas release
    in 1995, we recognized that we needed to improve our preparation for
    previously unimagined threats. We now conduct annual counter-terrorism
    and explosive incident training for police and operations personnel, as
    well as provide a high level of interagency coordination and training
    programs and exercises with the many law enforcement, fire and
    emergency rescue agencies in the metropolitan area.
        On September 11 we were called upon to provide many services to the
    Federal Government and the region. We helped evacuate the city,
    transport local police, rescue workers and emergency supplies, provided
    emergency transportation for fleeing victims of the Pentagon attack,
    and our buses served as emergency shelters for rescue workers. Further,
    in response to a request from the Department of Defense, we opened our
    rail system earlier than normal for a period of 30 days to help support
    essential operations at the Pentagon while it recovered from the
    September 11 attack. Since September 11, we have redoubled our focus on
    security and are continually assessing the best way to meet new
    challenges and expectations being placed upon WMATA.
                                security funding
        I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Chairman Landrieu,
    and the Members of this Subcommittee, as well as the entire Congress
    and the Administration for the strong support and funding we have
    received to enhance the security of WMATA facilities and equipment. In
    response to our request for Federal assistance, WMATA has received
    $49.1 million in fiscal year 2002 funds, of which $39.1 million was
    approved as emergency supplemental funding in last year's Department of
    Defense Appropriations Act. The remaining $10 million we received
    resulted from an allocation of discretionary funds from the
    Administration.
        We are moving forward to quickly obligate these funds on a variety
    of security projects including purchasing additional protective
    clothing and equipment, adding K9 explosive detection canine teams,
    placing vehicle locator systems on our bus fleet and security cameras
    on some of our buses, furnishing our rail system with bomb resistant
    trash containers, improving our detection warning systems, connecting
    our security cameras in rail stations with our Central Control
    facility, and initiating upgraded security features at our facilities.
        These funds have allowed us to move from a test phase to an
    installation phase for chemical sensors, initially at up to thirteen of
    our Metrorail stations. We have been working for several years with the
    Departments of Energy, Transportation and Justice and the National
    Laboratories in applying chemical detection technology in a transit
    environment. We are the first transit system in the world to become
    equipped with chemical detection capability. We are also now in the
    process of working with the military on potential applications for
    early biological detection exposure.
        Recently the Federal Transit Administration completed a security
    assessment of WMATA, as part of its nationwide review of transit system
    readiness. While they indicated to us that we are one of the best
    prepared transit systems in the country in terms of security, they also
    recognized our heightened vulnerability as a target, being located in
    the nation's capital. Based on the preliminary results of the FTA
    assessment, as well as our continual review of our capabilities in
    responding to an emergency, we are currently developing a supplemental
    funding request to the Congress. We plan to forward that request to the
    full Appropriations Committees, this Subcommittee, and the
    Administration in the very near future. The request will enable us to
    complete security projects now underway, as well as address some of the
    new vulnerabilities we have recently identified.
                             regional coordination
        While in many respects the region was very successful in responding
    to the September attack, it is clear that communications among agencies
    can be improved. As part of the MWCOG emergency planning process, we
    are participating in the regional deliberations to better coordinate
    communications among jurisdictions concerning regional transportation
    issues and activities following an emergency incident.
        Until these processes are finalized, the region has developed an
    interim communications protocol to link the District of Columbia,
    Maryland and Virginia departments of transportation, WMATA, and other
    agencies involved in responding to a serious incident that either
    involves or affects the regional transportation system.
        WMATA has volunteered to be the primary contact point for the
    region's many transit agencies under the COG umbrella, which is also
    working to ensure redundant communications systems, holding mock
    emergency conference calls, and initiating an on-line bulletin board.
    These ``quick-hit'' efforts are low- tech, but they assure our region
    will be better prepared to respond if an incident were to occur
    tomorrow.
        The transportation portion of the regional funding request being
    coordinated by MWCOG is focused primarily on improving communications
    and incident management capabilities. Much of WMATA's Federal funding
    request will echo this theme. Redundant and secure communications under
    our Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) are absolutely essential to
    WMATA's ability to continue to run rail and bus service in an
    emergency, including a major disruption to our Operations Control
    Center. Another part of the COG funding request will be for an improved
    regional traveler information system.
        We are also cognizant of our responsibility to communicate with
    citizens during a crisis. On September 11, our web site experienced an
    89 percent increase in use, and our Call Center and media offices also
    had a steep rise in inquiries. Our ability to communicate with our
    customers through various means, including the public address system in
    our rail system, which can reach thousands of people in this region
    simultaneously, is an important tool in emergencies. We are evaluating
    all of our communications and operating systems, as well as back up
    capability, in order to ensure that we are prepared to respond to any
    situation.
        We also look forward to continuing to work with the MWCOG and the
    District of Columbia as they develop actual planning scenarios. WMATA
    participates in the region's emergency preparedness exercises. This
    week a table top exercise was held with several Federal agencies, the
    District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia and WMATA simulating
    responses to threats in the Metro rail system. There is also a more
    extensive crisis planning workshop on March 21, 2002, that is sponsored
    by COG, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and others to determine
    the effectiveness of existing plans and cooperative agreements.
        We are aware that in a crisis, WMATA may be called upon to play
    many roles other than that of moving a work force quickly home, and we
    wish to be prepared for those eventualities. Whether it is assisting
    the military or civilian government agencies during a crisis to move
    personnel, equipment and potentially patients, or quickly evacuating an
    area or Federal facility not regularly served by transit, we are
    committed to working with the region and the Federal Government to be
    ready if we are needed. In an ongoing study we are currently completing
    on regional bus service we are examining establishing strategic bus
    corridors to help expedite evacuation from key Federal and other
    employment centers in the region.
        We need to ensure that the Federal Government participates fully in
    the preparation of the region's emergency response plan so that the
    region can be properly equipped to address Federal workforce mobility
    and Federal agency continuity of operations issues. I would add that it
    is also important to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government
    to participate in this as well.
                                   conclusion
        I greatly appreciate the support this Subcommittee has provided as
    we move to enhance security of the Metro System and to be prepared to
    respond to any future emergencies. I urge you to consider certain
    transit properties, such as the WMATA System, as an essential part of
    the nation's homeland defense system as it pertains to readiness of our
    urban centers, and to contemplate our value and needs as the evacuation
    method of choice, and possibly necessity, during specific emergency
    situations. Given the fact that WMATA is located in the National
    Capital Region and is so integral to the continued operations of the
    Federal Government, there is an even greater need to upgrade our
    ability to respond in emergencies. The leadership and Federal support
    you have provided is critical to our ability to meet the new and
    increasing roles expected of WMATA.
        Thank you for holding a hearing on this important subject. I look
    forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee, the Congress, and
    the Administration as we strive to meet these challenges. I would be
    happy to answer your questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I am Michael
    Rogers, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington
    Council of Governments. As you know, COG is a 501(c)(3) not for
    profit association of 17 governments in the Metropolitan
    Washington region serving Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland
    and the District of Columbia. This region is also known as the
    National Capital region.
        COG has served this region since 1957, providing a venue
    for regional collaboration and coordination on a multitude of
    public policy issues that have shaped this region, including
    transportation, planning and development, environment, public
    safety and emergency management, housing, and a host of other
    issues for which regional cooperation was essential.
        First, I want to acknowledge the support of this committee
    in insuring that this region received funds from the Federal
    budget to improve preparedness in the entire region post 9/11.
    Overall, the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and
    suburban Maryland jurisdictions, as well as key regional
    organizations such as COG and WMATA, received a total
    collectively of $320 million to improve emergency preparedness.
        I note this fact because of the significant nature of the
    act of allocating funds directly to jurisdictions in Northern
    Virginia and suburban Maryland. This act recognizes that
    jurisdictions within the COG region are significant to the
    Federal interest because of the Federal facilities and workers
    that are disbursed throughout this region.
        Kevin Avery asked me to bring a map. I have it----
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you for improvising. We do have an
    easel. The staff is getting it right now.
        Mr. Rogers. Okay.
        Senator Landrieu. But this will work for right now and then
    we'll get the easel so that the cameras might----
        Mr. Rogers. Well, we brought this map to show you the
    footprint of the COG region, the National Capital region, and
    the fact that Federal facilities and employees are located all
    over this region. And we think that is significant and the fact
    that this committee and the Federal Government allocated funds
    to--for regional security is very significant.
        Senator Landrieu. And the boundaries of this region are the
    red lines we see?
        Mr. Rogers. That's right.
        Senator Landrieu. The circle?
        Mr. Rogers. That's right.
        I am pleased to report that we have made substantial
    progress toward developing a Regional Emergency Response Plan.
    On April 10 we expect to present a baseline plan to the COG
    board for approval.
        In Public Law 107-38, COG was appropriated $5 million to be
    used to improve emergency preparedness in this region. The
    funds requested were allocated for the development of a
    regional plan, $1.5 million; the development of improved
    emergency communications, $500,000; development of a
    vulnerability assessment tool, $500,000; and development of
    regional training and exercises and community outreach, $2.5
    million. These funds are to be expended by September 30, 2003.
    COG received its first payment on February 1, 2002.
        Let me share the steps that have been taken to develop a
    Regional Response Plan and coordination.
        In October, the COG Board Chair, Carol Schwartz, created a
    COG Ad Hoc Task Force on Homeland Security and Emergency
    Preparedness. The purpose of the task force is to develop a
    comprehensive, all sector plan involving all levels of
    government in the region, key private sector organizations, and
    to improve communication and coordination when an incident of
    regional impact occurs.
        The task force involves representation from all of the
    local governments, key Federal agencies, the private sector,
    the educational community, volunteer organizations active in
    disaster, and the nonprofit community. Federal agencies that
    are participating in the task force include the Office of
    Homeland Security, FEMA, the Office of Personnel Management,
    the Army Corps of Engineers, the Military District of
    Washington, the Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.
    Public Health Service, and the Center for Disease Control.
        The task force is organized in six major functional areas:
    transportation, health, communications, solid waste debris
    management, public safety, energy and water supply.
        The committees of the task force are populated with
    representatives of all sectors in the functional areas. Through
    the committee structure, a number of gaps in policies,
    procedures and protocols, legal authorities and equipment have
    been identified. These committees identified 50 recommendations
    that were approved by the COG board. When implemented, these
    recommendations will address the identified gaps in the
    region's response on 9/11.
        The focus of our efforts has been to develop the framework
    for a Regional Emergency Response and Communication and
    Coordination Plan. We have hired a consultant group to work
    with us. The COG Board and task force have approved an approach
    that will result in a regional plan being modeled after the
    Federal Response Plan and the District Response Plan. Our
    objective is to create a common terminology for emergency
    response in this region, to create a seamless plan, if you
    will, from the Federal to the district to the regions and
    involving the States.
        The purpose of the Regional Emergency Response Plan is to
    assure effective regional communications and coordination among
    participation organizations in an event or incident in the
    region. The plan will be functionally organized and will use
    common terminology and structure for compatibility, with
    accepted State and local emergency plans. The framework for the
    Regional Emergency Response Plan describes the purpose and
    roles of member organizations, including the concept of
    operations. The Regional Emergency Response Plan describes the
    organizations that have roles and responsibilities for planning
    communication and coordination for specific support functions.
        The Regional Emergency Support Function is a collection of
    organizations with resources and capabilities that align with
    particular types of assistance or requirements that are needed
    in large-scale emergencies or disasters, provides effective way
    of grouping like organizations and activities from a wide range
    of dissimilar jurisdictions. Support annexes describe
    activities and responsibilities that have unique, cross-cutting
    regional requirements. The support annexes include emergency
    evacuation support plan and terrorism annex.
        Our progress to date includes more than 40 coordination
    meetings with working groups. We have drafted a basic framework
    for a Regional Emergency Response Plan and a framework of 11 of
    the 15 supporting annexes. We have reviewed all mutual aid
    agreements and determined what must be done to make them more
    effective. We are currently conducting a capability assessment
    for readiness, a survey of all 17 jurisdictions in the region.
    We have began the--begun the assessment of current training and
    exercises across the region, and this assessment will
    facilitate the development of a regional training and exercise
    plan.
        As I noted earlier, we have used a process that focuses on
    the many functions necessary for an emergency response plan.
    Those functions correspond with elements of the Federal
    Response Plan, and that is important, and the District Response
    Plan.
        Organizing the regional plan along cross-functional lines
    is creating a product that is sure to be effective because it
    matches the Federal outline. In addition, we, by inviting all
    regional stakeholders to the table to work on the plan, we are
    insuring that the extra level of coordination and value that
    will be extremely important for the region and its unique
    needs.
        Now let me say in view of all this highly visible planning
    process, it is reasonable to ask has anything that has been
    done in this region since 9/11 improved preparedness for an
    emergency incident? Are we more prepared for an attack or an
    emergency in this region than we were on September 10, 2001?
        The answer to that question is yes. But before I provide a
    detailed answer, let's take a look at what happened on 9/11
    according to a report by George Washington University Institute
    for Crisis and Disaster and Risk Management. Their report was
    funded by the National Science Foundation.
        The findings were encouraging. The Institute reported that
    the response to the attack on the Pentagon September 11 was
    effective, including both a rapid mobilization and integration
    of Federal and local resources, and the effective use of
    available assets and teams. I have attached a chart that kind
    of lays out a graphic of the deployment of resources and who
    responded on 9/11. And the short of it is that the first
    responders did their job, the mutual aid plans work.
        There's another report called ``Answer the Call:
    Communications Lessons Learned from the Pentagon Attack'' that
    was released on February 1 by the Public Safety Wireless
    Network, a joint initiative sponsored by Treasury and Justice
    Departments. The program's goal is to help public safety
    community improve wireless radio operability.
        This report indicated that there were 50 public safety
    organizations that responded to the Pentagon. They used 900
    radios. A lot of them were not on the same frequency, but there
    were various ways of creating interoperability. But
    nonetheless, though they were able to communicate at the site,
    there still remains an interoperability challenge that we need
    to focus on in this region.
        Now I say yes that we are prepared for an incident.
        Senator Landrieu. You have one more minute.
        Mr. Rogers. One more minute. And I can cut it short because
    both Margret Kellems and Peter LaPorte and Dick White have
    identified the work of COG through the planning process for the
    Regional Incident Communications Systems.
        What did not happen on 9/11 was the communication from the
    Federal Government to the local government and the early
    engagement of local decision-makers to coordinate and
    communicate early in the process. What we've created now is an
    interim measure called the Regional Incident Communications
    System, that will be operated on a interim basis at least by
    the District of Columbia Emergency Management Agency, that will
    have the ability to get regional leaders on the phone for a
    conference call or by a variety of backup mechanisms early in
    an incident, so that decisions can be made early in the process
    about how to respond to an incident so we can create one common
    message and one common approach, though it may be delivered
    through many voices in the region.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So if something happens, our first responders will respond
    and do their jobs. There are ways to create interoperability
    that did not exist in some cases on 9/11 and our leaders have
    the ability to communicate with each other early in the process
    for decision making. So that's the answer.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Michael C. Rogers

        Good Afternoon, Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
    Michael C. Rogers, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Washington
    Council of Governments (COG). As you know, COG is the 501(c)3 not for
    profit association of 17 governments in the Metropolitan Washington
    region serving Northern Virginia, Suburban Maryland and the District of
    Columbia. This region is also known as the National Capital Region.
        COG has served this region since 1957 providing a venue for
    regional collaboration and coordination on a multitude of public policy
    issues that have shaped this region, including transportation, planning
    and development, environment, public safety and emergency management,
    housing, and a host of other issues for which regional collaboration
    was essential.
        First, I want to acknowledge the support of this committee in
    ensuring that this region received funds from the federal budget to
    improve the preparedness of the entire region post 9-11. Overall, the
    District and the Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland jurisdictions
    as well as the key regional organizations, COG and the Washington
    Metropolitan Transit Authority, received collectively $320 million to
    improve emergency preparedness.
        I want to note this fact because of the significant nature of the
    act of allocating funds directly to the jurisdictions in Northern
    Virginia and Suburban Maryland. This act recognizes that jurisdictions
    within the COG region are significant to the federal interest because
    federal facilities and workers are disbursed all around this region.
    Having this region, because it is so target rich, be the best prepared
    in the country, is a desirable objective and this cannot be
    accomplished without substantial ongoing support by the federal
    government to the region.
        As a think tank on local issues and a regional information source,
    COG has molded its members into an effective partnership. We are an
    organization that often ensures that the region speaks with one voice.
    As we confront the aftermath of September 11, I believe there has been
    no other time in COG's 45-year history when those services have been
    more valuable to the region. Since the attack, we have effectively
    mobilized the entire region and focused the attention, time and talent
    of the region's leaders--and their emergency management and public
    safety officials--on the development of a plan.
        Madam Chair, I'm pleased to report that we have made substantial
    progress toward developing a Regional Emergency Response Plan, and on
    April 10, we expect to present a baseline plan to the COG board for
    approval.
        In Public Law 107-117, COG was appropriated $5 million to be used
    to improve regional emergency preparedness. The funds were allocated as
    requested in the following categories:
      --Development of Regional Emergency Response Plan: $1.5 million
      --Development of plan for improved emergency communications: $500,000
      --Development of regional vulnerability threat assessment tool:
            $500,000
      --Development of regional emergency training, including exercises and
            community outreach: $2.5 million
        These funds are to be expended by September 30, 2003. COG received
    its first allocation on February 1, 2002.
        Let me share with you what steps are being taken to develop a
    regional plan for emergency response and coordination.
        In October, then COG Board Chair Carol Schwartz created the COG Ad
    Hoc Task Force on Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness
    (COGHSTF). The purpose of COGHSTF is to develop a comprehensive all
    sector plan, involving all levels of government in the region and key
    private sector organizations to improve communication and coordination
    when an incident of regional impact occurs. The task force involves
    representation from area local governments, key federal agencies, the
    private sector, the educational community, Volunteer Organizations
    Active in Disaster (i.e. the National Capital Region Red Cross and the
    non-profit community.) Federal agencies that are participating in the
    task force include the Office of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Office of
    Personnel Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Military
    District of Washington, the Department of Health and Human Services,
    the U.S. Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control.
        The task force is organized into six major functional areas:
    Transportation, Health, Communications, Solid Waste/Debris Management,
    Public Safety and, Energy/Water Supply
        The committees of the task force are populated with representatives
    from all sectors in the functional areas. Through the committee
    structure a number of gaps in policies, procedures, protocols, legal
    authorities and equipment were identified. These committees identified
    50 recommendations that were approved by the COG Board. When
    implemented, they will address the identified gaps in the region's
    response to the Pentagon Attack.
        The focus of our efforts has been to develop the framework for a
    regional emergency response and communication and coordination plan. We
    have hired a consultant group to work with us in this process. The COG
    Board and the COGHSTF have approved an approach that will result in a
    regional plan being modeled after the Federal Response Plan and the
    District Response Plan. Our objective is to create a common terminology
    for emergency response in this region.
        The purpose of the regional emergency response plan is to assure
    effective regional communications and coordination among participating
    organizations in the event of an incident of regional impact. The plan
    will focus on regional communication and coordination. The plan will be
    functionally organized and will use common terminology and structure
    for compatibility with accepted state and local emergency plans. The
    framework for the regional emergency response plan describes the
    purpose and roles of member organizations including the concept of
    operations. The RERP describes the organizations that have roles and
    responsibilities for planning communication and coordination for a
    specific support function.
        A Regional Emergency Support Function (R-ESF) is a collection of
    organizations with resources and capabilities that align with
    particular types of assistance or requirements that are needed in a
    large scale emergencies or disasters. R-ESFs provide an effective way
    of grouping like organizations and activities from a wide range of
    dissimilar jurisdictions. Support Annexes describe activities and
    responsibilities that have unique, cross cutting regional requirements.
    The Support Annexes include an emergency evacuation support plan and a
    terrorism annex.
        Our progress to date includes more than 40 coordination meetings
    with working groups. We have drafted the Basic Framework for the
    Regional Emergency Response Plan, and the framework for 11 of 15
    Supporting Annexes. We have reviewed all mutual aid agreements and
    determined what must be done to make them more effective. We are
    currently conducting a Capability Assessment for Readiness survey of
    the 17 jurisdictions in the region. We have begun to assessment of
    current training and exercises across the region and this assessment
    will facilitate the development of a regional training and exercise
    plan.
        As I noted earlier, we have used a process that focuses on the many
    functions necessary to an emergency response plan. Those functions
    correspond with the plan elements used by the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) and that also exist in the District of
    Columbia's Emergency Response Plan.
        Organizing the regional plan along these ``cross-functional'' lines
    is creating a product that is sure to be effective because it matches
    the federal government's outline. In addition, by inviting all the
    regional stakeholders to the table to work on the plan, we are ensuring
    there is an extra level of coordination and value that will be
    extremely important for the region and its unique needs.
        In view of our highly visible planning process it is reasonable to
    ask has anything that has been done in this region since 9-11 improved
    our preparedness for an emergency incident. Are we more prepared for an
    attack or an emergency in this region than we were on September 10,
    2001?
        The answer to that question is Yes. But before I provide a detailed
    answer, let's take a look as what happened on 9/11 according to a
    report by the George Washington University Institute for Crisis,
    Disaster and Risk Management. The report was funded by the National
    Science Foundation.
        The findings were encouraging. The Institute reported that response
    to the attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was effective, including both
    the rapid mobilization and integration of federal and local resources,
    and the effective use of available assets and teams. The report notes
    that the response system designed for natural disasters was effective
    for terrorist attacks. (A chart from the report that tracks the
    organizational response to attack on the Pentagon is attached.)
        Another report came to a similar conclusion. The report,
    ``Answering the Call: Communications Lessons Learned from the Pentagon
    Attack,'' was released Feb. 1 by the Public Safety Wireless Network
    (PSWN) Program, a joint initiative sponsored by the Justice and
    Treasury departments. The program's goal is to help the public safety
    community improve wireless radio interoperability.
        Interoperability has been a major focus among public safety
    organizations and governments for years, but has become a national
    focus following the Sept. 11 attacks. Many public officials have said
    first responders in many jurisdictions cannot communicate with one
    another because many operate on different radio frequencies.
        During the Pentagon attack, 50 local, state and federal public
    safety agencies responded to the incident, resulting in about 900 radio
    users, the report said. Initial responders, led by those from Arlington
    County, Va., had no problem establishing communications at the scene
    due to ``the high-level of regional coordination and agreements
    previously established,'' it said.
        Robert Lee Jr., a PSWN program manager representing the Justice
    Department, said part of the success stemmed from the problems first
    responders had when Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the 14th Street
    Bridge and into the Potomac River in 1982.
        He said several public safety agencies, including the National Park
    Police, Washington, D.C., fire and police, Arlington County rescue
    units and authorities from then-Washington National Airport, were
    ``dissatisfied with their ability to communicate'' and set about making
    changes.
        ``Cooperation is the key,'' Lee said. ``If you can't get people to
    sit down and talk with each other, they'll never come up with
    technological and procedural solutions to meet the challenge.''
        The report found that: Regional planning and coordination efforts
    produced procedures for mutual-aid interoperability for local
    jurisdictions.
      --Local agencies regularly rehearse mass casualty incidents.
      -- Agencies had early establishment of and strict adherence to a
            formal incident command system.
      --Responders found that their private land mobile radio systems were
            the most reliable form of communication. However, the report
            noted that as state and federal agencies, which are considered
            secondary responders, increased their presence at the site,
            ``no means of direct interoperability was immediately
            available'' for them. It also said the level of
            interoperability necessary to support these secondary
            responders had not been documented.
        Lee said the PSWN report, which contains a number of
    recommendations, should be used to see how communities and regions can
    increase their interoperability. ``In the emergency services, stress is
    inevitable,'' he said. ``It's really, really comforting to responding
    entities that they have plans and procedures to fall back on and they
    have appropriate equipment to meet the challenges. If we don't plan
    ahead of time, it makes it all the more frightening for responders and
    all the more confusing for the initial ones to help.''
        These two high level reports reflect what COG has found in its
    review of the events of September 11, as well as what we know about the
    regional coordination and mutual aid agreements that were developed
    under COG's leadership over many years. Even though those systems
    worked reasonably well, we have identified problems in several areas:
      --Communications between federal and local officials
      --Timely communication between the region's local jurisdictions
      -- The failure to use the Emergency Alert System or the WAWAS system.
        Early in the planning process, COG's Board identified improved
    communication as a key component of a Regional Emergency Response Plan.
    When the COG Board's Task Force developed its 50 recommendations in
    December, the most significant proposals dealt with communications. As
    a result, the board decided to establish a Regional Incident
    Coordination and Communications System (RICCS).
        The mission of the RICCS is to facilitate coordination and
    communications among local, state and federal governments authorities
    to ensure an effective and timely response to potential, imminent and
    actual emergencies and incidents. The system will facilitate
    communications and decision making via conference calls. An important
    goal of coordinated decision-making is to have regional leaders develop
    ``common messages'' that will be delivered by ``many voices.''
        On an interim basis, the RICCS will be located in the District of
    Columbia's Emergency Operations Center. We expect this new system to
    benefit local and federal governments as they work together during
    emergencies to coordinate school closings, transportation planning and
    the safe movement of the area's workforce.
        Once the RICCS is in place, it will give this region a greatly
    improved capacity to respond to emergencies and make us all more aware
    of how to work cooperatively.
        An important next step in our planning process, Senator Landrieu,
    is to develop the training exercises that will better prepare our
    public safety agencies for a 9-11 like emergency. We will also acquire
    the technical tools that can evaluate potential threats to the region's
    infrastructure. We are reviewing several different systems. The general
    public will become more aware of the regional plan as we begin to
    activate a community outreach plan and begin the training sessions for
    public safety personnel.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to brief the subcommittee.
    I'll be happy to take your questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. Keldsen.
        Mr. Keldsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Donald Keldsen,
    acting director, Maryland's Emergency Management Agency. I too
    welcome the opportunity to be here to discuss this important
    issue.
        Let me talk a little bit about Maryland. We created a
    Maryland Terrorism Forum back in January of 1998 to bring
    together State, Federal and local partners across the spectrum
    of the disciplines involved in combating terrorism and managing
    the consequences of such events. Over the last 4 years our
    agency has been involved in over 40 terrorism-related
    exercises, innumerable planning sessions, and equipment
    procurement within the last few years.
        Baltimore was selected as a national pilot for the Chemical
    Improved Response Program. The relevance of that to the
    National Capital region is we included partners from the
    Baltimore/Washington corridor in that process and developed new
    processes for dealing with chemical weapons and sharing those
    throughout the Nation. Relative to the National Capital region,
    Montgomery County and Prince George's County were active
    members in that, have been very proactive in anti-terrorism.
        In the exercise arena, for example, Montgomery County on an
    annual basis is conducting chemical, biological and
    radiological and hazmat exercises, and on an annual basis
    conducts a decontamination demonstration for the entire region
    and the rest of the State. Prince George's County likewise has
    been involved in many exercises, including participation with
    the State and with the district in poison response 1999 and in
    the National Capital region exercise in 2000 which was
    concurrent with top-off.
        In addition, Maryland and the two counties have worked with
    the jurisdictions in the COG and with the District in various
    planning things, such as the regular meetings of the COG
    Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Committee, which the
    important aspect there is they've established the relationship.
    So people know each other and they know who they're talking to
    at the other end of the phone.
        The other aspects, also completed a Bio-terrorism Plan. I
    worked with FEMA as they developed a National Capital region
    annex to the Federal Response Plan. It is already been alluded
    to the cooperation in the transportation arena based on 9/11
    and its remarkable accomplishments.
        In addition, I would like to refer to the Brentwood anthrax
    incident. That's where the relationships established during the
    Bio-terrorism Training Plan came to fruition and health people
    were able to talk to health people and emergency managers to
    emergency managers.
        That also provided us the opportunity to deal with the
    National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. We will coordinate with CDC
    and with the other jurisdictions in the area to break down
    parts of that and allocate it, albeit a small portion of that,
    but since that time there's been extensive planning on dealing
    what the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile for the National
    Capital region as a joint, combined effort.
        That's most of what I needed to say that hasn't already
    been said. One thing I would like to point out, even with
    Washington, D.C. having such a high rating in medical response
    resources and Maryland also having them, we should not be
    deluded that we nationally have a deficit in surge capability
    in the medical arena in dealing with weapons of mass
    destruction and terrorism issues.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. Cline.
        Mr. Cline. Chairperson Landrieu, Subcommittee members, I am
    Michael Cline with State Corp Native Emergency Management for
    the Commonwealth of Virginia. I too appreciate the opportunity
    to be here and address the subcommittee. While I do not have a
    prepared written statement to submit, I would like to make a
    few comments and then I'll be available to answer any
    questions.
        We are confident in our State emergency operations plans,
    in the response and recovery system that is in place and
    exercised regularly both in real emergencies and through
    exercises. While we feel that our operational relationship,
    both with the District and with Maryland and with our Northern
    Virginia counties and cities is excellent, and while we train
    and exercise regularly with those jurisdictions, we feel that
    there is still a need for a specific, earmark unit of resources
    to support capital area regional planning, training and
    exercises.
        We would propose an all hazards approach, but certainly
    terrorism and weapons of mass destruction response is the--
    would be the focus. We are very encouraged by a number of the
    efforts that are currently underway. We are participating in
    efforts to develop planning around pharmaceutical stockpiles
    for transportation and evacuation coordination plans, we are
    regional hazardous materials capabilities, a number of the
    things that you've already heard mentioned today.
        There are also a number of planning efforts that are
    underway. The National Capital region response planning efforts
    that recently took place; the work that is being done in each
    of the jurisdictions and at the State level, to the extent that
    it is being coordinated, and to a large extent it is, is going
    to be very supportive of an enhanced capability to respond. But
    we still believe that the bottom line is that first there's a
    real need for a formal effort going through the governors of
    the States and the Mayor in the District to be established to
    insure that we have a working, coordinated, regional plan that
    everyone will agree to and that will work both through
    communications operationally and functionally when it is
    required to be activated.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
        Mr. Schwartz.
        Mr. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is James
    Schwartz and I am the assistant chief of operations for the
    Arlington County Fire Department. I appreciate the opportunity
    to be here this afternoon and represent Arlington County.
        I submitted my formal remarks, and in the interest of time
    and with your permission, I'll abbreviate my remarks to a
    couple of key issues.
        I want to compliment all the other panel members on all of
    their remarks regarding the emergency planning issues. They are
    all extremely qualified to speak to those. So I'll focus my
    remarks more on some of the operational issues and some of the
    obstacles and impediments that we view as being present now.
        The first one leads--is the indemnification of mutual aid
    responders. New York and the Pentagon incidents graphically
    demonstrated that major emergencies cannot be managed without
    mutual aid from all jurisdictions in a region. A serious
    obstacle for interjurisdictional response to major emergencies
    in the capital region is the lack of indemnification for mutual
    aid responders.
        The problem is created by the differing sovereign immunity
    laws in the District, Maryland and Virginia. This is not an
    abstract legal issue for Arlington. We suffered a major legal
    and financial loss in 1979 when a civilian was severely
    interested--injured during a pursuit in the District.
        Police departments in the region have found a creative
    solution for mutual assistance to the District when there is
    adequate time to plan ahead. Maryland and Virginia police
    officers are deputized as Federal marshals. However, we have no
    solution for unplanned situations requiring police mutual
    assistance or any situations requiring fire and emergency
    medical services.
        Last fall the Metropolitan Washington Council of
    Governments passed a resolution to seek Federal legislation to
    provide for such indemnification. A draft Mutual Aid
    Authorization Act was sent to Congress on November 21, 2001.
    Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Jim Moran
    support such a bill, and we ask your support also.
        Moving to another issue regarding operations, I'll focus
    for a moment on a Uniform Incident Management system, critical
    for effective operations to occur. The management aspect of a
    terrorist incident must be addressed. That means the universal
    adoption of a standard Incident Management System as taught by
    FEMA's National Emergency Training Center. This system should
    be understood and mastered by all operational agencies at every
    level of government, local, State and Federal.
        It is a simple, modular system that is used by the fire
    service throughout the United States. It is commonly used by
    State emergency management agencies as well. Several Federal
    agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental
    Protection Agency also use it. And the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation has begun to train its special agents to use this
    system.
        The FBI's understanding of and adherence to standard IMS
    was invaluable at the Pentagon on September 11. IMS does not
    dictate who is in charge, but provides a framework for managing
    the incident and has been proven in countless public
    emergencies. The use of IMS should be mandated by all agencies
    and should be a requirement for all funding.
        And I want to add in my written comments also that the
    understanding of an Incident Management System, a common
    Incident Management System, has to go beyond just emergency
    responders and emergency management agencies. It truly is, as
    Mr. LaPorte pointed out earlier, an issue that the public needs
    to understand.
        And the CERT teams who play a vital role in communicating
    and acting in our communities also need to have a common
    understanding of it. We also found a lot of the nongovernmental
    organizations, such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army,
    need a much better understanding of that as a result of lessons
    learned on September 11.
        Let me turn our attention just for a moment to the
    communications system, adding onto something that Mr. Rogers
    talked about, that we all knew this before September 11. we
    learned an absolutely critical lesson about good communications
    systems and the interoperability among individual
    jurisdiction's communications systems. We are concerned that
    not all jurisdictions in the capital region have interoperable
    communications ability. There are a number of steps that have
    to be taken to address the problem, including adequate funding
    for local jurisdictions to upgrade their systems.
        The best long-term solution lies in the allocation of
    additional radio spectrum. Radio spectrum, a publicly owned
    commodity, is used by government agencies and the private
    sector alike. Congress can provide a long-term solution to this
    problem by setting aside appropriate band width that will allow
    us to communicate in an emergency. H.R. 3397, sponsored by
    Representative Jane Harman, is critical in the effort for
    additional public safety spectrum, and we ask the support of
    this committee also.
        Let me turn for just a moment to public health resources,
    because this is an important one. And while a lot of the focus
    so far of our comments have been on September 11, we cannot
    forget the anthrax events that occurred in October throughout
    our region.
        That particular crisis made us aware of the essential role
    the public health systems play in emergency planning and
    response. If the public health system is to continue to
    function effectively, it is critical that adequate resources be
    made available at the local level. Health departments that
    coordinate activities play a critical role as first responders
    in anticipating, preparing for, and identifying and responding
    to acts of bio-terrorism, bio-terrorism hoaxes, and other
    public health threats and emergencies.
        Clearly defined, consistent lines of communication during
    planning, response and evaluation phases between health
    directors in all jurisdictions must be developed and supported
    at the highest levels of government. The Council of Governments
    Health Officer's Committee provides such a forum. The health
    officers, or their designee, from every Metro jurisdiction
    should consistently attend these meetings.
        A critical early component of all responses should be
    immediate communication and discussion of options with all
    health directors. Internet-based information and communications
    system became widely unavailable on September 11, and many
    health departments could not access e-mail for hours to receive
    health alerts from neighboring jurisdictions, the centers for
    disease control and prevention, or their States. Wireless
    handheld communication capacity is an important emergency tool
    the public health agencies should not be without.
        During the anthrax outbreak we learned an important first
    step during a public health disaster involves setting up an
    immediate available 24-hour hotline to receive reports and
    dispense accurate information. This may require a pre-arranged
    means to access new telephone lines to create an emergency
    hotline across jurisdictional boundaries for the public.
        The following four critical areas need immediate attention:
    Public health strategies, which include advance planning,
    coordination of public health response, and implementation of
    emergency measures to control and contain an outbreak must
    occur in a collaborative manner across jurisdictional
    boundaries. It is imperative that public health expertise from
    all jurisdictions be integrated with that of other emergency
    response agencies throughout the region.
        Surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, which
    requires monitoring community health status to detect the
    presence of bio-terrorism agents and to characterize the public
    health threat or emergency across jurisdictional boundaries.
    Public health agencies must share results of active, syndromic
    surveillance for disease across jurisdictional lines to do
    immediate, on-scene, epidemiological investigation; to develop
    and test local bio-terrorism preparedness plans; and to
    coordinate community responses. Strong public health systems
    coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries are required to
    rapidly detect and respond to bio-terrorism events.
        The metropolitan D.C. area has the unique challenge of
    needing to coordinate response across the three jurisdictions
    of Northern Virginia, D.C. and Maryland, and coordinate those
    responses in the case of Virginia and Maryland with their
    States obviously.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We need additional laboratory capacity to identify, rule
    out, and confirm and characterize biological threat agents and
    rapidly share information among jurisdictions. And finally, we
    need communication across jurisdictional boundaries at the day-
    to-day operational level and at the policy level, which
    includes collection, analysis, and communication of information
    among the response community, decision makers, and the general
    public during a public health emergency. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of James Schwartz

        Madam Chair: Arlington County appreciates the Subcommittee's
    invitation to be present at today's hearing and to offer the following
    comments on regional issues impacting the District of Columbia's
    emergency planning and response.
        Indemnification of Mutual-Aid Responders.--New York and the
    Pentagon graphically demonstrated that major emergencies cannot be
    managed without mutual aid from all jurisdictions in a region. A
    serious obstacle for inter-jurisdictional response to major emergencies
    in the Capital Region is lack of indemnification for mutual-aid
    responders. This problem is created by the differing sovereign immunity
    laws in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. This is not an abstract
    legal issue for Arlington: we suffered a major legal and financial loss
    in 1979 when a civilian was severely injured during a pursuit in the
    District.
        Police departments in the region have found a creative solution for
    mutual assistance to the District when there is adequate time to plan
    ahead: Maryland and Virginia police officers are deputized as Federal
    marshals. However, we have no solution for unplanned situations
    requiring police mutual assistance or for any situations requiring fire
    and emergency medical service.
        Last fall, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
    passed a resolution to seek Federal legislation to provide for such
    indemnification. A draft Mutual Aid Authorization Act was sent to
    Congress on November 21, 2001. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and
    Representative Jim Moran support such a bill. We ask your support, too.
        Fire/Emergency Services Funding.--Key to emergency planning and
    response is adequate funding; and significant Federal funding is
    required for the emergencies we must now deal with. This is especially
    true for the fire and emergency-medical services, which has not
    typically been recipients of Federal funding. We were very concerned
    that the administration initially proposed eliminating, in fiscal year
    2003, the FIRE Act grants that were created about 18 months ago. The
    Assistance to Firefighters grant program at the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) is regarded as an unqualified success in the
    fire service and should not be eliminated or folded into any new,
    untested program.
        There are signs that the administration is reconsidering its
    initial position. FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh recently testified before
    Congress on the fiscal year 2003 budget request and stated that he
    thought the FIRE grant program should continue. Homeland Security
    Director Governor Tom Ridge met about 6 weeks ago with the Terrorism
    Committee of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. At that
    meeting, Governor Ridge said that the FIRE Act grant program should
    remain and be funded as a program distinct from the proposed new
    terrorism preparedness block grant program that would be administered
    by FEMA.
        We urge Congress to insure that FIRE Act funding is maintained.
        Regional Planning.--We must insure that this funding is used well.
    It is imperative that agencies within a given community or region work
    together so as not to duplicate their capabilities while leaving some
    needs completely unaddressed. We believe that grant funding made
    available should be contingent upon inter-jurisdictional planning based
    on carefully articulated preparedness goals.
        Uniform Incident-Management System.--The management aspect of a
    terrorist incident must be addressed. That means universal adoption of
    the standard Incident Management System as taught at FEMA's National
    Emergency Training Center. This system should be understood and
    mastered by all operational agencies at every level of government,
    local, State and Federal. It is a simple, modular system that is used
    by the fire service throughout the United States. It is commonly used
    by State emergency management agencies as well. Several Federal
    agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental
    Protection Agency also use it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
    also begun to train its special agents to use this system. The FBI's
    understanding of and adherence to the standard IMS was invaluable at
    the Pentagon on September 11. The IMS does not dictate who is ``in
    charge,'' but provides a framework for managing the incident and has
    been proven in countless public emergencies. The use of IMS should be
    mandated by all agencies and should be a requirement for funding.
        Communications Systems.--Though we always knew this, September 11
    taught us about the absolute criticality of good communications systems
    and of the interoperability among individual jurisdictions'
    communications systems. We are concerned that not all jurisdictions in
    the Capital Region have interoperable communications systems. There are
    a number of steps that can be taken to address the problem, including
    adequate funding for local jurisdictions to upgrade their systems. The
    best, long-term solution lies in the allocation of additional radio
    spectrum. Radio spectrum, a publicly-owned commodity, is used by
    government agencies and the private sector alike. Congress can provide
    a long-term solution to this problem by setting aside appropriate
    bandwidth that will allow us to communicate in an emergency. H.R. 3397,
    sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman, is critical in the effort for additional
    public safety spectrum. We ask you to support this bill.
        Public Health Resources.--The anthrax crisis that followed
    September 11 made us aware of the essential role that public-health
    systems play in emergency planning and response.
        If the public health system is to continue to function effectively
    it is critical that adequate resources be made available at the local
    level. Health departments that coordinate activities play a critical
    role as first responders in anticipating, preparing for, identifying,
    and responding to acts of bioterrorism, bioterrorism hoaxes, and other
    public health threats and emergencies. Clearly defined, consistent
    lines of communication during planning, response, and evaluation phases
    between Health Directors in all jurisdictions must be developed and
    supported by the highest levels of government. The Council of
    Governments Health Officers' Committee provides such a forum. The
    Health Officers or designee from every Metro jurisdiction should
    consistently attend these meetings.
        A critical early component of all responses should be immediate
    communication and discussion of options with all health directors.
    Internet-based information and communication systems became widely
    unavailable on September 11 and many health departments could not
    access email for hours to receive health alerts from neighboring
    jurisdictions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or their
    States. Wireless, handheld communication capacity is an important
    emergency tool that public health agencies should not be without.
    During the anthrax outbreak we learned that an important first step
    during a public health disaster involves setting up an immediately
    available 24-hour hotline to receive reports and dispense accurate
    information. This may require a prearranged means to access new
    telephone lines to create an immediate emergency hotline across
    jurisdictional boundaries.
        The following four critical areas need immediate attention:
      --Public health strategies, which include advance planning,
            coordination of public health response and implementation of
            emergency measures to control and contain an outbreak, must
            occur in a collaborative manner across jurisdictional
            boundaries. It is imperative that public health expertise from
            all jurisdictions be integrated with that of other emergency
            response agencies throughout the region.
      --Surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, which requires
            monitoring community health status to detect the presence of
            bioterrorism agents and to characterize the public health
            threat or emergency across jurisdictional boundaries; Public
            health agencies must share results of active syndromic
            surveillance for disease across jurisdictional lines, to do
            immediate, on-the-scene epidemiological investigation, to
            develop and test local bioterrorism preparedness plans, and to
            coordinate community responses. Strong public health systems,
            coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries are required to
            rapidly detect and respond to bioterrorism events. The
            Metropolitan DC area has the unique challenge of needing to
            coordinate response across three jurisdictions (Northern
            Virginia, DC, and Maryland).
      --Laboratory capacity must be available to identify, rule out,
            confirm and characterize biological threat agents and rapidly
            share information among jurisdictions.
      --Communication across jurisdictional boundaries at the day to day
            operational level and at the policy level, which includes
            collection, analysis and communication of information among the
            response community, decision-makers and the general public
            during a public health emergency must be strengthened.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you all very much for keeping your
    statements concise.
        We are going to take a 3-minute break before we get at the
    round of questions. And then I've got a series of questions, if
    you do not mind, for all of you. And we have also some from
    members that may not be able to come to submit for the record.
        So if we could just take a 3-minute break. I would
    appreciate it.

                              DEFINING THE REGION

        We will reconvene our meeting for the question and answer
    period.
        Let me begin by thanking you all for your testimony. And as
    you know, your full statement will be submitted for the record.
        Let me begin by asking each of you, if you would, to just
    help me understand the boundaries here. Because as you know, my
    overriding goal, and I think shared by members on both sides,
    would be to have a system that is seamless. And it is important
    to know how far those seams run. Are they short or long; how
    far beyond the city do they run?
        And I am wondering if you could each tell me if this red
    line on that chart represents what you think is the right
    regional component, or should that circle be enlarged or small.
    And if you think it should be changed, why; and if not, why
    not. And if you could each just take a minute or two for that
    answer. And I am assuming, as was stated on the record, that
    that red line is the beltway?
        Mr. Rogers. Yeah, that's the beltway.
        Senator Landrieu. What is the jurisdiction of COG?
        Mr. Rogers. The jurisdiction of COG actually is all of the
    white area. I----
        Senator Landrieu. And only the white area?
        Mr. Rogers. And only the white area, right.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. It goes down to Prince William County to the
    south, and to Loudoun. And the white area right above
    Montgomery County is Frederick County. It is not shown in its
    entirety there. It is Frederick County, Maryland. That is
    part----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. So this isn't a picture of the
    whole COG region?
        Mr. Rogers. It just has--a portion of Frederick County to
    the north is missing, but most of Frederick County is there,
    yeah.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, even though it is not exactly
    the accurate map, you all looking at this map, is this the
    region that we should really try to create this plan, or should
    the region be larger or smaller? And just your ideas about that
    in 1 minute or less.
        Ms. Kellems. I think that the region--this is a very
    difficult question. The region could be the Eastern Seaboard,
    the region could be the Mall, downtown Washington. I think the
    way that we view that, and I would assume most others do, is
    sort of rings on a bull's-eye. And I hate to use that
    expression, but that's essentially what it is. The District is
    the center of the bull's-eye, if you're thinking of a terrorist
    incident and the goal is to be disruptive and attack a public
    place, a very--a symbol rather.
        So I think you--that you could keep expanding the ring of
    the bull's-eye, and we should probably do that as we become
    more and more sophisticated. But if you look at it in those
    terms, that's a good facsimile of the area in terms of
    transportation, in terms of communication, in terms of mutual
    aid, the most likely people who would respond, and the most
    likely sort of scope of a target area. I think that's probably
    right, but as we become more sophisticated I would imagine we
    would keep adding rings out, probably going both north and
    south and encompassing more of the seaboard.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. LaPorte.
        Mr. LaPorte. I would very much concur. In fact, as we start
    to think and prepare out of resources and identifying
    resources, if you look at where resources were pulled for New
    York City, you went 500 to 1,000 miles pulling resources that
    close by. Very familiar with the proper--the response in New
    Jersey and Connecticut, in both those States in preparing areas
    where they could bring resources, the donations management,
    that Stockton, Connecticut, before it got to New York, as well
    as New Jersey; the hospital response, literally I think 500
    miles out.
        And personally, when we start thinking catastrophic, where
    am I going to stage heavy equipment, where are we going to
    provide other resources, we look at military assets, military
    facilities. So our--as we plan a catastrophic event, start to
    look well beyond just your traditional National Capital region,
    you start going as far away as Richmond, you get up to
    Annapolis, you go to Baltimore, because it will impact the
    entire region. And that type of communication really needs to
    be in sync. We've done a lot to rectify some of the gaps that
    have been identified, but the region will continue to grow as
    any event impacts the entire region.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. White.
        Mr. White. Yeah. I would say the place where we start to
    try and define the region is where do our residents live and
    work. I mean where's the population centers and where are the
    job centers obviously brings you to the focus of what you're
    looking at. And what we have is large concentrations of job
    centers, the largest of which, of course, is in the District of
    Columbia. But many other regional employ--activity centers is
    what the COG now calls them. It is kind of the spider web of
    regional activity centers. And although you do have
    concentrations of employment, you have dispersals of
    population. So that complicates your problem here, because
    you're taking people in many instances from single locations
    and trying to disperse them to multiple locations.
        So I mean I think a good place to start is at the
    boundaries that constitute the COG. I think it is clear that
    probably most of the events that this region would be called
    upon to deal with would in all probably be--in all probability
    be somewhere inside the ring of that beltway with respect to
    activity. And therein lies the importance of making sure there
    are those important--those appropriate hand-offs.
        It is one thing to be able to help get people out of a
    city, but once they're out of the city, I mean there's a
    transfer from district boundaries, as I think the district
    people have testified, to an adjoining county that needs to be
    able to be well coordinated from the road point of view and the
    transit point of view to be able to accept that hand-off. And I
    think it is that that we are now dealing with in terms of
    really coming up with some alternative scenarios for emergency
    movement of people.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, since it has been the boundaries of the
    Council of Governments for--since our creation, and really,
    when you look at an incident in this region, the mutual aid,
    the immediate mutual aid from first responders is likely to
    come from within that, you know, those jurisdictions
    represented on the map. And that does not mean that there will
    not be support from other regions, but the mutual aid
    agreements are involved with those jurisdictions, you know, on
    the map.
        There's been--and this jurisdiction is really defined based
    on a history of COG as a metropolitan planning organization, a
    standard, statistical area. It is used for planning purposes
    for a lot of, you know, a lot of region--reasons.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Keldsen. Yeah. I agree with basically everything that's
    been said so far. I guess as the District itself is more
    secure, terrorists may be looking at adjacent areas for attack,
    and that needs to be considered. And as far as mutual aid,
    there's several things going on in the District and in the
    States that may make that a more universal capability. But
    Howard County and Wicomico County, and even Charles County may
    be responding to backfill Prince Georges and Montgomery
    Counties. So I think the, as Peter described, there's--there'll
    be an expansion depending on the severity of the event and we
    need to have interoperability.
        Mr. Cline. I do not disagree with what's been said. I take
    a slightly different approach. I would suggest that contiguous
    jurisdictions----
        Mr. Keldsen. I would suggest that contiguous jurisdictions,
    and perhaps you're all looking at the Beltway and inside,
    certainly should be included in the development of operational
    plans. To the extent that there are written mutual aid
    agreements between other jurisdictions, they certainly need to
    be included. And I couldn't speak to which ones those might be
    specifically.
        I think that you also have to include the capitals for the
    two States and the emergency operation centers for the two
    States, not as entities to be impacted by the disaster, but
    certainly that's where, from REOC in Chesterfield County
    outside of Richmond, we would coordinate the allocation of
    resources and the staging of resources from all over the State
    and from places coming from outside of the State. Hopefully
    they would be staged close in, but that coordination would take
    place in REOC.
        Just by way of background, we would also expect to have
    representatives from our office in the EOCs in Maryland and in
    D.C. to help coordinate ongoing activities. And certainly as
    the Federal plans call for, in the jogs and the jigs and all of
    the other entities that are established when an incident
    occurs.
        The one other thing I would mention is that your major
    transportation corridors are obviously going to impact in a
    catastrophic situation. And the plans need to recognize those,
    even though they may not show up specifically on a map.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Chief Schwartz.
        Mr. Schwartz. Senator, I couldn't add a whole lot more
    other than to say obviously most of this is situational. If we
    look at September 11, it was a rather confined area. Yes, in
    the first hours it affected people that lived throughout the
    area here that you see represented here, but as days went on
    it, you know, it was a rather confined kind of event. A
    biological event is going to be something significantly
    different.
        If we have an event that is on the catastrophic level
    whereby an attack took out a lot of our transportation
    corridors, or to take out some of the bridges that connect
    Virginia to the District, obviously mutual aid would be coming
    from--we would be reaching further south to get that mutual
    aid. So a lot of this is really situational, I think, and
    when--what is it that we are dealing with that really defines
    the area?
        Senator Landrieu. I think that we've gotten somewhat of a
    consensus, and I am glad we got those answers on the record
    because I think Ms. Kellems, your visual of a bull's-eye is a
    good one to work from. But if we are really committed to
    building one system that serves this region, we need to know
    whether we are dealing with one ring, or two rings, or three
    rings. And if we have to go out 10 rings or 12 rings, we know
    and we all understand which ring we are in, where the rings
    start, where the rings end. And so there is a map that is
    understandable and that all of the entities have bought into.
    And I think we have a little work to do yet on that map, but I
    think we are getting there. We've gotten some interesting
    comments about how this process needs to work.
        We need to define the region; we need to be clear about
    who's in the region, who's not, and how other parts might be
    added if necessary. That would make a big difference in our
    planning.

                             PLANNING AND TRAINING

        Let me begin also asking a question for each of you. In
    your opening statements there was some tabletop exercises
    mentioned. I am understanding that there were two that have
    been conducted. If I am wrong, tell me. How many of you
    participated in the first one and in the second one? And could
    you give a comment about the one or two things that really
    jumped out at you that we really have to work a little harder
    on.
        And I do not know, Ms. Kellems, if you can clarify for us,
    have there been one tabletop or two? Was everybody here
    represented included, et cetera.
        Mr. LaPorte. I am going to--the July tabletop was really
    driven from the two States and the District, recognizing that
    we understood that our planning process needed to include a
    regional approach. And so we approached FEMA and Justice to say
    ``Hey, this is different here.'' And what occurred really was a
    change for their response.
        And they changed the traditional response where Maryland,
    Virginia or the District in a disaster would have to go to
    Philadelphia, the regional office, and then back to
    headquarters, in a case of a disaster as you have made requests
    for Federal assistance. In a weapons of mass destruction
    incident in the National Capital region, they changed the plan.
    The Federal Government changed the plan, meaning we would
    directly with FEMA headquarters. And so that was the genesis of
    that and that was one of the outcomes.
        We also identified the significant gaps in our plans, the
    fact that the district plan did not marry the Federal Response
    Plan; there wasn't a common language.
        The second tabletop exercise is the one held this week,
    which was March 12 and 13, which included everyone at this
    table. Maybe not Arlington specifically, but the Council of
    Governments were there, Maryland and Virginia were there. And
    it was really an Army Corps of Engineer/FEMA exercise, but the
    participating locality was the District and the greater
    Washington area. And what we learned from that exercise truly
    was the new District Response Plan, the plans for Maryland and
    Virginia accepting that common language really did work well
    accepting and understanding our requests for Federal
    assistance, exactly what we were looking for, how we would go
    about getting it, and what mechanism we would use.
        We've also had a number of internal tabletops within the
    District to improve our own internal coordination. They've been
    led by Mayor Williams. And we've gone through a number of
    scenarios among all our government entities to really test our
    own plan. And it is our intent to continue that with a full-
    scale exercise later this summer.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. I would just like to ask if you'd
    submit for the record who participated in that tabletop.
        [The information follows:]
       Emergency Preparedness ``Tabletop'' Exercise 2002 Senior Leaders'
                  Seminar Participant List--March 12-13, 2002
        American Red Cross
        Commonwealth of Virginia
          Department of Emergency Management
          Department of Transportation
          Deputy Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness
        District of Columbia Government
          Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice
          Department of Health
          Department of Public Works
          Department of Transportation
          Emergency Management Agency
          Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department
          Metropolitan Police Department
          Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
          Office of the Chief Technology Officer
        District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
          Director of Occupational Safety and Health
          Director of Sewer Services
        Federal Bureau of Investigation
          Counter Measures Unit
          Domestic Terrorism/Counter terrorism Planning Section
          Washington Field Office
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
          Headquarters:
            Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate
            Office of National Preparedness
            HAZMED
            Federal Insurance and Mitigation Directorate
          Region I: Boston, MA
          Region II: New York, NY
          Region III: Philadelphia, PA
          Region IV: Atlanta, GA
          Region V: Chicago, IL
          Region VI: Denton, TX
          Region VII: Kansas City, MO
          Region VIII: Denver, Co
          Region IX: Ft. Shafter, HI
          Region X: Bolhell, WA
        George Washington University
        Marasco Newton Group
        Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
          Department of Environmental Programs
          Waste and Debris Management Work Group
        National Guard
          Assistant for Homeland Security
        Office of Homeland Security
          Critical Infrastructure Restoration
        Office of Personnel Management
          Office of Communications
        Securities and Exchange Commission
          Office of Market Watch
          Office of Administrative and Personnel Management
        State of Maryland
          Department of Emergency Management
        The IT Group
        United States Army Corps of Engineers
          Headquarters
            Civil Emergency Management Branch
            Security and Intelligence and Law Enforcement
          Readiness Support Center
          Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
          Los Angeles District
          Mississippi Valley Division
          North Atlantic Division
          Northwestern Division
          Omaha District
          Pacific Ocean Division
          Readiness Support Center
          South Atlantic Division
          South Pacific Division
          Southwestern Division
        United States Department of Defense
          Joint Forces Command
          Readiness & Recovery
          Navy War College
          Military District Washington, Force Protection Branch
        United States Department of Energy
        United States Environmental Protection Agency
          Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
        United States Park Police
          Special Events
        United States Secret Service
          Major Event Division
        United States Department of Transportation
          Office of Emergency Transportation
        Washington Aqueduct
        Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
          Metro Transit Police
          Rail Analysis and Support

        Senator Landrieu. And would anyone else like to comment
    that was there about one or two important things that you
    gleaned currently? How much have we improved since the first
    exercise you participated in or what jumped out at you at the
    tabletop about either progress we've made or some real
    challenges ahead?
        Mr. Rogers. I was not a participant in the July tabletop,
    but I did participate in the Army Corps/FEMA tabletop this
    week. And I was impressed by the fact that our Federal partners
    seem to have a greater degree of understanding than may have
    been expected of the District Response Plan and how the
    District would request assistance.
        But I also think that what was important was the dialogue
    that was developed between the various levels of government,
    because in the regional context that's what's going to get the
    job done. And more opportunities to get people from a variety
    of agencies that will be participating in a response in the
    room participating with each other will help by improving our
    well preparedness.
        Senator Landrieu. Ms. Kellems.
        Ms. Kellems. To answer the question about a couple of the
    specific things. One thing that became abundantly clear in this
    tabletop last week in which one aspect of the scenario was a
    building explosion in downtown Washington was debris removal
    and what--where would we take all this debris. We pointed out
    that the building they blew up was a Federal building, so they
    would have to figure that out. But it did point out that if we
    had a major event like that, certainly within the bounds of the
    District, we do not know where we would take something like
    that.
        We started looking regionally where it would go.
    Suggestions were made, and I know there's a COG subcommittee
    that's looking at the issue of solid waste disposal generally.
    Would it go to a military base, would it go to some independent
    staging area first, how would we avail ourselves of private
    landfills if we needed to do that after debris had been
    decontaminated. There was a fair amount of discussion about
    that, and I do not think that we've come to a good resolution.
        I think the other issue that was highlighted and I think we
    are much better, we--that I saw a lot of improvement at least
    from September 11 to the tabletop was the communications issue;
    who has command centers, who's in them, and how do they
    communicate with each other to make sure, among other things,
    not just the operational perspective, but what is being said to
    the citizens here, what is being said nationally, what kind of
    information do we have, what kind of information are we sharing
    with each other. And I think we are much more likely now to
    have many voices with the same message. That's really where we
    were trying to get to, as opposed to many voices with many
    different messages, which was one of the struggles that we
    faced last September.
        So I think those were the two that were most notable.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you for being specific.
        Anybody else want to add anything? And were the fire
    departments just not included in this particular tabletop?
        Ms. Kellems. The District Fire Department was. I do not
    believe that Arlington was, no.
        Mr. Rogers. It was just the District.
        Senator Landrieu. So it was just the District Fire
    Department at this tabletop because it wasn't a regional
    tabletop?
        Ms. Kellems. Well, if I could--I do not think any of us
    here were actually part of the original committee that created
    it, but this tabletop was hosted again by FEMA and the Army
    Corps of Engineers. And the Army Corps' focus is really
    emergency support function three, which is public works and
    engineering. So this tabletop tended to be more focused on
    issues like debris removal and the kinds of things that would
    be within the Army Corps' purview.
        The other comment that was made during the course of this
    tabletop though was that as we go forward, maybe we ought to
    not make it specific to just one ESF. But generally they're
    grouped. This one tended to be ESF three, public works and
    engineering. There was a heavy transportation component,
    because as part of the scenario two bridges were disabled. So
    it clustered around a few of the more infrastructure/
    engineering functions.
        We discussed having another one, and the District offered
    to co-sponsor this, to have one around mass care, health and
    medical issues, and that sort of thing. It obviously has
    implications to the other ESF's, but they tend to be sort of
    topic specific. So I think that's why the fire department was
    not----
        Senator Landrieu. I am glad you brought that up, because
    maybe we do not have all the right information, I am looking at
    emergency support function areas, the ESF's. For the Council of
    Governments, according to our records, and we could clarify
    this now, has six titles: transportation, health,
    communication, solid waste, public safety, energy and water.
    The District has 15 and the Federal Government has the same 15.
        Ms. Kellems. The Federal Government actually has 12.
        Senator Landrieu. Twelve, okay. So the Federal Government
    has 12. Can anybody here, for the record, give me those 12? I
    know I could get them, but you do not have them here?
        Ms. Kellems. Sure. This could be like a little problem for
    us.
        Senator Landrieu. That's all right. If you do not have
    them, I will get them for the record.
        Ms. Kellems. No, we have them.
        Senator Landrieu. So the COG has 6, District has 15, and
    the Federal Government has 12. Do we all not need the same
    committees? Or if we are going to keep these different
    committees, do they know which ones relate to which?
        Ms. Kellems. They are sets. They're starting with the
    largest universe, which is the District's. The others are
    subsets of those. And where you see an ESF committee number
    one, let's say, transportation in the District, it is very
    closely coordinated with the same ESF through COG, which
    expands to a set of regional partners. And the ESF for the
    Federal Government, which is the same one, the same set of
    people are operating in all of those. They just tend to expand
    or contract the focus of their issues depending on who's having
    the meeting, but that's all the same ESF. The----
        Senator Landrieu. Because it may work fine that way, but I
    would also suggest you may want to consider everybody having
    the same committee breakdown so there is a one-to-one
    correspondence. Like you've got COG has communications, but I
    guess under the district you've got communications broken down
    into, information and planning and resource support. I am not
    going to belabor the point, but it might be better to follow
    one system or another.
        Mr. Rogers. COG has 15 emergency support functions. What
    you're looking at are the committee structure. And so you have
    several emergency support--related emergency support functions
    assigned to one of those six committees that's chaired by an--
    --
        Senator Landrieu. So they have the same 15?
        Mr. Rogers. Right, right.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That's fine. And the Federal
    Government has 12 and--go ahead, Ms. Kellems--
        Ms. Kellems. The difference is there are some that are
    primarily local functions. It is not unusual. It is to be
    expected that local governments would have additional emergency
    support functions. The most obvious example is law enforcement.
    The primary law enforcement response is the local jurisdiction.
    Another one is donations management. The local jurisdiction
    would be primarily responsible for donations management. And so
    we've added some on. The Federal Government is very supportive
    of that. And I think as we all become more sophisticated, not
    just this region, but all of the cities, there may be
    additional ones that need to get added.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. But having those standardized, or
    as close to it as possible would be helpful. Does anybody want
    to add anything on tabletop before I go into another issue?
        Mr. Keldsen. Just one comment. One of the issues that came
    up this week was really the clarification of the role of COG by
    the States and the operational issues, and we are exploring
    those.
        Senator Landrieu. I am glad you raised that, because one of
    my questions was going to be that I am familiar with many of
    these planning districts around the Nation that we pull
    together because economic growth doesn't stop necessarily at
    political boundaries. These planning districts were put
    together for growth and economic development.
        But when you get into the issue of attacks or terrorism or
    defenses, sometimes we might have to think differently.
    Planning districts were not specifically created to defend
    against terrorists. And so we might have to have some
    modifications to the way that we function to take into account
    the changing terrible reality that we are facing now, and I
    think that's what you have alluded to.
        Mr. White.
        Mr. White. Yes, Madam Chair. To your question of tabletop,
    beyond what has already been said, and we do participate in the
    tabletop exercises, is that we have been conducting ourselves
    on an annual basis mock disaster drills; beyond tabletop, but
    actually making believe something happened and going into the
    field and replicating an emergency condition, and then testing
    the response preparation capabilities of not only the Metro
    employees, but the local fire, police, emergency rescue people.
        And we found that to be a very good exercise to really keep
    ourselves fresh with our regional partners. And also we do
    debriefings after each of those annual exercises to go over
    lessons learned. And we actually use them to prepare ourselves
    for the next year to make sure that anything that didn't go
    quite right in that mock drill, that we kind of learn from that
    and then prepare for the next event.
        Senator Landrieu. First, Ms. Kellems, the National Capital
    Regional Plan which you've alluded to is under development. Can
    you tell me which organization or entity is taking the lead in
    creating this plan? How does the National Capital Regional Plan
    differ or relate to the District Plan that you are in the
    process of coordinating and refining and perfecting?
        Ms. Kellems. That is one of the most common questions we
    get asked, how do all of these many plans fit together. And as
    a baseline matter, that's exactly why everyone keeps
    underscoring the importance of the same language, the same
    architecture, the same terminology, so that you can move your
    module of your plan and integrate it with someone else's
    module.
        The National Capital Plan is led by FEMA, the development
    is led by FEMA. We are very much active participants in that
    obviously, for all the reasons that we've talked about. And
    again, our District Response Plan is designed to marry function
    by function with that, but FEMA's the coordinator for the
    larger National Capital Regional Response Plan.
        Senator Landrieu. Have all of you either been consulted or
    connected in some way to this National Capital Regional Plan?
    Those of you that have had some input or some connection, could
    you just testify about what that might be very briefly?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. We--FEMA is participating in the COG
    planning process. And we are using the Federal Response Plan
    and--it is to the Federal Response Plan and then it is the
    continuity of operations for weapons of mass destruction for
    the National Capital Region. That's the plan I think you're
    referring to that's being led by FEMA. And we are working with
    them on that as well.
        And we, when we finish our planning process, Madam Chair,
    it should be seamless in terms of terminology, in terms of
    concept of operations, and in terms of procedure from the
    Federal plan to the district and the local jurisdictions. And
    that's what we are trying to achieve.
        Senator Landrieu. So you see it as your mission, based on
    the resources that we've given you, to try to pull together all
    of these many plans and make them as seamless as possible and
    get the region identified, or the areas identified, and the
    responsibilities identified. And that's the process that you're
    beginning?
        Mr. Rogers. Right. That's correct.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Cline. Madam Chairman.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Mr. Cline. If I may.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead, Mr. Cline.
        Mr. Cline. If I am not mistaken, we did participate
    providing input and review so far as the National Capital
    Regional Plan has been developed. But it appears that that--
    really the best way to think of it is an annex to the Federal
    Response Plan. It provides information that the Federal
    agencies would need and it is a follow-on to that response plan
    that the Federal agencies are going to use as they respond. It
    does not address the needs for operational planning at the
    regional basis for the capital area.
        So you need to make sure you think of them as on the--well,
    as two separate entities. I agree that the terminology needs to
    be the same; the concepts and the policies need to meld
    closely. And I am not sure that we've gone to that level yet to
    insure that it is--that those things will occur. But there
    does--there is a need for that to be seamless as it flows into
    the State plans, the regional plan, and the local plans.
        Senator Landrieu. This chairman is committed to work with
    you all for however long it takes and helping to allocate the
    resources necessary to make sure the end result is truly the
    model described today. And it is going to take some give and
    take, some throwing out and starting over, building and being,
    constructively critical about where we are.
        It is a very difficult, very difficult thing to undertake.
    You've got many jurisdictions. And this area is complicated by
    a number of factors. Not only is it a rich target area, but
    you've probably got more jurisdictions here than anyplace in
    the Nation, between the Federal and State and county level
    agencies. So this is going to be probably the most difficult
    region in the whole Nation, but I think we can do it. We have
    to do it and we have to do it well.
        Let me ask you this question. To date, and I know where
    this is still a work in progress, but among all the various
    plans, could you, Ms. Kellems or anyone, tell us today, if
    there was an attack this week, who checks the bridges? Who's
    got the responsibility to check the bridges? Is it a Federal
    agency or is it the city, is it Metro?
        Ms. Kellems. It is a whole group of people depending----
        Senator Landrieu. Is it the fire fighters or the police?
    Who checks the bridges to see if there are explosives, like
    before we start sending people over them? Who would be,
    according to the plans that you're aware of, whose job would it
    be right now, today, if it happened this week, to check the
    bridges to make sure that they were secure for exit or
    entrance?
        Ms. Kellems. Amazingly, and I do not know if someone
    whispered this in your ear, but part of our tabletop this week
    involved two of our bridges being destroyed. And so this--a lot
    of people, I think, learned a lot about this. It depends on
    which bridge you're talking about actually. The bridges are
    owned by different jurisdictions. Depending on the bridge and
    the jurisdiction, who would be responsible for checking it.
        One of the things that we saw in our tabletop was that you
    can have three jurisdictions who are all contributing to the
    operation of a bridge and a fourth one whose responsible for
    the security of that. I think that your question gets at the
    larger point of knowing--not assuming any of those kinds of
    things and knowing where your vulnerabilities are, where your
    risks are, and dealing with it at a very individual level.
    Having each of your jurisdictions do risk assessments for what
    are their high target areas.
        Bridges are just one example, but we went through--we are
    going through now a similar exercise with the Federal
    Government for particular buildings. Particular buildings have
    their own individual jurisdictions, the sidewalk is owned by
    another jurisdiction, and the street is owned by a third
    jurisdiction. So what we--and that's actually true. So what we
    are going through is individualized assessments of these high-
    risk targets and determining all of those levels of
    jurisdiction, and knowing who would respond depending on what
    type of incident it is.
        We had an incident recently at the Commerce Building, which
    happily turned out to be nothing. Everyone knew that the local
    fire department was the incident command, but with all of the
    other jurisdictions that showed up, we had people closing
    streets and people re-routing traffic. And it became apparent
    at that point that that's the level of coordination that has to
    occur, but it has to be unique. It is not--there is not a
    global plan for that. There is not an agency responsible for
    doing that kind of thing.
        It underscores Peter's point earlier about having an all
    hazards plan based on specific risk assessment, which is why
    COG is going through the risk assessment analysis now, the
    District is doing it in connection with DOJ, so that we can
    identify specific kinds of targets and what the--who--the
    specific jurisdictional responsibilities are there. So I hope
    that answers your question.
        Senator Landrieu. No. It is very important and helps the
    public to understand what a great challenge this is, because in
    addition to 100 questions I could ask like this, two others
    would be who monitors the air, in the region to see if
    something has been released into the atmosphere and where it is
    moving? Who is responsible for the waterways to check the same?
    Is there any thing that's been put in the waterways that would
    be dangerous?
        And that's how regions have to think. It is an unfortunate
    reality of the times we live in. Who would have thought. But
    this is the future and we've got to be prepared for it. And so
    there is some, you know, urgency and there's some real
    consequences for not getting it right. And we talk about
    coordination, and sometimes we do a good job of it and
    sometimes we do not. But when you do not do a good job planning
    here there could be serious consequences of not making this as
    seamless as we would hope.

                       COORDINATING REGIONAL PREPAREDNESS

        Let me ask Mr. LaPorte, if you could. One of the goals of
    the hearing is to understand the extent of cooperation between
    the District and not just the regional, but the other States.
    And we've heard a little bit of that. I've got some concern to
    the degree in which the whole State of Maryland and the whole
    State of Virginia are playing into developing this. And we
    talked about possibly, Mr. Cline said, of extending some of our
    planning to take the capitals of those two States.
        Could you just comment about how you see us now and where
    we'd like to go in the future.
        Mr. LaPorte. We've come a long way. And prior to coming to
    the District I was the State director of Emergency Management
    in Massachusetts. So I pretty much understand the State hat.
    The challenge is from a State to local jurisdiction, and that
    relationship. And the District being a city, a county, a State
    and the District, it is many things at once.
        One of the hats that I wear is I sit on the National
    Emergency Management Association and I chair the terrorism
    committee. And one of the things we are really focusing on is
    the cross State to State jurisdiction, sharing of information,
    sharing of resources. Just recently Mayor Williams submitted,
    the council is in its final passages, make the district part of
    the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is signed--a
    signatory, congressionally approved compact that deals with
    resources across State lines. The District will be a very happy
    signatory to that to bring additional resources.
        Regularly we have shared our plans with Maryland and
    Virginia. Michael and Don and I are personal friends. We talk
    on a regular basis. They've offered opportunities for the
    District first responders to train at their facilities and
    we've offered our training to them. What we need to do is
    continue to build up the relationship and sharing of those
    plans, identifying where our resources are and how we would
    share them.
        I think we've come a long way of between the two States and
    the District, but I again think it is critically important that
    we build that relationship up even stronger.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask you this. Could someone go on
    the record to say right now, do we have a regional police
    training, a regional fire training? Are there different
    centers, regional, first responder training centers, in terms
    of medical first responders, or are we still having those
    assets done within counties or within smaller areas? Because in
    Louisiana, even before September 11, we had a fairly, I think,
    effective--I helped to create it and was very proud of that,
    and got good reports--but a statewide fire training academy
    that all of our local fire departments thought was really good
    because they didn't have to spend their own resources
    developing these kinds of academies. And many States, even
    before September 11, had sort of coordinated their law
    enforcement.
        I would like Chief Schwartz, for you to respond to this,
    but, Ms. Kellems, you could begin, or Mr. LaPorte. Do we have
    plans to have regional training sites so that we can have some
    of the best training? Instead of having five mediocre programs
    we could have one or two really strong training programs that
    we can all support and it cuts down on the expenses that the
    public has to pay?
        Ms. Kellems. I'll let the State speak for their individual
    State operations as well. I know that the District has tried to
    take advantage of some of these opportunities. In fact, now
    with some of the Federal resources we have for fire and EMS
    training, our folks are going to MFRA, the Maryland Academy,
    and receiving the same training, and some of it is delivered in
    conjunction.
        In the law enforcement side, particularly on the police
    side, we have an Institute of Police Science for local aid, for
    the MPD, but they do a lot of joint training, particularly with
    the Federal agencies, not as much with the surrounding
    jurisdictions. We, out of the Federal funds that we received, I
    think close to $11 million is for training. And one of the
    top--one of the highest priority topics is how do we integrate
    our training with these other jurisdictions, particularly the
    operational training. But also underscoring the point that the
    Chief made at the beginning, the incident command training, so
    that we are all operating our incidents the same, using the
    same methodology.
        The District Response Plan is now based on an Incident
    Command System, just like the Federal Response Plan, but there
    is a steep learning curve, not only for our agencies, but for
    the other jurisdictions. And I think you're exactly right. That
    is exactly where we need to head to regional training programs
    not just for first responders, but for all of the response and
    recovery agencies that would be involved.
        Senator Landrieu. And I want to ask the chief to comment,
    but I hope in the plans that you're--that COG is developing
    you'll look closely at the possibility of having perhaps
    Maryland lead in a certain kind of training, and they become
    quite expertise in training in this certain area. And then
    Virginia could lead in a certain other kind of training, and
    the District could host its training, instead of taking our
    training dollars and everybody trying to set up training and
    spreading them so thin.
        But I hope a good part of this plan will be to have an
    understanding among the region whenever we decide how many
    rings we are talking about within the region, can really give
    the very best training and we are not duplicating facilities,
    et cetera. Because we are a compact area and there'd be no
    reason why someone couldn't travel 45 minutes or an hour to get
    good training as opposed to having them 15 minutes away.
        Chief, do you want to say anything on that? And then, Mr.
    Keldsen.
        Mr. Schwartz. Just to add to what's been said. You are
    correct that in most jurisdictions they have their own training
    facilities. There are examples in Virginia, farther down in the
    Tidewater area, where they do share an awful lot of their
    training facilities. And there is an effort underway in the
    Northern Virginia region to explore the idea of a regional
    training academy. There's an effort underway with Fairfax
    County working with Dulles Airport to look at a plan, some of
    the land that's out at Dulles Airport, and use for a regional
    training facility for the Northern Virginia departments. It is
    exploratory right now and hasn't gotten too far, but it is got
    a lot of interest on the part of the fire departments in
    Northern Virginia.
        One thing I do want to emphasize though is that regardless
    of how the training is delivered, I think you will find,
    speaking at least for the fire and EMS community, that our
    training is all to the same standards. There are sets of
    professional standards that--under which all, at least in this
    region, all training academies, all training efforts teach to
    those standards. So while there may be--the delivery may be in
    different places, you can pretty much go from one jurisdiction
    to the next and find the same capabilities, the same capacities
    in terms of EMTs, paramedics, firefighters and officers.
        There are additional efforts, speaking for Northern
    Virginia, because we operate under a very tight automatic aid
    program. In other words, we share our resources without regard
    to jurisdictional boundaries. So we operate also under the same
    standard operating procedures and we share not only our first
    level emergency response resources, but we share our command
    level officers too.
        So there is an awful lot of that going on already.
    Certainly there can be some improvement to gain more economies
    of scale, but I would want to emphasize that standards are an
    important aspect of this. And so we are not losing a lot in
    that regard.
        Senator Landrieu. I appreciate you clarifying that, because
    the standards are important. But it is also important to,
    husband our resources and try to make sure that we've got good
    training systems that are being utilized, and not have 15
    programs that are utilized at 15 percent when you could support
    5 and have them utilized at 100 percent and save the taxpayers
    some money in the process.
        Mr. Keldsen. Yeah, one other comment. Maryland Terrorism
    Forum actually has a training committee which is
    interdisciplinary. It has the police, fire, police and fire,
    public health, emergency management. And they're looking at
    best practices and sharing those across. In some cases in
    Maryland, like the Fire Rescue Institute has training
    facilities throughout the State, outside of our big seven
    counties who have their own fire academies. But again, as the
    chief talked about, they would be training to the same
    standard.
        The purpose of this training committee is really look at
    the weapons of mass destruction, unique things, and look at
    other nontraditional responders that might need training, i.e.
    dispatch folks, public health folks, even public works staff.
    So we'd certainly be willing to share what we've done with the
    COG committees.
        Mr. Rogers. Madam Chair, as part of the funds that were
    allocated we are required to do a training needs assessment, as
    well as develop a training plan for the region. And the
    assessment comes first. We are going through that process now.
    And it will reveal to us what--not only what the training needs
    are, but the existing training facilities and the resources
    allocated to training by the local jurisdictions and the State.
    And we will have a plan for how to better maximize the use of
    those training dollars.

                      COORDINATING TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me ask if I could switch to
    some questions to Metro. Could you, Mr. White, comment about
    the way you're developing your plans. Are you doing it in
    conjunction with other carriers similar to yourself? Not that
    Amtrak would be similar, but it is a, rail system; Amtrak and
    other Metro-like facilities or entities around the Nation. How
    are your plans that you're developing? Are you all conferencing
    with people around the Nation? And if so, what are you
    learning?
        Also, you can't go into specific detail, I know, but are we
    making any progress on our new chemical sensor programs that
    you're developing?
        And third--three questions at once. We've had some
    complaints from visitors here about not having anyplace to
    throw waste in the Metro stations, because we removed the trash
    cans because they have proven to be somewhat of a security
    risk. But when we will get bomb-resistant trash cans is the
    question.
        Mr. White. At the great risk of trying to compare ourselves
    to Amtrak--which I'll probably choose not to do given the
    enormous controversy on that issue right now. But as it
    pertains to coordination, I'll try to address it from the two
    areas that you asked the question.
        Regionally, we are kind of playing the central glue role of
    this coordination process under the COG Regional Emergency
    Response Plan. The vision is in the event that there is a
    transportation event that either affects the transportation
    network or facilities or has some direct or indirect effect on
    that, we then become a part of the consultation process and
    coordination of decision making process with our peers. The
    State highway departments and departments of transportation
    would be making decisions on roads and bridges. In the instance
    where there are Federal control and ownership, that's an issue
    that would be involved as well. And then the various
    transportation carriers.
        We then would have a responsibility for coordinating with
    the two commuter railroads, for example, VRE in Virginia and
    MARC in Maryland, as well as any Amtrak-related services that
    would be coming through Union Station, as well as the county-
    based bus systems, of which there are multiple county-based bus
    systems. So we are---since we are the regional operator, we
    become the, kind of the regional facilitator of letting people
    know how we've been impacted and what we are doing, and then
    sharing that information with others. And if it means we are
    dropping people in different locations or running different
    kinds of services that we wouldn't otherwise be running, we
    want to make sure then that the other systems who then are the
    circulator systems who pick the people up from the stations
    after we bring them to a location, they're prepared to do that
    kind of distribution role that we play.
        So we are very--getting very well coordinated regionally to
    perform that function, and there have been several conference
    calls testing that capability, you know, from a demonstration
    point of view. And I think that process is emerging and looks
    like it is going to work quite well.
        At the national level, we are playing a very active role. I
    happen to have been appointed by our industry's, the American
    Public Transportation Association, which represents all the
    mass transit interests around the country, as the chair of
    their security task force. Well, we are now coordinating this
    issue at a national level, all of our peers. I am kind of at
    the central point of all of that coordination inside of the
    industry, as well as with the Federal Government, most
    particularly the Federal Transit Administration.
        So we are providing that linkage between what the Federal
    Government is doing with respect to our industry, how we
    coordinate it nationally amongst ourselves. Internationally, we
    are bringing people in from around the world who,
    unfortunately, have many more years of experience than this
    country has about responding to terrorism and they've learned a
    lot. And we hope to be able to shortcut our learning process by
    understanding their best practices. We've already had people
    from the United Kingdom in. There's going to be a symposium
    bringing people from Europe and Asia in as well.
        So there's a lot of work going on in this particular area
    and I am fairly fortunate that I am kind of playing a
    leadership role at the regional and the national level.
        Senator Landrieu. And are there funds available to help you
    continue this good work that you have talked about in terms of
    conferencing and bringing people in? Because I think exchanging
    information and not starting from scratch, and taking ideas
    from other people that unfortunately have faced these
    challenges is very helpful. And I think that should be part of
    our budget, a smart way to spend money.
        Mr. White. Yes. Now some of the money that you have
    appropriated to us are used for regional emergency coordination
    purposes as we continue our efforts in that arena, although
    much of what we are spending the money on is to prepare our
    employees to do what's called upon them. A lot of that is--
    involves coordination with our police, fire, emergency, rescue
    departments, which we have an enormously close relationship
    with.
        At the national level, we are quite fortunate that the
    Federal Government took $2 million of its national research,
    actually a quarter of the money it spends in this particular
    arena, and devoted it entirely to this region--this national
    coordination mechanism as to where research could be best
    applied to bring the highest and best use.
        And the first allocations of funding under that program was
    to conduct regional workshops where we and our peers, the large
    urban heavy rail systems, got together. And we spent 3 days
    exchanging best practices, conducting actually mock exercises,
    trying to put ourselves in the shoes of terrorists and trying
    to think of what they would and how they would--how our system
    might be vulnerable, then the next day saying ``Well, wait a
    minute. What would we do to shore up our system given those
    kind of scenarios.''
        So there's four of those workshops that are going on around
    the country with this $2 million program, and the Federal
    Transit Administration is conducting something like 15
    additional regional workshops. So I know that the Federal
    Transit Administration is probably better qualified than I am
    to talk to you about what's going on nationally, but based upon
    how I am participating at the national level, I see a lot of
    activity going on.
        Senator Landrieu. Can you comment on the chemical sensor
    program?
        Mr. White. Yes. Chemical sensors. We have moved now from
    the prototype phase. It has proven, after about 15 to 18 months
    of testing, to be ready to move into the implementation phase.
    Part of the first batch of money that we got is going to be
    used to move towards outfitting up to 12 of our underground
    stations with these sensor technologies. We are going to have
    the next set of stations moving forward probably in the next 90
    days or so. And then we expect that these next 12 stations
    should be completed by the end of this calendar year.
        And as it pertains to waste and trash cans, the good news
    is that we are now able to bring bomb-resistant trash cans back
    into our stations where we moved all the trash cans out from
    our platforms. We've now researched and found what we believe
    to be the best bomb-resistant trash cans on the marketplace. We
    are now in the process of acquiring them. And we'll be bringing
    them in, not to our platform levels, but into our mezzanine and
    entrance levels. All of our stations will be equipped with
    those and that should happen no later than this summer and
    fall.
        Senator Landrieu. Great. And one other question on
    transportation and Metro. Have we completed the establishment
    of protocols for evacuating Federal employees, or is there a
    process going on by the Federal Government in the event that we
    would have to, evacuate? Would anybody like to comment?
        Mr. White. Peter probably would want to give you the first
    answer, and I can try and chime in afterwards.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Mr. LaPorte.
        Mr. LaPorte. It is certainly one of the biggest challenges
    out there. And oftentimes if I talk to a group it is just that
    question, ``What do we do as Federal employees. Federal
    Government may say you all can go home, but what about our
    building specifically?''
        We've been working with the Office of Personnel Management
    and FEMA in putting together plans for all the Federal
    buildings to design the basic curriculum of their evacuation
    plan, where they would go, how would they run their fire
    drills, floor captains. And it is--that process, in many ways
    the District is beating the Federal Government to that, because
    they're going to end up on the city streets and then into the
    region on Metro and the like. So we've been working with FEMA
    and OPM on that. OPM approached us to ask us to give them some
    assistance of putting that training together for individual
    plans for each building.
        We've worked a couple facilities, started with 500 C
    Street, which is FEMA. And one of the challenges ongoing in the
    next few months is to put those plans in place at each building
    and then continue to work on their plans and drills and
    exercises. Because we saw in New York, from the 1993--from
    learning from 1993, the first explosion, to the explosion in
    2001, a number of companies did some great planning and it
    saved a lot of lives. And so things we need to think about
    right now and continue to work on that.
        Senator Landrieu. It was an extraordinary story I read, I
    wish I could remember the company. But it was a inspirational
    story but yet sad at the end, because the guy who organized the
    evacuation was a former member of our armed services and he'd
    served in Vietnam very courageously. You all might remember the
    story. But the bottom line is because he was such an
    extraordinary security officer, and despite the fact that he
    was told not to worry about such things, had such a strong
    evacuation plan for his company. And would train, even despite
    the fact that they were not really encouraged to, that he got
    every single person out, but he lost his life doing it and his
    right hand guy basically. They didn't make it out.
        I think it would be very important for us to all be
    knowledgeable about that, how a strong evacuation plan by a guy
    who had been through the war and understood, despite not
    getting the right instructions did it anyway, and saved
    everyone in the company.

                        COORDINATING SCHOOL EVACUATIONS

        Let me ask a question on one thing. And, Ms. Kellems, I'll
    get back to you. For a lot of parents in the region, the whole
    idea of the coordination between the school system and everyone
    else in the event of an emergency is very important, because
    one wrong decision to let schools out thinking you're doing the
    right thing could cause terrific panic when you can't get the
    children together with the parents. So could you give us--
    because we are running very short on time and we only have a
    few more minutes. But could you and anyone else who would want
    to comment about progress we are making to coordinate the
    schools emergency operations.
        Ms. Kellems. Yeah, you're exactly correct. We've all said
    that one of the best things that happened on September 11 was
    the decision to keep our schools open. With all of the folks
    trying to flee the city or the Federal Government closing down
    or people self-evacuating, it was probably the best option. And
    I think all the surrounding jurisdictions shared that opinion
    in their schools. It was the best option to have the kids
    without some threat, have the kids where we knew they were safe
    and they were supervised.
        Since then we've put a lot of attention to this issue. The
    director of security for D.C. Public Schools is also a member
    of the task force, along with the superintendent of schools.
    One of the portions of the money that you appropriated to us is
    for facility security. Each of the schools, D.C. Public Schools
    at least, is going through an effort to update their evacuation
    plans and their security plans. They're also integrating their
    camera system with our law enforcement camera system, so that
    we can keep track of it. In its---the building security, the
    planning process, a very important part of it is the education
    of the children about what to do in these circumstances.
        We all tease Peter and call him the Master of Disaster. And
    we stole that nickname actually from a program that is
    federally sponsored that we are delivering in D.C. public
    schools now that helps children understand how they need to be
    prepared, whether it is a flood or a hurricane or a tornado or
    anything else; what are the basics that they need to know,
    starting at a very young age. This curriculum is now being
    adopted by the D.C. Public Schools.
        So I think it is a whole host of things that have to be
    done. It is an enormous percentage of our population obviously,
    and the most vulnerable part of our population, the one that
    gives most people the greatest trepidation. Many people were
    leaving their posts, their facilities and their jobs, because
    they were fearful for their children. So I think to the extent
    that we can underscore and bolster their sense of confidence in
    how the school system is handling it, we are trying very hard
    to do that.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, it is very important--does anyone
    want to comment, because I have one closing comment?
        Mr. Rogers. The school superintendents are a part of the
    decision making process with the CAOs and emergency managers in
    an incident. They are on the conference call usually. They were
    on the conference call on 9/11, though it was late. We need to
    improve that process. We've made provisions to do that. The
    superintendents have been incorporated as a part of the COG
    planning process. The school safety officers have formed a
    cluster under an emergency support function so that we can
    better understand their needs there. So what happens in the
    school system and the decisions there are very much a part--
    will be very much a part of our eventual plan.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, I think that's very
    important. And I'll say my daughter and I for some reason were
    talking the other day, Chief, about fire. And she just looked
    at me and she said, ``Well, Mom, if that happens just stop,
    drop and roll.'' It would be very helpful if we could get all
    the kids understanding as well as the fire chiefs have done
    such a good job with this as they go around the schools
    teaching the children about stop, drop and roll, then our kids
    will know what to do in the event that something like this
    happens.
        So, Chief, thank you for teaching----
        Mr. Schwartz. Good to hear that all of our hours of public
    education are getting down to----
        Senator Landrieu. Yeah. They got that stop, drop and roll.
    They got it down.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Thank you all so much. It was a good hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., Thursday, March 14, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Landrieu.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                     Courts

    STATEMENT OF JASPER ORMOND, INTERIM DIRECTOR, COURT
                SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to
    call this meeting of the Subcommittee on the District of
    Columbia of the Appropriations Committee to order.
        The purpose of our hearing today is to review the fiscal
    year 2003 budget request of the D.C. Subcommittee's Federal
    agencies, and those are the Court Services and Offender
    Supervision Agency, with the Public Defender Service and the
    District of Columbia courts. We are going to have two panels
    today. We thank the first panel for being with us.
        Let me say that some of our members will be coming in and
    out during the hearing, and of course, we are live on the
    Internet and hope that we will have a good hearing today and
    get some good information on the record.
        Let me begin by just submitting a couple of things for the
    record for our committee. One is just some information, a fact
    sheet, on D.C. inmate population, information and statistics
    that our staff was able to pull together for today; the fact
    sheet on the agency, and I am sure some of these numbers will
    be bolstered or supported by your presentations. We have gotten
    some information from, the Bureau of Prisons about the
    population data, U.S. prison population, and their data to
    submit to the record, about 6,792 prisoners that they have
    identified as part of their U.S. system.
        I would also like to submit for the record the two articles
    that were in the Washington Post today, one about the
    challenges under our new system of inmates being separated at
    some distance from families and some of the challenges that
    that creates, and we will have some questions about that as
    this hearing goes on. And also an article about the city's
    plans for the D.C. General site which might affect one of the
    sites under the jurisdiction of this agency. And then just a
    map of that particular area. So, without objection, I am just
    going to submit these for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                     [The Washington Post, March 21, 2002]

                    City Unveils Plan for D.C. General Site
        homes, shops, waterfront park, health-related offices envisioned

                              (By Debbi Wilgoren)

        District officials yesterday introduced their vision for extending
    the Capitol Hill neighborhood into the sprawling, mostly vacant D.C.
    General Hospital campus in Southeast Washington.
        The proposal would replace about 45 acres of deteriorating hospital
    buildings and parking lots with tree-lined streets, homes, shops,
    laboratories and outpatient clinics and health-related government
    offices. The neighborhood they envision would lead to a 15-acre
    waterfront park along a now-inaccessible stretch of the Anacostia
    River.
        City officials must submit the draft land-use plan to the D.C.
    Council, which would hold public hearings before deciding whether to
    approve or modify it.
        Under an agreement with the federal government, which owns the
    land, the entire site must continue to have a municipal focus. That
    means most new offices would be owned by the government and related to
    health or science, and some of the new housing could be reserved for
    health care workers or teachers. Despite the restrictions, officials
    said, they are determined to transform the site into a lively
    waterfront neighborhood.
        ``People are going to suddenly look at this [parcel] with very
    different eyes,'' said City Administrator John A. Koskinen, who briefed
    reporters on the proposal yesterday afternoon in advance of a public
    presentation at Eastern High School last night. ``Instead of seeing
    what is there, they'll start to see what could be there.''
        A few of the 50 or so people who attended last night's presentation
    spoke approvingly of the plan.
        ``I love the fact of opening up to the waterfront,'' said Ellen
    Opper-Weiner, who has lived a few blocks from the D.C. General campus
    for 24 years, but set foot on the campus for the first time just two
    weeks ago. ``It's creating a whole new neighborhood.''
        But others in the audience, mostly longtime opponents of the
    decision to close D.C. General, criticized the plan. They focused on
    the decision to reserve four acres near the Stadium-Armory Metro
    station for a facility for St. Coletta's, a private special education
    school in Alexandria that enrolls many D.C. students.
        ``The citizens of the District once again have been disrespected,''
    said Kathleen Wills, an activist on school and land-use issues. ``How .
    . . does a private institution get this public land? It's a travesty.''
        The entire plan could take up to 20 years to achieve, District
    Planning Director Andrew Altman said. City officials have not begun to
    estimate the cost, which would be borne by local, federal and private
    funds.
        Once a plan is approved, the city would start developing the site
    around its edges, building the waterfront park--including a scenic
    roadway and a bicycle path--extending Massachusetts Avenue, and
    improving 19th Street to include a new mix of homes and shops around a
    ``village square.'' That first phase probably would take about five
    years, Altman said.
        Along Massachusetts Avenue, a public health and science center
    would include offices, laboratories, a rebuilt city morgue and new
    facilities for the outpatient health care and drug treatment clinics
    that have remained in operation since D.C. General was shut down last
    year. Koskinen said the buildings could include a new health department
    headquarters, the police forensics lab and possibly a federal forensics
    facility.
        The office buildings on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue
    would serve as a buffer between the new boulevard and the D.C. jail, at
    the southern edge of the hospital campus.
        The northern edge of the site is earmarked for St. Coletta's. The
    city wants the school there because it would reduce transportation
    costs. The project also enjoys strong support on Capitol Hill.
        Capitol Hill resident Elizabeth A. Purcell said yesterday that she
    has asked the D.C. inspector general to investigate the decision to
    award the site to the school rather than issue an open call for bids.
    ``I think that was a tremendous loss,'' she said.
        Those who opposed closing the hospital expressed disappointment
    last night that the draft plan does not call for construction of a
    public hospital.
        But the plan reserves about eight acres along Independence Avenue
    SE for undetermined municipal projects. Officials said such projects
    could be anything from a hospital, if one is needed, to a high-quality
    community swimming facility that could also be used in the Washington-
    Baltimore bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics.
                                     ______

                     [The Washington Post, March 21, 2002]

                      Families Lamenting Life After Lorton
        with prisoners all over country, relatives find visits daunting

                              (By Arthur Santana)

        Gayle Hebron's trips to the old Lorton Correctional Complex in
    Fairfax County used to be governed by routine: a 30-minute drive every
    Saturday, a security check and hand stamp at the entrance and then a
    short walk to the visitors area. There, she would sit in a crowded room
    and talk with her 26-year-old son about life on the outside.
        That eight-month routine ended in November when Hebron's son,
    Elauin ``Lonnie'' Hebron, was among the last inmates transferred from
    Lorton, in his case to the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan.,
    more than 900 miles away.
        Now, Hebron said, she would have to spend hundreds of dollars for a
    plane ticket or endure two days each way on a bus to see her son. ``I
    absolutely hate it,'' she said. ``I don't get to see him anymore. We
    miss each other.''
        Since Lorton was closed for good in November, more than 6,400
    District felons like Hebron are scattered in 77 federal prisons
    nationwide, according to the federal Bureau of Prisons.
        The last of seven prisons at Lorton was shut Nov. 19, completing a
    task mandated by the 1997 Revitalization Act for the District. That law
    transferred the expense of operating prisons from the city to the
    federal government, which committed itself to placing the prisoners
    within 500 miles of Washington.
        About 82 percent of those felons, including about 5,255 men and
    women in 36 prisons, are within the 500-mile radius. But more than
    1,184 are housed farther away.
        Prison officials calculate the distance ``as the crow flies.'' Some
    prisoners are in California, Texas and Arizona, exiled from their
    families, according to Carol Fennelly, director of Hope House, a North
    Carolina-based group that connects incarcerated prisoners with loved
    ones.
        While crime victims might feel that sympathy for distant inmates is
    misplaced, such separation of prisoners from families hurts everyone,
    according to prison-rights groups. Inmates who lose touch with close
    relatives are more likely to be on shaky footing when they reenter
    society and to return to crime, these groups say. ``We know that the
    best way to have somebody come home and become a productive member of
    society is to make sure they maintain family ties,'' said Marie-Ann
    Sennett, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services
    Project. ``By being sent throughout the country, family ties are being
    severed. That connection that is so important is gone.''
        Faraway inmates also have fewer chances to pursue legal options.
    ``Does that federal facility have the D.C. Code in their law library? I
    doubt it,'' said Kara Gotsch of the American Civil Liberties Union
    National Prison Project, based in the District.
        Since they are far from hometown inmate-rights groups, District
    prisoners are more susceptible to prison abuse, Sennett said. Her group
    handles about 2,000 D.C. inmate complaints a year and intervened after
    problems at the private Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in
    Youngstown.
        Run by Corrections Corporation of America, it was beset by trouble
    after opening in 1997. About 1,700 inmates were sent there from Lorton
    in May that year. Two inmates were fatally stabbed; 40 assaults were
    reported; six prisoners escaped in 1998; and in 1999, inmates won $1.65
    million in a class-action suit accusing guards of excessive force.
        Sennett called the decision a landmark victory exposing prison
    abuses.
        Incarcerating inmates far from where they committed crimes is the
    rule, not the exception, Fennelly said. ``Having a prison at Lorton was
    a luxury for D.C. inmates,'' she said. ``So when they were transferred,
    they had the distance shock.''
        John L. Clark, a congressionally appointed trustee who oversaw
    transition of city inmates to federal prisons, agreed, saying that,
    when Lorton was operating, D.C. inmates and their families had ``a
    definite advantage that was unique in the country. The prisoners and
    their families here will now be more like the situation in many
    states.''
        But Gotsch said distance not only increases severity of punishment
    for inmates but also for their families.
        Edward Robinson Sr., hasn't seen his son, Edward Jr., 27, since he
    left Lorton about two years ago. Now that he's in Edgefield, S.C.,
    serving a life sentence for murder, the family said it's financially
    impossible to travel the more than 400 miles to see him. ``When you're
    on a fixed income, going down to Lorton was easy, but now, I don't know
    how we'd do it,'' Robinson said. ``It's been a strain on the whole
    family.'' He added that his son's two children, both 7, often ask him
    how their father is doing. ``I think they are suffering for him,''
    Robinson said. ``They can't see him. By not seeing him and not knowing
    him, it's definitely going to affect them later in life.''
        Traci Billingsley, a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman, said the policy
    of keeping D.C. inmates within 500 miles of home cannot always be
    implemented. It was put in place, she said, ``because being within 500
    miles of home . . . strengthens family ties.''
        But, she said, a primary reason that inmates cannot be placed in
    prisons within 500 miles of Washington is that the bureau has only two
    high security prisons nearby--in Pennsylvania at Allenwood and
    Lewisburg, each about 200 miles away.
        She said the bureau's policy of not housing large numbers of
    inmates from a single geographic location in a single federal
    penitentiary prohibits concentrating high-security D.C. felons in the
    Pennsylvania institutions. When more high-security prisons are
    constructed, she said, the bureau expects to bring D.C. offenders
    closer to home.
        Bureau officials said the 500-mile commitment was made with the
    understanding that it would have time to build facilities to handle the
    influx of D.C. inmates. They said the 1997 law didn't give officials
    time to do so.
        Billingsley said work is underway on five high-security prisons in
    the Mid-Atlantic region. One has begun accepting inmates in Lee, Va.,
    she said.
        Trustee Clark said inmates sometimes must be incarcerated far away
    if they misbehave in prison. ``Most of the people who are sent to
    Leavenworth, Kan., are sent there because they were not able to adjust
    and get along in prisons closer in,'' Clark said. ``Or they may have
    some unique situation, like they have an enemy . . . at a number of
    other prisons.''
        Hebron's mother said he was not sent to Leavenworth for misbehavior
    but by mistake after being convicted of theft. She is disputing the
    system's classification of her son as a high-security inmate. Prison
    officials said Hebron is also serving time for assault, armed robbery
    and other charges.
        Billingsley said that a D.C. inmate released from a faraway prison
    is referred to a halfway house in the District or that accommodations
    are made to get the inmate home.
        Until then, families prepare for a long haul.
        Shanetta Wilson hadn't seen her nephew, Marco, 16, in more than a
    year when she paid a $700 Amtrak fare this month so she and her niece
    could travel to Atlanta to see him. Previously incarcerated at D.C.'s
    Oak Hill Youth Center for robbery, Marco won't be released for five
    years, his aunt said.
        Our Place D.C., a private, nonprofit women's center, was founded in
    1999 in part to help incarcerated mothers. It has worked with 800 women
    and their families, said Susan Galbraith, its president and executive
    director. ``We were very concerned that women were being dispersed
    throughout the country, that they were losing any connection they had
    to the community,'' she said.
        Before Kathryn Hunter discovered Our Place D.C., she had to take
    her daughter's two children more than 200 miles by bus to Danbury,
    Conn., to see their mother, Jacqueline Ferguson, imprisoned since 1994
    for violating parole, her mother said. ``She [Ferguson) didn't get to
    see them but once every eight months or so,'' Hunter said. ``It was
    devastating to her and the kids.''
        With the help of Our Place D.C., the children, now 21 and 8, have
    seen their mother every other month. ``It was a lifesaver to have the
    kids go up there much more often,'' Hunter said. Ferguson, 40, returned
    to a D.C. halfway house in January, her mother said.
        Clark, who said transition of D.C. inmates into the federal prison
    population had gone ``with remarkable smoothness,'' said he has heard
    few inmates complain about distance. ``There have have been very few
    inmates who were unhappy about going to federal institutions,'' he
    said. ``The overwhelming response that I have gotten . . . has been
    that they were eager to go to federal prisons versus being in Lorton
    because of the program opportunities, the vocational opportunities, the
    chance to work everyday and make some money, and as much as anything,
    that these are clean, safe, well-managed institutions.''
        But some inmates' family members, such as Nellie Toliver, have
    difficulty being that upbeat. Toliver, 74, said she that has never been
    on an airplane, that she has no intention of doing so and that age
    precludes traveling more than 1,000 miles to the Federal Correctional
    Institution in Pollock, La., where her son, James Gibbs, 50, is serving
    15 to 20 years for murder.
        Her grandson, Lamont Warren, 29, is at Leavenworth, serving a life
    sentence for murder. ``I don't know why they would send your relatives
    so far away,'' Toliver said. ``I don't know when I'll get to see
    them.''

        Senator Landrieu. I would like to welcome our first panel
    of witnesses today, the Interim Director, Mr. Jasper Ormond,
    and the Director of the Public Defender Service, Mrs. Jones. We
    look forward to your testimony today.
        As you all know in our audience, the mission of the Court
    Services and Offender Supervision Agency is varied, but the
    purpose is to ensure public safety primarily, while also
    helping District residents reenter their communities. CSOSA
    supervises approximately 15,000 offenders and 8,000 defendants
    at any given time, according to the records that we have. I
    understand from your prepared statements that more inmates are
    transitioning directly from prison to the community with no
    halfway house stays, and up to 70 percent of convicted D.C.
    offenders serve all or part of their sentences in the
    communities, which is quite a challenge for us. In these
    instances, especially an offender's connection with a community
    supervision officer is crucial.
        We have made some progress during the course of this brief
    existence of this new agency, which was created not too many
    years, but the number of parolees rearrested on new charges
    seems to have dropped 63 percent since 1998. There is a drug
    testing program that has shown some decline of positive drug
    tests, from 28 to 23 percent, some positive signs.
        CSOSA is reaching out to the District's faith-based
    community to provide treatment and rehabilitation services to
    offenders under its supervision, which is commendable.
        We have also, I think, made some progress in reducing our
    caseload that was once at 100 to 1 before the Revitalization
    Act to the current level of 64 cases under general supervision.
    But in my opinion that is still too high, and I would like to
    encourage some investments or redeployment of resources to
    reduce that caseload even further.
        I am interested in hearing about specific steps the agency
    is taking to minimize recidivism, again either faith-based
    initiatives or other programs that are very result-oriented and
    very effective and have a proven track record of effectiveness.
        I also want to note that I have recently learned that CSOSA
    must move 70 employees from a D.C. court building to
    accommodate the new Family Court, which is also a priority of
    this committee, to help stand up a new court system, and has
    spent a considerable amount of time and energy and money
    helping to stand up that Family Court. This move has been
    accelerated, and I understand it is not the most convenient
    option for this agency, but it is a necessary move. This
    subcommittee is committed to help CSOSA to ensure that the
    operations continue, that the Family Court needs are met.
        I am looking forward, Mr. Ormond, to hearing from you about
    the development of the D.C. site, as I mentioned, the General
    Hospital site. One of the articles that I put into the record
    describes to me a very promising plan for the development of
    that site, but how it affects your agency we are interested in
    hearing.
        I look forward to the testimony from you, Mrs. Jones. I am
    glad to see that you are continuing your training program for
    court-appointed attorneys. It is absolutely essential that
    competent legal representation be provided for indigent
    defenders so that our system that we are so proud of we can
    actually be proud of and that it is fair.
        Additionally I am looking forward to hearing about
    representation your agency provides to juveniles with
    disabilities in that system. Currently our committee is
    grappling with the cost of special education services in the
    District and would appreciate any of your views regarding that.

                               prepared statement

        I know you have statements prepared for the record. My
    statement is at some length in addition to what I have
    described, and I am going to submit that for the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
        Good afternoon, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia will
    come to order. I would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank
    you for your time. This is the Subcommittee's second hearing, but one
    of it's most important as we review the fiscal year 2003 budget
    requests of our two main federal agencies, the Court Services and
    Offender Supervision Agency, with the Public Defender Service, and the
    District of Columbia Courts.
        We will conduct the hearing in two separate panels so everyone's
    time is used efficiently. We will begin by receiving statements from
    the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the Public
    Defender Service; followed by a second panel from the D.C. Courts. I
    would like to remind witnesses to limit their remarks to five minutes
    and your entire prepared statement will be included in the record.
        The D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 eliminated the $600 million
    Federal payment appropriated by Congress 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 traditionally carried out at the
    state level: criminal justice and District employee pensions.
        The first function, the District's criminal justice activities, is
    under the direct oversight of this Subcommittee and is comprised of two
    main entities: the D.C. Courts and the Court Services and Offender
    Supervision Agency (CSOSA).
        The third component of criminal justice, corrections, was
    successfully terminated by the District's Correction's Trustee, John
    Clark, with the transition of all adult felons to the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons last December. Corrections of D.C. adult felons are now under
    the sole control of the BOP. An article in the Washington Post today
    highlighted the new reality for D.C. offenders--they do not get to see
    their families. Apparently, the 6,400 D.C. inmates housed in the Bureau
    of Prisons are scattered in 77 prisons nationwide.
        Though we do not fund corrections of D.C. adult felons, I am
    concerned about the impacts of this transition on the District
    community--particularly, the ability of offenders to maintain close
    ties with children and families. Although BOP policy is to keep
    offenders within 500 miles of home--that does not appear to be
    happening. I would be interested to see if CSOSA offers any type of
    mediation or counseling to re-entering offenders to help them re-enter
    family life at home.
        I would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses, the Interim
    Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Mr.
    Jasper Ormond and the Director of the Public Defender Service, Ms.
    Cynthia Jones.
        The mission of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
    is varied, but the purpose is to ensure public safety while also
    helping District residents re-enter their community. CSOSA supervises
    approximately 15,900 offenders and 8,000 defendants at any given time.
    I understand from your prepared statements that more inmates are
    transitioning directly from prison to the community with no halfway
    house stay at all and up to 70 percent of convicted D.C. offenders
    serve all or part of their sentence in the community. In these
    instances especially, an offenders' connection with a Community
    Supervision Officer is crucial.
        CSOSA has made some great progress during the course of its brief
    existence as an agency. The number of parolees' re-arrested on new
    charges dropped 63 percent since 1998. It has an effective drug testing
    program that has shown a decline of positive drug tests from 28 percent
    to 23 percent. CSOSA is reaching out to the District's extensive faith
    community to provide treatment and rehabilitative services to the
    offenders under its supervision. I commend CSOSA for reducing caseloads
    from over 100, before the Revitalization Act, to current levels of 64
    cases under general supervision. Additionally, I encourage the
    investment to reduce caseloads further to 50 cases per officer in
    fiscal year 2003. I am also interested in hearing about specific steps
    the agency is taking to minimizing recidivism, such as the Faith-based
    Initiative and Transitional Intervention Program.
        Also, I wanted to note that I have recently learned that CSOSA must
    move 70 employees from a D.C. Courts building to accommodate the new
    Family Court. This move has been accelerated and I understand it is not
    the most convenient option for CSOSA. However, it is a necessary move.
    Establishment of the Family Court is a high priority of this
    Subcommittee, but we are also committed to working with CSOSA to help
    ensure that their operations are not disrupted.
        I would also like to hear from Mr. Ormond about the development of
    the D.C. General Hospital site. Another article in the Washington Post
    today described the District's plans for the site, with no mention of
    the Assessment and Orientation Center administered by CSOSA. The Center
    conducts a 30-day residential program to stabilize the highest-risk
    offenders. We need to work together to ensure that CSOSA is able to
    expand these critical services, wherever they are located in the
    District.
        I look forward to the testimony from the Public Defender Service. I
    am glad to see that you are continuing your rigorous training program
    for court-appointed attorneys. Providing comprehensive legal
    representation to indigent defendants is critical to a fair legal
    system. Additionally, I look forward to hearing about representation
    your agency provides to juveniles with disabilities in the delinquency
    system. Currently, the Committee is grappling with the costs of special
    education services in the District, and we would appreciate your views
    on how the system serves delinquent juveniles.
        I would also like to welcome our second panel of witnesses
    representing the D.C. Courts, Chief Judge Rufus King and Chief Judge
    Annice Wagner. As a relatively new quasi-federal entity the Courts have
    done a terrific job, during my tenure, of communicating with this
    Committee on your funding needs and keeping us informed of progress.
    Additionally, I appreciate the tremendous effort that you, Judge
    Satterfield, the new Family Court chief, and others have contributed to
    the formation of the Family Court.
        Over the last two years, a surge of public pressure highlighted the
    faces of abuse and neglect in the District--faces of children who were
    victims of a system so disjointed and ineffective that they did not
    live to see the day when major reforms are being implemented. I commend
    the Courts, the City, child welfare advocates in the District and in
    Congress for collaborating on the Family Court Act. I am committed to
    working hand-in-hand with the Courts and the City to ensure that every
    child currently in the system benefits from this reform and does not
    suffer the fate of too many children that have been failed. Every child
    should be moving towards permanency as quickly and effectively as
    possible. This Committee is committed to addressing resource and
    management issues of the Family Court. We are anxious to review the
    Courts' transition plan and will hold a hearing in May to investigate
    reform more intensively.
        One hundred percent of the D.C. Superior Court's operating budget
    is paid for with federal funds. Therefore, Congress has a unique
    obligation to ensure that the day-to-day operations of this court
    reflect the best practices in each and every area of law under its
    jurisdiction. In fiscal year 2002 the Senate bill made it a priority to
    provide sufficient resources to implement the Family Court Act. We did
    this because we did not want other areas of the Court to suffer in an
    attempt to comply with the law.
        The fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act included over $23
    million specifically for the Courts' to hire and train new judges and
    renovate space. We included a provision requiring review of the Courts'
    transition plan specifically to ensure effective implementation and
    accountability.
        It was this Committee's intent that, if necessary, the Court's
    could use its operating expenses account to comply with the Family
    Court Act and reimburse the operating fund with Family Court funds,
    once they become available. Considering explicit report language and
    remarks made on the Senate floor, I am disturbed that the General
    Accounting Office has determined that the Courts may not reimburse
    operating expenses with Family Court funds. I will work with the Court
    and interested Members to resolve this issue as soon as possible. We do
    not want to have a situation where other Court functions are deprived
    or where Family Court funds are left unexpended.
        Additionally, I am looking forward to hearing about the Courts' new
    initiatives. Particularly, I wanted to take the time to commend the
    Courts' for expanding the strong Domestic Violence Unit through a
    satellite in-take center in Anacostia. It is critical to take services
    to the communities in which they are needed, particularly in dealing
    with vulnerable populations who are often reluctant to come forward. I
    would also like to for the witnesses to present the plans for
    renovating the historic Old Courthouse and how this fits in with other
    capital improvements.
        I want to thank you all for attending this hearing today and for
    contributing to public safety and justice in the District.

        Senator Landrieu. But so that we can begin, I am happy for
    you all to begin and then we will have a series of questions.
    If you each could limit your opening statements to about 5
    minutes, that would be helpful.

                           STATEMENT OF JASPER ORMOND

        Mr. Ormond. Madam Chairperson and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today in support of the fiscal year 2003 budget request of
    the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the
    District of Columbia, CSOSA.
        For fiscal year 2003, CSOSA requests direct budget
    authority of $161,925,000 and 1,266 FTE. This includes the
    administration's Federal retirement funding proposal. Of this
    amount, $100,612,000 is for the community supervision program;
    $37,357,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency; and
    $23,956,000 is for the D.C. Public Defender Service, which
    transmits its budget with CSOSA's.
        Without the retirement funding proposal, the requested
    appropriation is $154,707,000. Of this amount, $95,682,000 is
    for the community supervision program; $35,955,000 is for the
    Pretrial Services Agency; and $23,070,000 is for the Public
    Defender Service.
        CSOSA requests an increase of 4.4 percent over fiscal year
    2002. This increase is spread over 10 new initiatives totaling
    $13,653,000 and 92 FTE. The Director of PDS, Cynthia Jones,
    will present the details of her request separately.
        CSOSA is committed to linking program performance to our
    budget initiatives. The agency received an unqualified opinion
    on the independent audit of fiscal year 2000 financial
    statements. To further enhance our abilities to integrate
    performance data with the budget process, our first budget
    request is an additional $280,000 for PSA to purchase and pilot
    test performance management software.
        CSOSA performance model is based on four critical success
    factors that must be achieved for us to fulfill our mission of
    increasing public safety. I will discuss our fiscal year 2003
    budget initiatives within the context of these critical success
    factors.
        The first critical success factor is risk and needs
    assessment. CSOSA requests $4,737,000 for three new initiatives
    in this area.
        Our first initiative will increase the number of diagnostic
    officers. These officers complete pre-and post-sentence
    investigations for use by the court, the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons, and the U.S. Parole Commission. Currently each officer
    carries 14 investigations per month. We would like to reduce
    this to more appropriate levels of nine to ensure that
    investigations are thorough, accurate, and timely.
        The second initiative will establish two new teams for
    CSP's transitional intervention for parole supervision, or
    TIPS, program. TIPS officers work with inmates transitioning to
    the community through halfway houses, to verify release plans,
    and assess offenders' needs.
        Finally, we request funds to relocate roughly 17 diagnostic
    and interstate supervision staff from Building B of the D.C.
    Superior Court to other nearby office space. We must vacate
    Building B to facilitate the implementation of the D.C. Family
    Court Act.
        CSOSA's second critical success factor is close
    supervision. CSOSA supervises about 15,900 offenders and 8,000
    defendants at any given time. We request $6,444,000 to fund
    three new close supervision initiatives. First, we request
    funding for five additional general supervision teams and a new
    field office within CSP. This will reduce our general
    supervision caseload from a current 64 offenders per officer to
    our target level of 50 offenders per officer. Lower caseloads
    enable the officer to monitor the offender closely. Closer
    monitoring has contributed to reductions in parole rearrests,
    one early indicator of recidivism. The number of parolees
    rearrested has significantly decreased over the last several
    years, about 63 percent since 1968, to be exact. The
    corresponding rearrest rate has also dropped 33 percent over
    the same period.
        Second, we request funding for the Pretrial Services Agency
    to establish a community-based day reporting center, which will
    expand the options available to supervise higher risk
    defendants.
        Our third initiative will enable us to maintain increased
    levels of offender drug testing. The funding will be used for
    the drug testing staff at the field offices scheduled to open
    in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, as well as for test
    processing chemicals.
        Treatment and support services, our third critical success
    factor, are the means through which offenders and defendants
    can establish stable, drug-free lives in the community. CSOSA
    requests an additional $2,196,000 for three new initiatives in
    this area.
        First, we request funding to expand CSP's Substance Abuse
    Treatment Branch. These staff assess offenders for treatment
    placement. CSOSA initiated or continued treatment for nearly
    1,500 offenders and 800 defendants in fiscal year 2001. The
    additional staff will ensure timely assessment and expand our
    in-house treatment capacity, which is currently 600 offenders
    at any given time.
        CSOSA has established learning labs to meet the extensive
    educational and job placement needs of our supervised
    population. We request additional funds to expand learning lab
    programs at the new field units scheduled to open in the fiscal
    year 2003.
        The third new treatment initiative would provide mental
    health services to the defendant population, expanding the
    capacity that PSA established last year through successful
    pilot mental health programs. Testing, sanctions, and treatment
    have contributed to the substantial decrease in drug use among
    our offenders. Positive tests dropped 60 percent among a sample
    of 353 offenders who successfully completed treatment in fiscal
    year 2001.
        Our fourth critical success factor is the establishment of
    partnerships with police, the community, and other criminal
    justice agencies. While we are not requesting new funds in this
    area, I would like to call your attention to our newest
    partnership with the city's faith community. Nearly 40 faith-
    based institutions have pledged to recruit mentors to work with
    offenders returning from prison. We anticipate training nearly
    200 mentors next month.

                               prepared statement

        We thank the subcommittee for its past support which has
    made our success possible. This concludes my prepared
    statement. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you
    may have. Thank you.
        [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 2003 budget request of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agency for the District of Columbia, or CSOSA. As you know, CSOSA
    provides supervision for pretrial defendants and convicted offenders
    released into the community on probation, parole, or supervised
    release. The Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) supervises defendants,
    while the Community Supervision Program (CSP) supervises offenders.
        For fiscal year 2003, CSOSA requests direct budget authority of
    $161,925,000 and 1,266 FTE. Of this amount, $100,612,000 is for the
    Community Supervision Program; $37,357,000 is for the Pretrial Services
    Agency, and $23,956,000 is for the Public Defender Service. The
    District of Columbia Public Defender Service transmits its budget
    request with CSOSA's. The Director of PDS, Cynthia Jones, will present
    it in a separate statement.
        CSOSA requests an increase of 4.4 percent over fiscal year 2002,
    taking into account the President's initiative of making each agency
    directly responsible for funding federal retiree benefits and health
    insurance. This increase is spread over ten new initiatives totaling
    $13,653,000 and 92 FTE. The request excludes PDS.
        In the two years since CSOSA was certified as an independent
    Executive Branch agency, we have made great progress toward our goals
    of establishing strict accountability for the population we supervise
    and supporting the fair administration of justice in the District of
    Columbia. These goals support our mission, which is to increase public
    safety through effective supervision of defendants and offenders.
        CSOSA supervises approximately 15,900 offenders and 8,000
    defendants at any given time. Our supervision model is based on the
    premise that four types of activities must occur in order for us to
    perform effectively. Therefore, our budget request is based on these
    Critical Success Factors: Risk and Needs Assessment, Close Supervision,
    Treatment and Support Services, and Partnerships. In addition to our
    request for enhancements in these areas, we also request information
    technology funding to support the Critical Success Factors and enhance
    our ability to measure performance. I will discuss our fiscal year 2003
    budget initiatives within the context of the Critical Success Factors
    and briefly summarize our information technology initiatives.
                           risk and needs assessment
        The first Critical Success Factor is Risk and Needs Assessment. We
    believe that effective supervision is based on a comprehensive
    knowledge of the offender's risk to the community and need for support
    services. Defendants are assessed for risk as part of the release
    recommendation process. For offenders, risk assessment includes
    diagnostic activities, such as pre-sentence investigations, initial
    risk screening, and comprehensive pre-parole assessment, as well as
    reassessment every 180 days throughout the supervision period. Needs
    assessment begins at intake and continues throughout supervision. It is
    the basis of case planning and referral to treatment, education,
    training, and other support services.
        CSOSA will dedicate 245 percent of its fiscal year 2003 budget to
    activities in this area, and we request funding for three new
    initiatives. First, we request $2,310,000 for additional diagnostic
    staff within the Community Supervision Program. Diagnostic staff
    prepare pre-sentence and post-sentence investigations, which are used
    by the court in determining sentences, by the Federal Bureau of Prisons
    in making institutional placements, and by the U.S. Parole Commission
    in making release decisions. These reports must be thorough, accurate,
    and timely; they are an important product our Agency provides to the
    criminal justice system.
        Our existing staff completed over 5,000 investigations last year.
    The additional staff will reduce each diagnostic officer's caseload
    from 14 investigations per month to a more appropriate level of nine.
    The caseload reduction is supported by a workload study we commissioned
    from the National Institute of Corrections last year.
        Second, we request $1,127,000 to establish two additional teams of
    officers in the Transitional Interventions for Parole Supervision, or
    TIPS, program. TIPS officers work with inmates transitioning to the
    community through Community Corrections Centers, or halfway houses.
    These officers investigate and verify the inmate's release plan, work
    with the inmate to secure employment, and initiate referrals to
    treatment, education, training, or other support services. TIPS
    officers' involvement ensures that the inmate makes a seamless
    transition from the institution to the community, with no break
    interruption of supervision.
        The volume of TIPS investigations has remained consistent
    throughout the three years since the program was established. However,
    during this period, the average length of stay for inmates in halfway
    houses has decreased. This means our officers have less time to
    complete each investigation. Moreover, an increasing number of inmates
    are transitioning directly from prison to the community with no halfway
    house stay. For these inmates, the release plan must be verified within
    a very short time. The additional funding for staff would ensure that
    release plan verification and case planning are completed in a timely
    manner despite the shorter timeframes within which officers are
    working.
        Finally, we request $1,300,000 to relocate approximately 70
    diagnostic and interstate supervision staff from Building B of the D.C.
    Superior Court to other office space in close proximity to the court.
    Building B must be vacated due to renovation of the space for the new
    Family Court.
                               close supervision
        CSOSA's second Critical Success Factor is Close Supervision. We
    believe that a system of close supervision, based on clearly defined
    expectations and graduated sanctions for offenders and defendants who
    violate those expectations, will result in increased accountability and
    decreased recidivism among our population. The primary means of
    enforcing accountability are regular contact between the offender and
    his or her supervision officer and testing the offender for drug use.
        For sufficient meaningful contact to occur, the officer's caseload
    must be manageable. We have set a target of 50 offenders per officer
    for general supervision cases and have made consistent progress toward
    that target. Last year, the average general supervision caseload was 64
    offenders per officer. With the addition of Pretrial Supervision
    Officers funded in fiscal year 2002, PSA's caseload will be reduced
    from 95 defendants per officer to 83.
        CSOSA will dedicate 48 percent of its fiscal year 2003 budget to
    activities in this area, and we request funding for three new
    initiatives. Our first new Close Supervision initiative totals
    $3,633,000 and would establish five general supervision teams and a new
    field office within the Community Supervision Program. With the
    addition of these staff, CSP's general supervision caseload will reach
    the target level of 50.
        The second new initiative would provide $569,000 for the Pretrial
    Services Agency to develop and establish a community-based Day
    Reporting Center. The Center will expand the available supervision
    options for higher-risk defendants by offering non-residential
    intensive supervision with a variety of substance abuse, education, and
    life skills programs.
        For our third initiative, we request $2,238,000 to increase
    offender drug testing. This will fund new positions for specimen
    collection at the field offices scheduled to open in fiscal year 2002
    and fiscal year 2003. The request also includes $1,100,000 for the
    chemicals and supplies used to process drug tests. Drug testing is
    critical to both needs assessment and supervision. Offenders who are
    using drugs are more likely to need treatment and pose a greater risk
    of committing new crimes.
        Late in fiscal year 2000, CSOSA began requiring all offenders
    entering supervision to be tested twice weekly for eight weeks. Testing
    then gradually decreases as the offender demonstrates abstinence. Under
    this policy, an offender who uses drugs can be placed on a more
    intensive testing schedule as a sanction for use. Full implementation
    of this policy contributed to a 233 percent increase in the total
    number of drug tests between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. The
    requested funding would meet the full cost for testing chemicals and
    supplies under this policy.
        Increased testing reinforces offender accountability. Each positive
    test is treated as a violation of release conditions and is sanctioned.
    Sanctions include increasing the frequency of testing, requiring the
    offender to check in daily with the supervision officer, or requiring
    the offender to attend a group meeting every day for a fixed number of
    days. If the offender continues to test positive, he or she will be
    referred to treatment or a residential sanctioning facility. The
    offender receives the message that drug use will not be tolerated and
    that violations will be punished. We believe that increased testing has
    begun to impact drug use among the supervised population: the average
    percentage of positive tests per month decreased from 28 percent in
    fiscal year 1999 to 23 percent in fiscal year 2001.
                         treatment and support services
        The third Critical Success Factor is Treatment and Support
    Services. These services provide the means through which offenders and
    defendants can establish stable, drug-free lives in the community.
    CSOSA will dedicate 23 percent of its fiscal year 2003 spending to this
    area, and we plan three new initiatives.
        CSOSA initiated treatment for more than 1,000 offenders in fiscal
    year 2001 and continued services for 480 others. Over 800 defendants
    were also placed in sanction-based treatment last year. We have seen
    significant growth in the amount of treatment available to offenders
    and defendants over the past three years. In order to ensure that these
    resources are used effectively, CSOSA assesses all individuals referred
    to treatment for severity of need and commitment to treatment and
    recommends an appropriate placement.
        As treatment availability has increased, the volume of referrals
    has also increased. In order to continue processing referrals in a
    timely manner, we request $848,000 to expand CSP's Substance Abuse
    Treatment Branch. The additional staff would also allow CSP to better
    utilize existing staff who are certified addiction counselors and
    expand in-house treatment programs.
        The defendants and offenders under CSOSA supervision need a range
    of services in addition to substance abuse treatment. The average
    offender has a fifth grade literacy level, poor job skills, and an
    unstable work history. CSOSA has established a network of learning labs
    to provide academic and vocational assistance to address these needs.
    We request $464,000 to expand the learning lab program at the new field
    units scheduled to open in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003.
        The third new treatment initiative, totaling $884,000, would
    provide mental health services to the defendant population. These
    services would include case management and referral to community-based
    mental health treatment services for a rotating caseload of 180
    defendants. Further, this initiative includes 50 contractual,
    residential treatment slots for defendants with concurrent substance
    abuse and mental health disorders. PSA launched a pilot mental health
    program in fiscal year 2001. This program reached its capacity within
    90 days, demonstrating the need to expand mental health services
    available to defendants. Numerous studies have established a strong
    association between serious mental illness and criminal activity,
    including violent crime. An even stronger association exists when the
    mentally ill individual also has a substance abuse problem. Some
    studies have shown that placing the mentally ill into appropriate
    treatment programs reduces the likelihood of a return to jail.
                                  partnerships
        Our fourth Critical Success Factor is the establishment of
    Partnerships with the police, the community, and other criminal justice
    agencies. CSOSA will dedicate 4 percent of its fiscal year 2003 budget
    to activities in this area.
        Although we are not requesting additional funding in this area, we
    have developed a new initiative of which we are very proud. Last fall,
    we began to work with the city's faith-based institutions on a pilot
    program through which returning offenders can access the resources and
    services available through houses of worship. During the weekend of
    January 11, nearly 40 faith-based institutions devoted their worship
    services to a discussion of offender re-entry and pledged to recruit
    mentors to work with offenders returning from prison. Since then,
    interest has remained high. We are on track to begin training mentors
    next month. We hope the mentoring program will be the first expression
    of a long, fruitful collaboration between CSOSA and the faith community
    that will increase opportunities for returning offenders and, as a
    result, decrease recividism.
                             information technology
        CSOSA achieved significant improvements in information management
    in fiscal year 2001. The Agency designed, built, tested, and deployed
    two separate custom-designed case management applications, one for
    defendant management and one for offender management. The new
    applications replace outdated legacy systems. Both will greatly enhance
    the information available to the supervision officer, as well as the
    quality and availability of program data.
        Our final program request is $280,000 for PSA to purchase and pilot
    test a strategic planning software package designed to facilitate the
    integration of performance and budget data. If the pilot test is
    successful, the software will be implemented throughout CSOSA.
                                   conclusion
        CSOSA continues to accumulate evidence that our supervision
    approach is contributing to a safer District of Columbia. Both the
    number of parolees rearrested and the rate of rearrest have dropped
    significantly in the three years since the TIPS program began. The
    number of parolees rearrested dropped 63 percent; the rate of rearrest
    is down more than 33 percent. We are beginning to study the effects of
    our supervision model on probation rearrests as well.
        We are beginning to see the effects of our drug testing and
    treatment programs. Although we are testing more people for more drugs,
    the rate of positive drug tests among probationers and parolees has
    fallen 15 percent since fiscal year 1999. Among a sample of offenders
    who completed treatment in fiscal year 2001, positive drug tests
    dropped more than 50 percent. We are studying treatment placements and
    outcomes this year to determine whether the promising results of that
    sample hold true for the entire treatment population.
        We at CSOSA are very proud of the difference we have made to
    offender and defendant supervision and our positive impact on public
    safety. We thank the Subcommittee for its past support, which has made
    our success possible. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be
    pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Ms. Jones.
    STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA JONES, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER
                SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Ms. Jones. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the
    subcommittee. 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 to discuss the agency's fiscal year
    2003 budget request.
        For fiscal year 2003, PDS requests $23,956,000 and 218 FTE.
    If the President's initiative is not fully funded, our request
    goes to $23,070,000.
        The Public Defender Service provides constitutionally
    mandated legal representation to indigent people facing the
    loss of liberty in the District of Columbia. While much of our
    work is devoted to ensuring that no innocent person is ever
    wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
    representation to mentally ill people who are facing
    involuntary civil commitment, recovering substance abusers who
    are participating in the highly successful Drug Court program,
    and juveniles in the delinquency system who suffer from
    learning disabilities and require special accommodations under
    the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act.
        In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of
    Columbia courts share the responsibility for providing
    constitutionally mandated legal representation to indigent
    people. Approximately 100 lawyers on staff at PDS are appointed
    by the court to represent the majority of the people facing the
    most serious felony charges, the majority of juveniles in the
    delinquency system, nearly 100 percent of all parolees, and the
    majority of the people in the mental health system facing
    involuntary civil commitment.
        Under the Criminal Justice Act, the District of Columbia
    courts appoint over 200 other pre-selected private attorneys to
    handle the less serious felony cases, misdemeanor cases, and
    the neglect and abuse cases.
        In fiscal year 2002, PDS was very successful in instituting
    changes to improve the overall quality of the District of
    Columbia justice system. We filed a successful class action
    lawsuit against the U.S. Parole Commission in the U.S. District
    Court. As a result, the court ordered the U.S. Parole
    Commission to reform its procedures for handling parole
    revocation cases.
        We also created a training and certification program for
    CJA criminal investigators to make sure that only competent and
    qualified people were assisting the court and providing
    representation. We also created several other training programs
    for the CJA Bar, including a very in-depth training seminar on
    special education advocacy and juvenile delinquency.
        One of our biggest achievements in fiscal year 2002 was the
    OPTIONS mental health treatment program in collaboration with
    the Corrections Trustee, CSOSA Pretrial Service Agency, the
    D.C. Department of Mental Health and the courts. We created a
    substance abuse treatment for nonviolent offenders to provide
    them with not only mental health treatment and counseling, but
    to get them social work, to get them into medication programs,
    and to provide them with housing. The OPTIONS program has been
    highly successful and has been fully incorporated into the
    District of Columbia Government Commission on Mental Health.
        For fiscal year 2003, the Public Defender Service has just
    two initiatives: the Parole Revocation Defense initiative and
    the DNA Sample Collection Response initiative.
        As you know, in August of 2000, the U.S. Parole Commission
    assumed responsibility for handling parole matters for all D.C.
    code offenders. With the strict accountability measures
    employed by CSOSA to ensure that all parolees are in line with
    community supervision standards, not surprisingly there has
    been an increase in the number of parolees who are facing
    revocation. According to CSOSA figures, in fiscal year 2001,
    the parole rearrest rate was 21 percent. Out of an average
    monthly population of 3,846 parolees, 815 were rearrested last
    fiscal year. PDS represented nearly 100 percent of them. This
    current fiscal year in the previous 4 months, there have been
    160 parolees rearrested, a rate of 40 parolees per month. That
    does not include the number of parolees who are facing
    revocation based upon noncompliance with technical community
    supervision requirements.
        We request four additional positions to handle the parole
    revocation cases.
        The other initiative is the DNA Sample Collection Response
    initiative. The use of DNA evidence in criminal cases is on the
    rise, and at least two statutes have been passed in the
    District of Columbia to expand the use of DNA evidence in
    criminal proceedings. In order to keep pace with this trend and
    continue to provide the same quality of constitutionally
    mandated legal representation in the growing number of DNA-
    based criminal cases, PDS seeks two additional positions and
    funding for expert services.

                               prepared statement

        I respectfully request your support of these initiatives,
    and I would like to thank you and the members of the committee
    for your time and attention to these matters. I will be happy
    to answer any questions you might have.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Cynthia E. Jones
        Good Afternoon, Madam 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 the
    opportunity to come before you today in support of the Agency's fiscal
    year 2003 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). The Public Defender Service provides
    constitutionally-mandated legal representation to indigent people
    facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia. While much of our
    work is devoted to ensuring that no innocent person is ever wrongfully
    convicted of a crime, we also provide legal representation to mentally
    ill people who are facing involuntary civil commitment, recovering
    substance abusers participating in the highly successful Drug Court
    treatment program, and juveniles in the delinquency system who suffer
    from learning disabilities and require special educational
    accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
    Act.
        For fiscal year 2003, PDS requests $23,956,000 and 218 FTE in
    direct budget authority, which includes a request for 6 new FTE and
    $874,000 to support two new initiatives.
        Taking into account the President's initiative of making each
    agency directly responsible for funding federal retiree pension and
    health benefits, this represents a 10.7 percent increase over fiscal
    year 2002.
        In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of Columbia
    Courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally-mandated
    legal representation to indigent people. Approximately 100 lawyers on
    staff at PDS are appointed to represent:
      --the majority of people facing the most serious felony charges;
      --the majority of the juveniles facing serious delinquency charges;
      --nearly 100 percent of all people facing parole revocation; and
      --the majority of people in the mental health system who are facing
            involuntary civil commitment.
        Under the Criminal Justice Act, the District of Columbia Courts
    appoint over 200 pre-selected private attorneys (``CJA attorneys'') to
    handle the less serious felony cases and the majority of the
    misdemeanor and traffic cases. The cases assigned to PDS are generally
    the more complex, resource-intensive and time consuming criminal cases
    that would be very costly if litigated by CJA attorneys who are paid on
    an hourly basis.
                        fiscal year 2002 accomplishments
        In fiscal year 2002, in addition to handling a constant volume of
    over 10,000 criminal, juvenile, parole, mental health and other legal
    matters, PDS was very successful in instituting changes to improve the
    overall quality of the District of Columbia justice system through
    litigation and very successful collaborations with other criminal
    justice agencies.
                     court-ordered criminal justice reforms
        First, PDS initiated litigation in the United States District Court
    to challenge a District of Columbia statute which did not comply with
    constitutional Due Process standards. The United States District Court
    agreed, and the issue is now before the United States Supreme Court in
    a separate case involving the same legal issue.
        Second, PDS filed another successful class action lawsuit in the
    United States District Court in order to force the United States Parole
    Commission to reform the manner in which the agency adjudicated parole
    revocation cases involving DC Code Offenders. The federal court agreed
    that the U.S. Parole Commission's procedures were unconstitutional and
    ordered the Agency to make critical reforms.
        In another case, PDS was successful in convincing the Superior
    Court to find that the grand jury practices of the local United States
    Attorney's office were a violation of local law, and major changes were
    ordered by the court to better protect the rights of people subpoenaed
    to the grand jury as witnesses.
                    criminal justice collaboration projects
        In addition to these large-impact litigation cases, PDS also
    initiated the OPTIONS mental heath treatment program in collaboration
    with the Corrections Trustee, the CSOSA Pretrial Services Agency, the
    DC Department of Mental Health, and the Courts. The OPTIONS program
    provides comprehensive treatment and social services to people with
    mental illness who are charged with non-violent offenses in order to
    prevent recidivism and promote healthy rehabilitation. In the short
    time that it has been in existence, the program has been incredibly
    successful assisting nearly 100 people with mental illness by providing
    counseling, medication, housing and other critical social services. The
    participants in the OPTIONS program are members of a class of offenders
    who have traditionally been a high risk for successive re-arrests in
    the absence of effective treatment. Through the comprehensive services
    provided in the OPTIONS program, the re-arrest rate among program
    participants has declined. This pilot program has now been fully
    incorporated into the DC Department of Mental Health and will be a
    permanent fixture in the DC criminal justice system to better serve
    people with mental illness.
        Similarly, PDS worked closely with the Courts and the Corrections
    Trustee to create a consolidated financial management system for the
    issuance, processing and payment of vouchers under the Criminal Justice
    Act. The new system allows the Court to maintain better, more efficient
    financial control and oversight of its CJA budget and requires minimal
    participation by outside agencies. This new automated system
    fundamentally reforms the process for payment under the Criminal
    Justice Act by centralizing the accounting and payment functions with
    the Courts.
        Finally, PDS continued its tradition of providing in-depth training
    courses for court-appointed CJA attorneys in order to improve the
    overall quality of the defense bar and promote the maximum economic
    efficiency in providing legal representation to indigent people.
      --The Public Defender Service produced the Criminal Practice
            Institute Practice Manual, an 1,800-page, comprehensive
            treatise on criminal law in the District of Columbia. Over 600
            copies of this manual have been distributed to the judges on
            the District of Columbia Courts, the United States Attorney's
            Office, the Bureau of Prisons, area law schools and the private
            bar.
      --The Public Defender Service sponsored the 37th annual Criminal
            Practice Institute training conference, a 3-day event involving
            seminars by nationally-known speakers, law professors, legal
            scholars, local judges and criminal justice practitioners. Over
            200 lawyers attended the 2001 conference.
      --The Public Defender Service sponsored over 14 other training
            sessions for CJA attorneys throughout the year, including in-
            depth training seminars on Special Education Advocacy and
            Juvenile Delinquency.
      --The Public Defender Service initiated the creation of a training
            and certification program for all CJA criminal investigators in
            order to ensure that only competent, well-qualified people were
            appointed by the court to assist private lawyers investigate
            and prepare cases. The Superior Court adopted the PDS proposal
            and implemented the mandatory training requirement for all CJA
            investigators in criminal cases. Senior PDS investigators and
            PDS staff attorneys prepared the training materials and
            coordinated the training sessions on all aspects of criminal
            investigation. All CJA investigators should complete the
            training and receive certification by the end of this fiscal
            year.
        Each of the court ordered reforms and successful collaboration
    projects have improved the quality of services provided to indigent
    people in the District of Columbia justice system and have contributed
    to a better, more efficient criminal justice system. With the on-going
    development and implementation of the PDS Community Defender Program to
    provide legal assistance and community re-entry support to people under
    criminal justice supervision, PDS hopes to continue to work closely
    with the other agencies in the criminal justice system for positive
    change and reform.
                            fiscal year 2003 request
        For fiscal year 2003, PDS seeks to build on the current successes
    of the agency with two new initiatives: The Parole Revocation Defense
    Initiative and the DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative. The total
    request for these two initiatives is $874,000, for a total fiscal year
    2003 budget request of $23,956,000.
                      parole revocation defense initiative
        In August 2000, the United States Parole Commission assumed
    responsibility for handling parole matters for all DC Code Offenders.
    At that time, PDS began representing all parolees facing parole
    revocation proceedings. In the first full year, PDS handled over 700
    revocation matters. With the current strict accountability measures
    employed by CSOSA to ensure that all parolees are in line with
    community supervision standards, not surprisingly, there has been an
    increase in the number of people facing parole revocation. Currently,
    PDS handles 70-100 new cases each month. This is a nearly 80 percent
    workload increase. The current number of staff attorneys assigned to
    handle parole matters cannot absorb the steadily increasing parole
    revocation docket without adversely affecting our ability to provide
    legal representation in trial, mental health, and other legal matters.
    Thus, we are seeking additional legal and administrative staff. We
    request 4 FTE and a total of $447,000 to enable PDS to continue to
    provide this constitutionally-mandated legal representation.
                   dna sample collection response initiative
        In 2001, the Council of the District of Columbia passed the DNA
    Sample Collection Act that mandates that persons convicted of felony
    offenses (and certain misdemeanor sex offenses) submit a DNA sample for
    inclusion in the FBI database for use in solving future crimes. In
    addition, the DC Council has also passed the Innocence Protection Act,
    which allows persons convicted of crimes in the District of Columbia to
    litigate post-conviction claims of actual innocence based on DNA and
    other evidence. The combined effect of these two new laws is an
    increase in prosecutions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence.
    In order to provide the constitutionally-mandated legal representation
    in this growing number of DNA-based criminal cases, PDS seeks 2 FTE and
    $427,000 to hire experts and staff to assist with the science of DNA,
    population genetics and other technical and scientific areas involved
    in this type of litigation.
        I respectfully request your support of both of these initiatives
    and I would like to thank the members of the committee for your time
    and attention to these matters. I would be happy to answer any
    questions the committee might have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Ms. Jones. I appreciate you
    all keeping your testimony concise, and any additional
    information please feel free to submit to the record.

                              OFFENDER POPULATION

        Let me begin, Mr. Ormond, with you. There are so many
    questions that I could ask in such a limited time, but I would
    like to just flush out a few things.
        In our preparation for this hearing, our staff had some
    difficulty receiving some detailed information about the
    profile of prisoners within the Federal system. And the reason
    I raise that in terms of their age, their background, et
    cetera, there did not seem to be information at our fingertips.
        My question would be, how is it possible either to
    anticipate the prisoners coming out into the community, in
    terms of what their needs might be, if we are not able to have
    an accurate profile of the 6,000-7,000 in the system that are
    coming back into the District each month at approximately, from
    what we can gather, 120 per month on average?
        How are you managing to anticipate who is coming out of the
    prison system back into the community so that you can help to
    either reorient them, prepare them for reentry, and most
    importantly protect the public and ensure public safety?

                          RE-ENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY

        Mr. Ormond. We initiated 3 years ago a transitional program
    that really allowed us to put our staff parole officers in the
    halfway houses ideally to work with the men and women for 120
    days. Given the fact that people are throughout the country
    now, that was probably the most fixed place that we could
    control the population.
        During that time, we are assessing people. We are also
    getting a sense of what both their criminal profiles are, as
    well as their treatment needs. About 60 percent of the men and
    women that we are serving have significant drug abuse kinds of
    issues. If we look at one profile of the geographical location,
    about 19 percent of those people were violent offenses, about
    50 percent were drug-related offenses, which really told us
    that we really needed to focus on those drug-related kinds of
    issues, even the technical violations and revocations are
    basically drug-related.
        A small percentage, about 5 percent, were sex offenses, and
    we had to begin to focus on those sex offenses.
        We are seeing some increase in domestic violence, and again
    it forced us to make sure that our interventions around
    domestic violence were current to the needs that we were seeing
    in the population.
        So, again, for us we do a fairly thorough assessment both
    at the Karrick Hall facility, which is a 28-day program that
    allows us to have a good profile of the needs of individuals
    transitioning back before they actually go into the community,
    as well as our staff working in the halfway houses that are
    assessing folks, developing plans, assessing their residential
    needs or employment needs prior to them actually coming under
    supervision. So, that is the intervention that we have in place
    thus far.
        Senator Landrieu. So, you are testifying that 100 percent
    of everyone coming out of the system goes into the 30-day
    assessment period and then 100 percent of that population goes
    into a halfway house and then out into the community. Are we
    catching everyone or are we missing some people?
        Mr. Ormond. No, that is not exactly the testimony. Right
    now and probably recently, we are seeing roughly about 45
    percent of folks that are coming directly from the institution
    to the community.
        Senator Landrieu. So, we are only either providing
    services, as limited as they might be, to about 55 percent of
    the population; 45 percent is going directly from prison back
    into the population without the benefit of either assessment or
    transition. Is that what we are establishing here?
        Mr. Ormond. They really are not getting the transition that
    we would prefer. Ideally we want at least 120 days of
    transition time to do the assessment, to be clear about the
    profiles. Particularly now because people are in various
    jurisdictions throughout the country, we need that time. So, we
    are seeing a significant number of people that are leaving the
    Bureau of Prisons coming directly to the community without the
    benefit of transition, and we need to address that. Hopefully,
    with expanding the services at Karrick Hall or wherever we
    decide to place that program, we can capture a significant
    number of folks.
        But in addition to that, we are finding ourselves in a
    position of having to assess people, once they are actually in
    the community, which is not the most ideal way of intervening
    with the population that we are serving.
        Senator Landrieu. Have you estimated, Mr. Ormond, what it
    would either cost or what would have to be configured or
    restructured to allow us to try to, at a minimum, get 30 days
    or 60 days of profile and evaluation before the person entered
    the community? Do you have any figures that you could submit to
    us on what it would take financially or otherwise to see that
    that would occur?
        Mr. Ormond. Yes. I would be pleased to submit those figures
    to the committee. I do not have them at this point, but I
    really would like to get those figures back to you.
        Senator Landrieu. I realize that that is probably a goal
    for every community in the Nation, and based on fiscal
    constraints and other constraints, it may not be possible. But
    I think it would be a goal worth working towards so that we
    could have a clear profile of a person leaving the system and a
    plan for their reentry, obviously for public safety, number
    one, but also as an opportunity to try to give this individual
    a second chance if they would so grasp it. Some will and some
    will not, but it would be a benefit.
        So, if you could submit that to the committee.

                                 DRUG TREATMENT

        Let me ask something about drug testing because, as you
    stated, the vast majority--and I think you stated for the
    record 50 percent of more--had drug-related offenses. I would
    assume most of those had a drug problem.
        Mr. Ormond. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. So, when they come from the Bureau of
    Prisons back into the community, one of our primary objectives
    would be to assess that these individuals are remaining drug-
    free.
        Mr. Ormond. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And could you describe the system that we
    use now to ascertain that information and talk to me a little
    bit about the expense of it or the way it is actually
    conducted, the kinds of tests, the frequency of tests, and the
    general outcome of those tests.
        Mr. Ormond. Well, again, there are two phases. The first
    phase, ideally the transition phase. Right now, roughly 50
    percent of the people are getting that. During that period, we
    do a thorough assessment, and we are also testing them twice a
    week to make certain that as they begin to enter the community,
    they are not using drugs.
        Now, we also introduced a zero tolerance policy about 3
    years ago that if you get a positive urine once you are in the
    halfway house, we would remand you back to the jail for at
    least 30 days just to reorient you to kind of get you focused
    again and try the transition process again, assuming that the
    U.S. Parole Commission supports that.
        Once they complete transition, our policy within CSOSA is
    each person gets 8 weeks of drug tests twice a week. If they
    test clean, they get an additional 4 weeks once a week. If they
    test clean, we begin to do monthly spot checks from that point
    forward because, again, the accountability around drug testing
    is critical given the population profile that we are seeing at
    this point.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any
    better technologies other than the current testing system that
    you are using that you would like to have at your disposal that
    would either be less intrusive, that would give us more
    accurate information? I understand that there are some
    advantages and disadvantages to different types of tests.
        Mr. Ormond. We have looked at saliva testing. However, it
    really does not provide the rigor that would stand up against
    some of the challenges that we would probably get from PDS over
    time. Right now, the drug testing protocol is probably the most
    tested science that we have that would really stand up against
    the challenges.
        Now, we also initiated a pilot program last year just to
    look at saliva testing as a prescreener. We see that as being
    far more cost effective, but we would still need the regular
    drug testing, the urine screens, that would give us the rigor
    of confirmation and the chain of custody that would be required
    to really stand up.
        Senator Landrieu. I am somewhat familiar with a program
    that we have piloted in Louisiana about using hair analysis. Do
    you have any information about that? Because the information
    that I have--and this is just on a very small pilot that we
    have helped to fund, and it is used not for offenders but for
    students in school, a system that is less intrusive. It is, of
    course, voluntary, et cetera.
        But the reliability seems to be very high. The evidence of
    drugs cannot be washed or bleached out. It is non-intrusive and
    there are advantages there. There's increased detection
    efficiency. Hair testing can detect drug use in the previous 90
    days so that there is a long lead time, if you will, about
    trying to determine if someone is violating the conditions of
    their parole.
        The disadvantages would be--and that is why I ask you--the
    cost seems to be a little bit higher.
        But I just would be interested if you had ever heard of
    this or had explored this as an option and just dismissed it
    because of the cost.
        Mr. Ormond. We also had some concerns about the fact that
    it really does not get recent use with the level of sensitivity
    that we would require because our basic protocol is to do quick
    responses as soon as the person begins to use the drugs. I
    think the hair testing does good after long-term use, but with
    recent use, it really does not get the level of sensitivity
    that we would need. But we have explored both saliva and hair
    testing.

                              SUPERVISION CASELOAD

        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask this just to get our hands
    around the numbers here. You testified that you have
    approximately 23,000 individuals under sort of the jurisdiction
    of your agency. And how many personnel do you have? 1,200
    approximately?
        Mr. Ormond. Well, as far as our community supervision
    officers, we have about 271 community supervision officers.
        Senator Landrieu. But total personnel.
        Mr. Ormond. 956 FTE.
        Senator Landrieu. That would be about, if my math is
    correct, 200 to 1. Is that about right?
        Mr. Ormond. 200 to 1?
        Senator Landrieu. Is that correct? Yes. 1,200 FTE. So, that
    is about 200 to 1. Now, I know that is all personnel compared
    to the population that you are serving. That is one way to
    measure it. The other way to measure it is your case load.
        Mr. Ormond. Exactly.

                             SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

        Senator Landrieu. But either way you are measuring it, can
    you give us any reference point to other jurisdictions around
    the Nation? Are those ratios high or low in terms of our trying
    to deliver effective services? Do you have any information
    about that?
        Mr. Ormond. Well, the ratios are still much higher than we
    would prefer. I think the general rule of thumb is about 50 to
    1. We are probably at 64 to 1 now. That is with about 271
    community supervision officers and with an active and monitored
    population that is roughly around 3,600 or 3,800 at any given
    point in time. We still feel a significant need, particularly
    with the sex offenders, the mental health population, and some
    of the substance abusers. We really still need to reduce those
    caseloads.
        In addition to that, our diagnostic staff caseloads are
    around 14 to 1. I think the U.S. Probation is probably around 6
    to 1. So, we have to, again, significantly reduce those
    caseloads.
        Senator Landrieu. So, it is about double that amount.
        Mr. Ormond. Exactly.
        Senator Landrieu. Let us talk about the sex offenders for a
    moment because that is a real hot button issue, as you know,
    everywhere within the community. Our information shows that
    CSOSA established a sex offender registry for the District.
    Currently there are 585 sex offenders registered. It is your
    obligation to forward the information to the Metropolitan
    Police Department which has the responsibility for handling
    public notification. It is unclear to us whether CSOSA plays
    any role in following up with the police department's efforts.
    So, could you comment about that? And can you comment about any
    public notification that the police department is doing that
    you are aware of that you support or think should be enhanced?
        Mr. Ormond. Well, first, we developed an automated system
    with the police department so all of the sex offenders that are
    registered are electronically transferred to the police
    department. There is also notification in the precincts. That
    notification process is going fairly well. There are some
    challenges against the notification.
        But as far as the registration itself, it is all automated.
    We are connected also with the FBI. So, we are able to
    constantly communicate with the police department around those
    sex offenders.
        In addition to that, because we have geographically
    specific supervision and we are collaborating with the police
    department, within each of the police service areas. We are
    constantly communicating with the police around those high risk
    offenders.
        We also have a special transition program for the high risk
    sex offenders that we provide substance abuse treatment, as
    well as sex offender treatment, before they are actually able
    to transition from the halfway house into the community. So,
    there is pretty stringent monitoring on that population and
    communication with the police department.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, that is very good to hear. But do
    you know if the public has access to that registry? Is there
    any requirement in the District for that registry to be listed,
    as it is in some jurisdictions? The neighborhood has to be
    notified if there is a sex offender living in the neighborhood.
        Mr. Ormond. The registry is at the police precinct. I am
    not quite sure about what the notification procedures are. We
    will have to get that information back to you.
        Senator Landrieu. Do you know, Ms. Jones, by any chance?
        Ms. Jones. Yes. The Metropolitan Police Department has a
    website and they also have a book at the police station where
    they list the pictures and the names of the people who are sex
    offenders.
        There was a legal challenge to the statute and those
    procedures in that it did not give people who were listed as
    sex offenders the opportunity to say, that is not me, I am not
    the James Brown that you think I am and I should not be in the
    book, or to say I was a juvenile at the time and my record was
    expunged. So, the legal challenge is going on regarding those
    kinds of cases, but the system is in place.
        Senator Landrieu. But the website is still up.
        Mr. Ormond. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And will stay up until that legal
    challenge is either successful, and then it will have to be
    taken down and reconstructed or it will have to be removed?
        Ms. Jones. Unless the court orders otherwise. Right now I
    believe it is up and the book is still----
        Senator Landrieu. But it is still up. To your knowledge it
    is kept up pretty regularly? I have not looked at it myself,
    but I may after this committee hearing.
        Ms. Jones. That is my understanding, that it is kept
    regularly.
        Senator Landrieu. Could you please, staying on this general
    topic, talk to us a minute about what specific programs are
    offered to offenders convicted of child abuse or domestic
    violence? And if you could take each one separately and walk us
    through how your agency would prepare a child abuser to come
    back into the community but, more importantly, sort of back
    into whatever family unit they came from. Could you describe
    briefly that kind of process and any kind of effective programs
    where you are seeing any real results in terms of turning
    people around and really stopping that behavior, et cetera?
        Mr. Ormond. Let me start with the sexual child abuser.
    Again, for a policy that profile of offender has to go through
    the halfway house. Really, they do not have any options, and
    they are not allowed to leave that halfway house until we have
    completed a comprehensive assessment and we have also gotten
    treatment vendors working with that person as we begin to
    transition him out.
        We have a sex offender unit that works specifically with
    them. It is a much smaller caseload. Right now it is probably
    around 25 to 1 because we put a lot of time and energy making
    sure that the monitoring of this population was very, very
    closely provided.
        In addition to that, they do have to register, so we have
    another level of supervision through the registration. That is
    the sex offenders. We are feeling pretty comfortable with our
    treatment interventions. There are groups that they have to
    attend. There are specialized treatment they have to attend.
    So, the monitoring and intervention has been good with that
    population of sex offenders.
        With the domestic violence population, we use the Duluth
    model. They go through 28 weeks of intensive treatment. There
    is a screening that we also are engaged in to work with that
    population. Again, we have a specialized unit and specialized
    caseloads working directly with that population.
        Senator Landrieu. Is there any provision in that system,
    though, for the victim to have some input into that counseling
    or reintegration system? You know, the spouse that was
    battered. Is there any way that they can express their views
    about this going on, about their batterer coming out of prison?
        Mr. Ormond. We actually have a separate victims program,
    but in addition to that, reunification issues are something
    that we assess, particularly as people transition through the
    halfway houses. At that point, any significant others that are
    a part of that transition process--and more often it is the
    victim--we work with those folks, particularly if they are
    going to have contact with them as they transition back into
    the community. Beyond that, it is purely a notification
    process.
        Senator Landrieu. I think that is a very, very important
    aspect that probably sometimes gets overlooked. There are
    agencies that are looking out for the convicts and the felons
    and the lawbreakers, but sometimes we fail to support the
    victims in terms of that reintegration and for a family
    situation whether the family has stayed together or has been
    separated because of this situation, if these individuals are
    living in the same community, it can make it very, very
    difficult for the victims, spouses, but also children. It can
    be frightening. So, I just wanted to pursue that line.

                       TRANSITION BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY

        Let me ask, could you describe just briefly for the record?
    I am assuming some of these halfway houses are private
    contractors or all of them are private contractors?
        Mr. Ormond. Most of them are private contractors. I think
    the Department of Corrections runs one halfway house out of the
    halfway houses that are being administered in the city.
        Senator Landrieu. What is sort of the general per diem that
    these halfway houses charge? Is there a range of per diem that
    they charge per day for this work?
        Mr. Ormond. It varies. I do not have those exact figures
    because we do not contract with halfway houses. Our contracts
    are either with the Department of Corrections or the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons.
        Senator Landrieu. So, they do the contracts for the halfway
    houses.
        Mr. Ormond. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. But you have to be responsible for
    getting them out of the halfway houses into the community?
        Mr. Ormond. Well, we basically put our staff in the halfway
    houses even though the offenders are technically under the
    jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons or the Department of
    Corrections during that transition period. But we felt it
    necessary to start the assessment, to start the interventions
    prior to them actually coming under supervision. But
    technically the folks are still in a pre-parole status under
    the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I would be very interested in that
    information because to me--and I am not saying that I would
    suggest a change, but I would be very interested because your
    agency has actually more at stake than the Bureau of Prisons.
    The Bureau of Prisons is happy to get rid of people, of which
    they have too many, and are happy to get them out.
        But your agency's job is to make sure that they are safely
    integrated into the community. So, the quality of the work that
    goes on at the halfway house would be really very important, if
    I were in your position, to make sure that I have the tools I
    need to help make sure that they are not out back in the
    community committing more crimes and causing general
    disruptions, et cetera.
        Mr. Ormond. If I may add.
        Senator Landrieu. Please.
        Mr. Ormond. One of our initiatives this year is the
    transitional treatment program to add staff to support those
    halfway houses for the various reasons that you stated.
        Senator Landrieu. I would be interested in that.
        Let me see here. Then I will get to you, Ms. Jones. Let me
    ask about the D.C. General Hospital site. There are some
    promising developments in my opinion about the development of
    that site. But you have Karrick Hall there, which is your
    primary transition facility.
        Mr. Ormond. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Do you know if these new plans include
    you or not, and if not, where do you think you might be
    relocated?
        Mr. Ormond. We have been working with the city in this
    planning process. The current plan basically is proposing that
    we stay in Karrick Hall as an interim solution for a period of
    2 to 3 years, and after that period, a permanent site would be
    identified.
        Our concern is that because we got funding in the' 01
    budget to start capital improvements of Karrick Hall and March
    31st will be a period of decision for us, that we are very
    aggressively looking at some other alternatives because some of
    the dynamics around D.C. General are so uncertain right now. We
    really do need to start the process of developing some
    transitional options that Karrick Hall would afford us. But we
    are aggressively working with the city to identify additional
    sites, particularly if we do not feel comfortable after March
    31st that we will get a permanent commitment from the city in
    reference to the site at D.C. General.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask if you could comment. I am
    assuming you saw the article in the paper this morning about
    the challenges of prisoners being so far away from families.
    This is not the only subset of prisoners that I am aware of
    that have this problem. There are many prisoners that have this
    problem, and there are some limited solutions.
        But have you given any thought to this or would you just
    like to go on the record with some of your general thoughts
    about any potential solutions or suggestions, particularly in
    terms of integrating back into the community, ways that we
    could improve the fact that some of these prisoners are more
    than 500 miles away, making it virtually impossible for family
    members, particularly those on limited means, to have any sort
    of contact, which is important when you are trying to
    rehabilitate people, or at least to get them back into a
    productive state.
        Mr. Ormond. We have a steering committee now, working with
    the city, to really look at a comprehensive approach to
    transitioning people back into the community. One of the
    options is to really look at teleconferencing, particularly for
    people in the various jurisdictions, as a pre-release option.
    The Federal Bureau of Prisons is also putting policies in place
    that will enforce a certain level of pre-release planning prior
    to people coming back, but again, it is going to have to be
    electronic communication at this point.
        But we feel very, very strongly that transition needs to be
    absolute for 100 percent of the people that are transitioning
    back because people are in so many different jurisdictions. The
    mothers particularly because most of the women that are
    incarcerated have at least one child, and that reunification
    process is so absolutely critical. We need that period of
    transition, at least 120 days, in some cases 6 months to a
    year, to assist in just addressing some of the core needs of
    developing and addressing the demands of adult life. I mean, it
    is just very, very critical at this point. So, again, 100
    percent transition, at least 120 days, is something that we are
    really pushing.
        Senator Landrieu. Two questions. What percentage of your
    population is male and what percentage is female?
        Mr. Ormond. Probably roughly about 90 percent male.
        Senator Landrieu. 90 percent male, 10 percent female?
        Mr. Ormond. 10 or less female.
        Senator Landrieu. Is there a priority for the closest beds
    to the District being given to custodial parents with small
    children? Have you at least thought about requesting to have
    preference given to custodial parents? Because the idea is to
    punish the offender or the criminal but not to punish the
    children. We would like to try to minimize the punishment to
    the innocent children, even if you are going to maximize
    punishment to the adults. Is there any such preference in our
    placement law that you are aware of?
        Mr. Ormond. I do not think there is a preference in the
    law. I think there was a lot of community concern and initially
    a lot of support around having particularly a prison for women
    within the geographical boundaries of D.C. because most of
    these women do have children, and trying to maintain those
    bonds in some system of reunification was very, very critical.
    But to my knowledge there is not a stated preference at this
    point.
        Senator Landrieu. So, we do not have a women's prison.
        Mr. Ormond. No, we do not.

                       PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE PRIORITIES

        Senator Landrieu. I just got a note that we have two back-
    to-back votes. I have got a few minutes. I would like to go
    ahead and finish the questions for this panel and then take a
    break. I will go vote and we will start the second panel so we
    can stay on time.
        Let me just begin. Ms. Jones, if you could just repeat for
    us or express again some of the priorities that you see. If you
    could list one, two, or three in terms of the challenges that
    are before you in your budget that you have requested, what
    would be the number one or number two or number three item that
    you would really want us to leave this hearing with
    understanding about what you are trying to do or accomplish?
        Ms. Jones. I think that number one clearly for us is parole
    revocation. There are a growing number of people who are
    returning to the community, as you know, who are on parole. We
    see they are at a rate of about 40 per month, which is more
    than 1 or 2 parolees per day, coming through on a rearrest
    charge. Although we are trying very hard to represent them, we
    are also trying to provide social services assistance, and we
    are trying to provide community reentry services. A lot of
    times the law has changed. The world has changed in 15 years,
    and some of the transition and rearrest problems are a result
    of people really not being adept to handle to that. So, we are
    requesting some additional positions to really enable us to
    provide those kind of services.
        Often we find that you are disconnected with your family.
    You view the social workers and some of the people who are
    supervising you as the enemy, but you will listen to your
    lawyer who is trying to help you. So, we are hoping that we can
    expand the services in that area.
        The DNA initiative is our second biggest and the reason why
    that is important is we, in the last 3 or 4 months, have seen a
    marked increase in the number of DNA cases. There are different
    kinds of DNA. I am learning about mitochondrial DNA, whatever
    that is. But we have been hiring experts, and it gets very
    costly. And the learning curve is very steep. We have a
    forensic practice group at the Public Defender Service right
    now of about 12 lawyers who are learning about the science of
    DNA and population genetics and all of those areas. But we
    would like additional funding to really stay up to speed and
    allow us to train the CJA Bar so that they can remain up to
    speed in this area as well. The additional funding we are
    seeking in our budget is just adjustments to base.
        Senator Landrieu. I understand that this system is a result
    of two laws that were passed in 2001 requiring all persons
    convicted of felony offenses to submit a DNA sample. So, the
    database is growing and we are becoming more effective in our
    prosecutions because of that information.
        Ms. Jones. What we are seeing is a growing number of cases
    that are old cases and the prosecution is based either solely
    or largely on DNA evidence. So, there are not a lot of
    witnesses to cross examine, and you really have to know the
    science of DNA to effectively represent someone as a result of
    that database.
        And then there is the Innocence Protection Act that has
    been passed in the District, which will also result in people
    who have been incarcerated seeking to have their conviction
    overturned because they are saying DNA was never performed and
    I was wrongfully convicted. The Public Defender Service will
    also get its share of those cases. Again, we would have to
    understand the science of DNA and hire experts to represent
    those people as well.
        Senator Landrieu. How do you compensate your public
    defenders? What is your means of compensating them? Are there
    salaries or per hour, or what is that system? Can you describe
    it?
        Ms. Jones. They are salaried on a GS pay scale. Although we
    are a District of Columbia agency, because we are federally
    funded, they are paid comparably with Federal defenders and the
    attorneys who work at the U.S. Attorney's Office, though not
    quite as high.
        Senator Landrieu. Did we not just have an adjustment or a
    request for an adjustment last year in that regard? The courts,
    not this. Okay.
        Can you just give me a rough estimate of what the starting
    salary is of a public defender?
        Ms. Jones. Yes. The starting salary is approximately
    $45,000, and the average salary for a public defender--people
    stay around 5 years--is around $55,000 to $60,000. I believe
    you were referring to the Criminal Justice Act. The court
    received funding. Those are the lawyers who handle mostly
    misdemeanor and CCAN cases, and they received an adjustment.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask the final question here about
    juveniles with special needs education and how that
    interrelates to what your role is. Can you comment for the
    record about some of the challenges there?
        Ms. Jones. We are finding increasingly, just as substance
    abuse remains a major factor for adults and linking them to
    criminality, a lot of times juveniles in the delinquency system
    come into the system with learning disabilities. They have been
    acting out in school. They got into a fight in school. They are
    not in the proper classroom. They are not receiving an
    accommodation for a learning disability, and it just sort of
    trickles over into other areas of their life and they find
    their way into the delinquency system.
        As a result of that, the Public Defender Service has a
    total of three special education advocates, and they work full-
    time on nothing else other than finding appropriate educational
    placements for kids charged in the delinquency system.
        By and large what happens is somewhere in their school
    records, when the delinquency lawyer begins representing them,
    there is some evidence that this child has a learning
    disability either that has not been properly diagnosed ever or
    has been diagnosed by D.C. Public Schools, but nothing has ever
    happened. The advocate then goes in and negotiates with DCPS
    and says you have to do something to accommodate this child. We
    find the appropriate educational placement either within the
    system or at a private institution, and we seek to have DCPS
    place that child or we litigate with DCPS and say under the
    Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act you have to
    place the child.
        Senator Landrieu. I just want you to know there is great
    concern among Members on both sides of the aisle about the, in
    our view, staggering costs of special education in the District
    and costs associated with the litigation, with the placement of
    children in some of these contract schools or a
    disproportionate number of special ed children being placed in
    these schools. This is not the proper time for those kinds of
    questions, but it is going to be a very important issue that we
    stay focused on until we can solve the problem for the District
    or try to help solve the problem for the District, as well as
    deal with this whole issue nationally because the costs are
    outstripping the resources. There has got to be some reform of
    the underlying law, as well as some reform of the advocacy and
    the placement of these children, the end result hopefully being
    that children get the services they need, but the taxpayers are
    not getting ripped off, if you will, by a system that is
    dysfunctional. Hopefully we can spend some time talking about
    that this year either with my committee or with the other
    committee of jurisdiction in the Senate.
        Now, I am going to have to vote. Let me just check and make
    sure there is not anything.
        Thank you all. This panel has been very good. We will take
    about a 10-minute break.
    STATEMENT OF HON. ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT
                COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ACCOMPANIED BY ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.C. COURTS, DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA

        Senator Landrieu. Our committee will resume.
        We are now pleased to have our second panel of witnesses
    representing the D.C. courts. Judges, it is good to see you. We
    have Chief Judge Rufus King and Chief Judge Annice Wagner with
    us today.
        As a relatively new quasi-Federal entity, the courts in my
    opinion have done a very good job during my tenure in
    communicating with this committee on your funding needs and
    keeping us informed of your progress. We are indeed grateful
    and pleased.
        Additionally, I appreciate the tremendous effort that Judge
    Satterfield, the new Family Court Chief, and others have
    contributed to the formation of the Family Court.
        Just briefly and for the record, as everyone here is
    familiar, over the last 2 years a surge of public pressure
    highlighted the faces of abuse and neglect in the District,
    faces of children who were victims of a system so disjointed
    and ineffective that they did not live to see the day when
    these major reforms are being implemented.
        I commend the courts, the city, the child welfare advocates
    in the District and in Congress for collaborating on the
    creation of a Family Court.
        I and I know my ranking member, who has spent a great deal
    of time and energy and has expressed such passion his
    commitment to this, are committed to working hand in hand with
    the courts and the city to ensure that every child currently in
    the system benefits from this reform and does not suffer the
    fate of too many children that we have come to know in a very
    personal way.
        Every child should be moving toward permanency as quickly
    and as effectively as possible. And let me be very clear. Every
    child that is removed from their home for whatever situation
    either should be moving back to be reunited with a family that
    has been treated and the opportunity to be reinstated and to be
    healthy and safe or they should be moving as quickly as
    possible to an adoptive home and only temporarily in foster
    care which supposedly is the way it was to operate.
        This committee is committed to addressing resources and
    management issues of the Family Court because the judges are in
    a position, the most critical position, of making sure that our
    child welfare system actually works, that the laws are upheld,
    the time lines are met, and that justice is dispensed.
        100 percent of the D.C. Superior Court's operating budget
    is paid for with Federal funds. Therefore, Congress has a
    unique obligation to ensure that the day-to-day operations of
    this court reflect the best practices in each and every area of
    the law under its jurisdiction. In fiscal year 2002, the Senate
    bill made it a priority to provide sufficient resources to
    implement the Family Court Act. If I am not mistaken, it was
    approximately $23 million.
        The Appropriations Committee, as I said, included $23
    million. We included a provision requiring review of the
    court's transition plan specifically to ensure effective
    implementation and accountability.
        It was this committee's intent that if necessary, the court
    could use its operating expenses account to comply with the
    Family Court Act and reimburse the operating fund with Family
    Court funds, once they became available. Considering explicit
    report language and remarks made on the Senate floor, I am
    disturbed that the General Accounting Office has determined
    that the courts may not reimburse operating expenses with
    Family Court funds. I will work with the court and interested
    Members to resolve this issue as soon as possible. We do not
    want to have a situation where other court functions are
    deprived or where Family Court funds are left unexpended.
        Additionally, I am looking forward to hearing about the
    court's new initiatives. Particularly I want to take time to
    commend the court for expanding the strong Domestic Violence
    Unit through a satellite intake center in Anacostia. It is
    critical to take services to the communities in which they are
    needed, particularly in dealing with vulnerable populations who
    are reluctant to come forward. And as we know, domestic
    violence hides its ugly face in every part of this community,
    and so we need to reach out to every neighborhood and every
    socioeconomic income level.
        I would also like for the witnesses to present the plans
    for renovating the historic Old Courthouse and how this fits in
    with other capital improvements.
        Again, thank you for being here. We will try to proceed for
    the next 40 minutes because we lost some time at the vote. But
    hopefully, you can keep your opening statements to about 5 or
    10 minutes and then I will have a few questions. Chief, would
    you like to go first?
        Chief Judge Wagner. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, and
    members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
    come and address you in person about our fiscal year 2003
    budget request. I am Annice Wagner and I am appearing here in
    my capacity today as Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
    Administration, which is responsible for submitting the budget.
    The courts, as you know, have submitted a detailed budget
    request with justifications, so my remarks this afternoon will
    highlight only the most critical priorities.
        As you know, the District of Columbia courts comprise the
    judicial branch of the D.C. government. Through our mission and
    strategic goals, we strive to provide fair, swift, and
    efficient and accessible justice. We try to enhance public
    safety and ensure public trust and confidence in the justice
    system, which is needed more and more today.
        To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year
    2003, the courts have requested $131 million for court
    operations, $53.3 million for capital improvements, and $45
    million for defender services. In many ways, last year marked a
    turning point for the courts. Our nonjudicial employee turnover
    rate was cut in half when we achieved pay parity with our
    counterparts in the Federal agencies. We are very grateful to
    this subcommittee for its strong support in this area.
        During the year, the courts continued to build on
    enhancements that demonstrate our commitment to sound
    management and fiscal responsibility. We are proud to have
    received an unqualified opinion from KPMG, an independent
    accounting firm, on our financial audit for the second year in
    a row.
        We also successfully implemented a new personnel
    information system that provides immediate access to detailed
    information for employees and job applicants, enabling us to
    better manage our human resources.
        We initiated the courts' first comprehensive master plan
    study, this coupled with an assessment of the condition of our
    physical plants. This is critical to accommodating the Family
    Court within the court complex.
        We also completed an information technology strategic plan
    and initiated an independent study of staffing levels court-
    wide to assist us in deploying our limited resources most
    effectively and efficiently.
        Each of these efforts supports the courts' comprehensive,
    long-term strategic planning and re-engineering efforts which
    are currently underway, which will enable us to determine
    priorities and focus our efforts and resources on measurable
    results, which we will share with you and the public.
        Last year, the courts completed roof repairs to help
    prevent further deterioration to the Old Courthouse at 451
    Indiana Avenue. Key to the efficient use of court facilities is
    restoration of habitability to this historic structure for use
    by the Court of Appeals. The Old Courthouse is now ready to
    begin restoration and planning work is already underway. We are
    pleased to be involved in such an exciting and important
    project, which will not only help meet our critical space
    demands, but also preserve for the city and for the Nation a
    national treasure. We appreciate the subcommittee's support for
    this project.
        As you know, the National Law Enforcement Museum is planned
    for a portion of the site. There was legislation that made this
    possible. These two projects must proceed in tandem and in a
    coordinated manner to ensure the best results possible.
        In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
    is participating in this effort, as part of the site will be
    used to enhance their security, parking and service access.
        The courts' fiscal year 2003 request invests in the Family
    Court, court employees, information technology, infrastructure,
    financial management, trial records, and defender services.
        The largest initiative underway at the courts is the
    implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
    2001. This initiative will change the way the court serves
    families and children in the District. As the Family Court is
    part of the Superior Court, Chief Judge King will address this
    initiative in his testimony.
        The President has shown strong support for the courts'
    fiscal year 2003 budgetary needs. I would like to mention,
    however, three critical areas not addressed in the President's
    recommended budget for 2003.
        First, the court faces critical staffing needs. The
    following positions must be filled to support quality judicial
    administration in the District: courtroom and support staff to
    serve the domestic violence victims and coordinate police
    officer appearances in criminal cases; clerks and accountants
    to enhance financial management, including the Criminal Justice
    Act voucher issuance function the courts recently assumed from
    the Public Defender Services; facilities staff to support our
    buildings and to manage the Old Courthouse restoration project;
    information technology staff required by expanded court-wide
    use of technology; and staff to continue a successful juvenile
    probation program previously funded through grants.
        Another priority is appropriation language changes,
    including limited authority to transfer funds among the courts'
    appropriation accounts in order to meet changing needs and
    circumstances. In addition, the courts would like to provide
    employees the new Federal long-term care insurance program. We
    do not believe that either of these language changes require
    additional funds.
        Finally, the courts have requested an increase in the
    defender services account to provide appropriated funding to
    increase the hourly rate paid court-appointed attorneys to $90
    per hour. The services of these attorneys who represent
    indigent defendants or children and families before the court
    are essential to the fair administration of justice.
        In conclusion, the District of Columbia courts have long
    enjoyed a national reputation for excellence. Adequate funding
    for the courts' highest priorities in fiscal year 2003 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.

                               prepared statement

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, thank you
    for the opportunity again to discuss the courts' budget
    request. Chief Judge King and Ms. Wicks, our executive officer,
    are also here, and we would be pleased to address any questions
    when you are ready.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Judge.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, thank you for this opportunity to
    discuss the District of Columbia Courts' budget request for fiscal year
    2003.
        I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing in my capacity as the Chair
    of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
    Columbia. The Courts have submitted a detailed request for the
    budgetary resources needed in fiscal year 2003. My remarks this
    afternoon will summarize the request and highlight the Courts' most
    critical priorities.
                                  introduction
        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 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 2003,
    the D.C. Courts request $181,416,000 for court operations. Of this
    amount, $8,640,000 is requested for the Court of Appeals; $81,530,000
    is requested for the Superior Court; $40,894,000 is requested for the
    Court System; and $50,352,000 for capital improvements for courthouse
    facilities. In addition, the Courts request $45,014,000 for the
    Defender Services account.
        The largest initiative underway in the D.C. Courts is the
    implementation the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001,
    Public Law 107-114. This initiative will change the way the Courts
    serve families and children in the District. As the Family Court is
    part of the Superior Court, Chief Judge King will address this
    initiative in detail in his testimony.
        In many ways, last year marked a turning point for the Courts. In
    particular, the Courts' ability to recruit and, particularly, retain
    highly qualified staff was significantly enhanced as the fiscal year
    2001 appropriation permitted the Courts' non-judicial employees to
    achieve pay parity with their counterparts in federal agencies. The
    Courts' non-judicial turnover rate has been cut in half, dropping from
    10.9 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 5.2 percent in fiscal year 2001. We
    are very grateful to the Subcommittee for its strong support which
    contributed to these positive results.
        The Courts are also proud of their improved management of the
    Defender Services Account and the significant reduction in processing
    time for vouchers from attorneys representing the indigent. To gather
    additional data to estimate more accurately future obligations, the
    Courts assumed responsibility for voucher issuance from the Public
    Defender Service and implemented an automated system to track
    obligations. We are now able to track vouchers from issuance to
    payment. Reengineering the processing of submitted vouchers has reduced
    the time from receipt to payment from 62 to 29 days, a 53 percent drop.
       critical budget priorities above the president's fiscal year 2003
                                     budget
        To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the
    community, adequate resources are essential. The Courts have identified
    three critical areas which the President's recommended budget for
    fiscal year 2003 does not address.
        Court Staffing.--To support quality judicial administration in the
    District of Columbia, mission-critical staffing needs must be addressed
    in fiscal year 2003. First, staff for courtroom operations and support
    is critically needed to serve Domestic Violence victims and to support
    the police overtime reduction initiative in the Criminal Division.
    Second, our efforts to enhance financial management in the Budget and
    Finance Division, including assumption of the CJA voucher issuance
    function from the Public Defender Service, requires additional clerks
    and accountants. Third, to provide critical engineering support to the
    Courts' infrastructure and to manage the multi-million dollar Old
    Courthouse restoration project, which will address some of our space
    needs, additional Administrative Division staff persons are essential.
    Fourth, expanded courtwide use of technology demands additional IT
    support staff. Finally, grant funding has expired for a successful
    program to monitor high-risk juveniles on probation, and Social
    Services staff members are critically needed to continue the program.
        Appropriation Language Changes.--The Courts are requesting limited
    authority to transfer funds among their accounts to enhance flexibility
    to meet changing needs and circumstances. In addition, the Courts want
    to expand employee benefits to include the new federal long term care
    insurance program. Neither language change requires additional funds.
        Defender Services.--The Courts' budget request includes an increase
    of $10.7 million in the Defender Services account to increase the
    hourly rate paid court-appointed attorneys to $90. These attorneys, who
    represent indigent defendants or children and families before the
    court, are essential to the fair administration of justice in the
    District.
                     performance measurement at the courts
        As part of our strategic goal of providing fair, swift, and
    accessible justice, the Courts monitor 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 112 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
    coming years.
                               strategic planning
        The Courts have initiated a comprehensive long-term strategic
    planning and reengineering process that will enable us to determine
    priorities and focus our efforts and resources on measurable results.
    Early in 2001, the Courts held two management training conferences
    which were attended by a broad group of Court leaders, including both
    judges and top administrators. Facilitated by experts in court
    management from around the country, the training sessions provided
    conferees with an opportunity to explore the key issues and challenges
    which face the Courts and to discuss goals and desired outcomes in
    critical strategic areas.
        To continue the work initiated at the management training
    conferences, the Courts have appointed a full-time strategic planning
    director and established the Strategic Planning Leadership Council.
    Together, they will facilitate the development of the Courts' long-
    range strategic plan and continuously monitor the Courts' progress in
    fulfilling their mission and achieving key strategic goals, as well as
    ensure that the Courts' strategic agenda is dynamic and responsive to
    the changing needs of the community.
                           sound management practices
        As the Courts approach the fifth year of direct federal funding in
    fiscal year 2003, we look forward to fulfilling our strategic goals by
    building on past reforms that demonstrated our commitment to sound
    management and fiscal responsibility. We are proud of the Courts'
    recent achievements that include the following:
        Unqualified Audit Opinion.--Received an ``unqualified'' opinion for
    the second year in a row in our annual independent financial audit,
    conducted by KPMG;
        Staffing Study.--Initiated an independent study of staffing levels
    by Booz-Allen and Hamilton to provide data to facilitate the most
    effective deployment of limited staffing and address GAO's
    recommendation for a more rigorous methodology;
        Human Resources Data.--Implemented a Human Resources Information
    System to provide ready access to detailed personnel information;
        Facilities Evaluation.--Initiated a GSA Building Evaluation Report
    to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Courts' physical plant and
    to prioritize capital improvement needs;
        IT Strategic Plan.--Initiated an Information Technology strategic
    plan to focus the resources of the IT Division and ensure that IT
    efforts conform to the larger vision and mission of the Courts; and
        Master Plan Study.--Initiated the Courts' first comprehensive
    master space plan study to provide a blueprint for Court capital
    projects and space utilization for the next ten years and to identify
    the optimal location for the Family Court.
                                 old courthouse
        Key to efficient use of the Courts' facilities is restoration of
    habitability to the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue for use by the
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Courts have requested, and
    the President recommended, funds to continue this critical project.
        Last year, the Courts took a positive step toward restoring
    habitability to the Old Courthouse. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation
    provided funding for roof repairs to help prevent further deterioration
    of this historic structure. This work was completed in December 2001,
    resulting in a watertight roof that protects the neoclassical interior
    from the elements. In addition, measures were taken to secure the
    building and stabilize the interior.
        The Old Courthouse now stands ready to begin restoration.
    Constructed in 1820, the Old Courthouse is the fourth oldest government
    building in the District of Columbia. Its architectural and historical
    significance led to its listing in the National Register of Historic
    Places and its designation as an Official Project of Save America's
    Treasures. A GSA study of the facility found that, although the
    structure is sound, all major systems need to be replaced, and
    hazardous materials must be removed.
                          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 the following:
      --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.
      --The Courts recently implemented a Community Court initiative to
            process more expeditiously ``quality of life'' misdemeanor
            cases while creating a system of more meaningful sanctions. The
            initiative uses diversion, community service, and treatment
            programs to create opportunities for same-day disposition of
            these minor matters, thereby reducing the criminal justice
            resources, such as police officer, attorney (both prosecutor
            and defender services), and Court time, needed to process the
            cases. By addressing the underlying social issues driving many
            of these cases (mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness,
            etc.) the Court also seeks to reduce recidivism and improve the
            quality of life in the District.
      --In cooperation with the Foundation of the Bar Association of the
            District of Columbia, the Courts encourage District high school
            students to reflect on the law with an annual essay contest to
            celebrate National Law Day on May 1. Last year, Ms. Lyndsey
            Williams, of the U.S. Senate Page School, won First Place for
            her essay on the juvenile justice system.
      --In cooperation with the D.C. Bar Association, the Courts
            participate in the annual D.C. Youth Law Fair in the spring.
            Hundreds of D.C. school students tour court facilities,
            participate in mock trials, and discuss legal issues of
            interest to youth, for example the effect of pop culture on
            teen violence or teen rights and responsibilities in the
            workplace.
                   dc courts' fiscal year 2003 budget request
        The fiscal year 2003 budget request incorporates the Courts'
    strategic goals and strategies, and includes performance projections
    for all core functions. To build on past accomplishments and to support
    the Courts' commitment to serve the public in the District of Columbia,
    additional resources are essential. The Courts' three strategic goals,
    and the additional operating budget resources requested to help attain
    them in fiscal year 2003, are as follows:
      --Provide fair, swift, and accessible justice by enhancing efficient
            case-processing capability and ensuring that the public can
            access Court facilities (+$2.6 million and 13 FTE);
      --Enhance public safety for metropolitan area residents and visitors
            (+$7.3 million and 29 FTE); and
      --Ensure public trust and confidence in the justice system through
            enhanced management practices and improved staff training and
            accountability (+$3.8 million and 11 FTE).
        To achieve these strategic goals, the Courts articulated three
    budget strategies for fiscal year 2003. The budget strategies would
    promote the Courts' strategic goals by:
      --Building capacity to provide Court services (+$10.0 million and 51
            FTE);
      --Investing in information technology (+$2.7 million and 2 FTE); and
      --Enhancing the skills and accountability of Court employees (+$1.0
            million).
        The District of Columbia Courts are committed to carrying out the
    mission of administering justice in a fair, accessible, and cost-
    efficient manner. The additional resources in the fiscal year 2003
    budget request will ensure that the Courts continue to perform this
    essential mission with quality, professionalism, efficiency, and fiscal
    integrity.
        The demands on the Courts require investments in staffing,
    technology, infrastructure and courtroom operations. Without targeted
    investments in Court staffing, the quality of justice will be
    compromised; without remediation, the Courts' information technology
    will fail; and without additional capital resources, the Courts'
    buildings will continue to deteriorate. The fiscal year 2003 request
    addresses these requirements by:
        Investing in Family Court Reforms.--Growing caseloads and new
    mandates applicable to the Courts through the passage of the District
    of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 have made it incumbent on the
    Superior Court to change the way it manages, supervises, and resolves
    cases involving children and families in the District of Columbia. To
    meet these mandates, the fiscal year 2003 request includes $25,166,000
    for the Family Court, of which an increase of $6,782,000 and 24 FTE
    will be dedicated to operating costs. The remaining $17,587,000 is
    requested for capital improvements.
        Investing in Court Employees.--Notwithstanding the Family Court
    Initiative, the fiscal year 2003 request includes $1,589,000 in the
    operating budget for an additional 29 FTEs to strengthen the Courts'
    capacity to achieve their strategic goals. The request also includes
    $407,000 for human resources initiatives to establish performance
    awards and Court Senior Executive programs modeled on Federal programs.
    To provide specialized and skill-based training for both judicial and
    non-judicial personnel, the fiscal year 2003 budget request includes
    $267,000. These investments in the Courts' human resources are
    essential to improving the capacity to serve the citizens of the
    District of Columbia and the many visitors to our nation's capital.
        Investing in Information Technology (IT).--To achieve the Courts'
    goal of a case management system that provides accurate, reliable case
    data across every operating area and making available appropriate data
    to the judiciary, the District's criminal justice community and the
    public, the Courts request $2,663,000 and 2 FTE for information
    technology in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the Courts' capital budget
    request includes an additional $4,240,000 to support the implementation
    of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), which the Court
    launched in fiscal year 1999.
        Investing in Infrastructure.--The fiscal year 2003 capital request
    reflects several years of underfunding and deferred maintenance of the
    Courts' aging facilities. In fiscal year 2001, for example, the Courts'
    capital appropriation of $3.3 million was 58 percent below the fiscal
    year 2000 level and 82 percent below the Courts' request. To ensure the
    health, safety, and quality of courthouse buildings, particularly
    important as we relocate functions to accommodate the Family Court, the
    fiscal year 2003 request includes $42,500,000 for health and safety
    projects and for maintaining the Court infrastructure. Included in the
    total is $12,100,000 to continue restoration of the Old Courthouse at
    451 Indiana Avenue for readaptive use by the District of Columbia Court
    of Appeals, thereby freeing space in the main courthouse to meet the
    Superior Court's critical space needs, which are exacerbated by the
    increased staffing for the Family Court. Built from 1820 through 1881,
    the Old Courthouse, which has been designated as a project of Save
    America's Treasures, is deteriorating rapidly. The structure currently
    does not meet District of Columbia health and building codes and is
    uninhabitable. Restoring this historic landmark to meet the critical
    space needs of the Courts and preserving it for future generations are
    critical priorities for the District of Columbia Courts.
        Strengthening Financial Management.--To adopt recommendations by
    the Courts' independent financial auditor, the fiscal year 2003 request
    includes $900,000 for implementation of an integrated financial
    management system and to provide Court staff training in accounting,
    financial management, and budgeting. To strengthen the fiscal integrity
    of the Courts through the preparation of real-time financial
    statements, 3 additional FTEs (accountants) are requested. These
    positions would support the implementation of the general ledger and
    related components of the financial management system.
        Investing to Ensure Accurate and Complete Trial Records.--The
    Courts' fiscal year 2003 request includes $670,000 to enhance our
    ability to ensure that accurate and complete records are generated from
    court proceedings. The request includes $390,000 for courtroom audio
    work; $260,000 for contractual court reporting services; and $20,000
    for hardware maintenance.
        Strengthening Defender Services.--In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
    year 2001, the Courts devoted particular attention to improving the
    financial management and reforming the administration of the Defender
    Services programs. For example, the Courts issued Administrative Orders
    to ensure that Criminal Justice Act (CJA) reimbursement claims are
    submitted on a timely basis, are accompanied by adequate documentation
    of eligibility for indigent clients, and that highly qualified
    attorneys participate in the program.\1\ Because the Courts' accounting
    system contractor, GSA, is unable to record Defender Services
    obligations as they are incurred, the Courts implemented an in-house
    automated system, which was fully operational in October 2000, to track
    obligations from the Courts' receipt of a voucher to its payment. A
    Defender Services customer service initiative allows attorneys access
    to electronic systems to check the status of vouchers tendered to the
    Court, provides dedicated staff to answer attorney inquiries on the
    status of payments, and solicits customer feedback through a
    satisfaction survey instrument. The fiscal year 2003 request builds on
    these efforts. Through advance funding for the Defender Services
    account, the Courts would ensure funding stability while gaining
    experience in tracking obligations in the new automated system,
    analyzing data on attorney appointments and voucher submission
    patterns, and projecting resource requirements. To assist the Courts in
    enhancing the financial management of the Defender Services program,
    the Courts have assumed responsibility for issuing vouchers from the
    Public Defender Service (PDS). Consolidation of responsibility for all
    financial management aspects of the Defender Services programs will
    enable the Courts to more accurately estimate program obligations
    throughout the voucher processing cycle. To this end, a request for 3
    FTE is contained in this budget submission under the Court System
    section.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ It should be noted that court-appointed attorneys represent
    nearly 90 percent of indigent criminal defendants in the District (1999
    figure). The balance of indigent defendants is represented pursuant to
    D.C. Code Sec. 1-2702 by the Public Defender Service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the Defender Services account, the fiscal year 2003 budget
    request represents a net increase of $10,703,000 over the fiscal year
    2002 level of $34,311,000. The requested increase represents
    appropriated funding for the hourly rate increase granted in fiscal
    year 2002 for attorneys and investigators who provide legal and expert
    services to the Defender Services programs. The first rate increase for
    attorneys since 1993, to $65/hour, was funded in fiscal year 2002
    through unobligated balances in the Defender Services account.
    Appropriated funding is essential to ensure the fiscal integrity of the
    Defender Services account once the unobligated balance is exhausted. In
    addition, the Courts request an increase in the hourly compensation
    rates for attorneys from $65 to $90, to keep pace with the rate paid
    court-appointed attorneys at the Federal courthouse across the street
    from the D.C. Courts. A decline in the number of CJA cases in recent
    years is expected to offset anticipated cost increases in the CCAN and
    Guardianship programs. Accordingly, except for the subject rate
    increase, the fiscal year 2003 funding request for the base program
    remains at the fiscal year 2002 level.
                        appropriations language changes
        The fiscal year 2003 budget requests limited authority to transfer
    funds among the Courts' four appropriations to provide additional
    flexibility to meet the changing needs of the Courts and the community.
    Although more limited, this language is similar to the provision in the
    D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002, Sec. 109(b) authorizing the District
    government to transfer local funds.
        In addition, the request includes language to include D.C. Courts'
    employees in the new federal long term care insurance program. This
    provision would enhance the Courts' competitiveness in the labor market
    by providing an additional benefit at virtually no cost to the Courts,
    as there is no employer share to the premium.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget also requests appropriations language
    that would provide advance funding for the Defender Services account.
    In 14 of the past 22 years, the CJA program has experienced a budgetary
    shortfall. Advance funding for the Defender Services account would
    eliminate the need to augment the appropriation with supplemental
    appropriations or with funds from the Courts' operating budget in the
    event of a shortfall. In addition, as an alternative approach to
    address the need to augment the Defender Services account, the Courts
    are requesting that the Defender Services account be moved from the
    discretionary to mandatory side of the federal budget. We believe that
    mandatory treatment of Defender Services is consistent with the
    uncontrollable nature of obligations in this program and the GAO's
    determination that these are mandatory expenses.
                                 september 11th
        Before I conclude my remarks I would like to mention one more event
    in the past year. Like many of our fellow Americans across the country,
    the Courts reacted with shock, horror and resolve to the terrorist
    attacks of September 11, 2001.
        As at many other agencies, the attacks provided the impetus for a
    review of security at the Courts. Some measures to enhance security
    were implemented immediately, including, for example, 100 percent
    security checks at pedestrian entrances, installation of roll-up
    barriers at garage entrances, and increased screening of mail.
    Additional measures were planned. The Joint Committee will continue to
    take the steps necessary to ensure that court facilities are both
    secure and accessible to the community that the Courts serve.
                                   conclusion
        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 2003
    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.
    STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR
                COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Senator Landrieu. Chief.
        Chief Judge King. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am Rufus
    King III and I am appearing in my capacity as Chief Judge of
    the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I want to thank
    you for the opportunity to speak to you today on our fiscal
    year 2003 budget and particularly on the Family Court
    initiative. Chief Judge Wagner, Chair of the Joint Committee on
    Judicial Administration, has provided you an overview on the
    budget.
        My written testimony addressed some of the accomplishments
    of the Superior Court over the past year, and so I will only
    address the single issue. I would like to mention the
    partnership initiative by the court working with Women
    Empowered Against Violence, the Corporation Counsel, and the
    D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence to open an intake
    center in Anacostia, which is where nearly 65 percent of those
    who seek the services of the Domestic Vioence Unit reside. We
    hope that this will result in substantially easier and more
    effective service to those in this vulnerable population. We
    are also going to be working with our technology staff to take
    advantage of video-conferencing and electronic filing so that
    the work that goes on at that center can more easily and
    effectively be integrated with the work that will go on at the
    main courthouse.
        As you know, the President signed the Family Court Act of
    2001 into law on January 8, 2002 with the support of the court,
    the bar, and most of the stakeholders in the child advocacy
    community, and after much work by this subcommittee. While all
    of us involved in the process had some differences on some
    specific provisions of the bill as it went through the
    legislative process, we shared a goal of improving the
    provision of services to the abused and neglected children of
    the District of Columbia. The bill is a major step toward that
    goal.
        Now that the bill is law, the debate is over and the court
    is committed to implementing the act as effectively and
    expeditiously as possible. The implementation plan under the
    act is due to Congress on April 8, 2002 and it will be
    submitted on time.
        In addition, we have already made offers to five attorneys
    to serve as magistrate judges, as specified in the act, and
    they will initially handle those abuse and neglect cases that
    have been pending for more than 2 years. I am pleased to say
    that we met the statutory guideline for hiring them and have
    already renovated space for their offices and have begun the
    process of acquiring needed equipment and hiring support staff.
        Of course, the full implementation of the Family Court Act
    will take much more time, effort, funding, and space. But I
    leave that to the budget justification which has been provided
    and which spells out in more detail the budget needs for the
    Family Court.
        For today, I would want to raise one issue, and it has
    been, I note with some sense of reassurance, addressed by you,
    Madam Chairwoman, and that is the concern over the funding
    provided to the court by the appropriations act. The funding,
    as it now is provided, is not available to us until 30
    legislative days after a 30-day period of review by the GAO.
    This means that funding will not be available until late June,
    as best we can estimate.
        We have already committed nearly $1 million in costs for
    hiring and making space for the five new magistrate judges. To
    commence design and construction of building renovations for
    the full Family Court, GSA says that it needs $7 million
    immediately. We do not have sufficient funding available in our
    capital account to cover this expense, but we need to obligate
    the funds to GSA immediately to keep the architectural and
    construction work on schedule so that we can meet the act's 18-
    month deadline for completion of the transition. It is an
    urgent, critical need that the court be able to access already
    appropriated funds in order to cover the Family Court costs and
    be allowed to reimburse those accounts from the Family Court
    appropriation, once it becomes available.
        So far, we have expended funds from the courts' operating
    and capital budgets for fiscal year 2002. These past
    expenditures will not be a problem if these Family Court
    expenses can subsequently be recovered from funds appropriated
    for the Family Court. However, GAO has informed us that this
    type of reimbursement is a transfer which is not allowed
    without statutory transfer authority. If this is not addressed
    immediately, this lack of authority will require the court to
    choose between seriously compromising vital court safety and
    infrastructure needs or having the Family Court building plan
    fall behind schedule, which could cause the court to fail to
    meet the legislative deadline, an outcome we are committed to
    avoiding if humanly possible.
        I should point out that we have had discussions with
    subcommittee staff on this issue and those discussions have
    been helpful and positive. I am also, of course, grateful for
    the expressions of support from you on this issue. And as well,
    I appreciate your support and the support of the subcommittee
    throughout in securing funding for the Family Court. So, at
    this point a legislative remedy is essential for the safe and
    secure operation of the Superior Court if we are remain on
    schedule in transitioning to the new Family Court.

                               prepared statement

        Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you and to talk to you about the Superior Court's fiscal
    requirements. I appreciate your continuing interest and strong
    support for our efforts and the solid working relationship that
    we have built. And I would be pleased to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Rufus King, III
        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, members of the Subcommittee: 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. I thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you today. Chief Judge Wagner of the D.C. Court
    of Appeals, as chair of the Courts' Joint Committee on Judicial
    Administration, has provided an overview of our budget request and
    priorities. I wanted to address an issue that I thought might be of
    special concern to this subcommittee: the Family Court of the D.C.
    Superior Court.
        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, with five
    major divisions: Civil, Criminal, Probate, Tax and Family. The Family
    Court Act of 2001, sponsored by the chairwoman and ranking member of
    this Subcommittee, created the Family Court within the Superior Court.
    A report on the Court's transition plan for implementing that
    legislation is due on April 8, and we expect to meet that deadline with
    a comprehensive plan on how to implement the Act, which will integrate
    the principles outlined in the legislation throughout the Family Court.
        During the past year, the Superior Court has pursued a number of
    important initiatives. We have instituted a community court within our
    courthouse, to address so-called ``quality of life'' offenses, such as
    public drunkenness, panhandling, and the like. Previously, these cases
    were usually rescheduled for two or more court days before they were
    resolved. This wasted court time, police time and attorney time, with
    little benefit to the legal process. The new community court addresses
    the real issues: meaningful sanctions for the perpetrators, provision
    of needed services and redress of wrongs to the community. We have
    assigned teams of ``duty attorneys'' to represent these defendants,
    resulting in the bulk of these misdemeanor cases being heard and
    resolved on the first day in court. Sanctions are imposed--fines or
    community service--and services provided to those who need them--
    substance abuse education and counseling, mental health referrals and
    homelessness assistance.
        The Domestic Violence Unit, which has received commendations
    nationally, is working with partners in the community to expand our
    intake center by opening a satellite center in Anacostia, nearer where
    a significant percentage of victims reside. Currently the center is
    seriously overcrowded. Establishing a second center will make it less
    burdensome for this vulnerable population to seek the services offered
    by the Court.
        The Court has worked to enhance its technological capacity. We are
    developing a system for paying fines and fees by credit card, which
    will expedite those processes and enhance their convenience, both for
    the Court and for the community. We have enhanced our information
    technology (IT) security in response to the increased level of threat
    since last September.
        While we pursued these and other efforts, our major priority has
    been enactment and now implementation of the Family Court Act of 2001.
        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, as you know, the President signed
    the Family Court Act of 2001 into law on January 8, 2002 with the
    support of the Court, the bar and most of the stakeholders in the child
    advocacy community. While all of us involved in the process had some
    differences on specific provisions of the bill as it went through the
    legislative process, we shared a goal of improving the provision of
    services to the abused and neglected children of the District and
    expediting permanency for them. The bill is a major step toward that
    goal. And now that the bill is law, the debate over provisions is over,
    and the Court is preparing to implement all of its provisions as
    effectively and expeditiously as possible. Judge Lee Satterfield,
    presiding judge of the Family Court and Judge Anita Josey-Herring,
    deputy presiding judge have devoted countless hours to developing the
    transition plan for the new Family Court in a manner that reflects
    congressional intent and best practices, and, most importantly,
    provides the best possible services and protections to abused and
    neglected children. I commend them for their hard work on this issue.
    The changes that the legislation made and that our plan will
    incorporate will make a marked difference in the lives of children and
    families in the District of Columbia.
        As the subcommittee well knows, the District saw a dramatic surge
    in abuse and neglect filings in the late 1980's and, while the most
    recent increases do not seem to be as significant, they have not yet
    leveled off. Each year, more than 1500 children are found to be
    neglected or abused by their parents. The Child and Family Services
    Agency is completing its transition out of receivership and is striving
    to strengthen its ability to deliver services to children and families.
        The Court is beginning the transition under which cases formerly
    distributed among all 59 Superior Court judges after trial will be
    transferred to the Family Court. In addition, all new abuse and neglect
    cases have been retained in the Family Court since enactment of the
    Family Court Act. The transition plan will address how to better ensure
    that related cases are heard by the same judge or magistrate judge.
    This will require enhancing clerks' offices for those branches of the
    Family Court and developing the Family Court's IT capacity. It will
    require additional judges and magistrate judges to handle the
    significantly increased caseload in the Family Court. Additional
    judicial officers require additional administrative assistants, law
    clerks, courtroom clerks and other related personnel. Space needs to be
    constructed to house the new courtrooms, hearing rooms, chambers and
    support services to enable the Family Court to function optimally. Cost
    estimates for the construction to meet the long-term needs of the
    Family Court are due from GSA this month. We are working directly with
    the architects and will include as much information in the transition
    plan as is available from them.
        A serious concern to us is the need to spend funds in order to
    comply with the Act prior to their becoming available under applicable
    appropriations law. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002
    provides that Family Court appropriations will not be available until
    after a 30 day review by the GAO and a subsequent review of 30
    legislative days by Congress. We estimate this will be mid or late
    June. In the meantime, we have extended offers to five attorneys to
    serve as magistrate judges; we have constructed office space for them
    (within existing Court space); and we have obtained the necessary
    furnishings and equipment. We have also reconfigured hearing rooms,
    added space for support staff and will soon hire those staff. Of even
    greater concern, we estimate that approximately $5 million will be
    needed to keep the architectural and construction work on schedule so
    that we can meet the Act's 18 month deadline for completion of the
    transition. So far we have expended funds from the Courts' operating
    and capital budgets for fiscal year 2002. This will not be a problem if
    these Family Court expenses can be recovered from funds appropriated
    for the Family Court. However, the GAO has informed us that this type
    of reimbursement is a transfer, which is not allowed without statutory
    transfer authority. Unaddressed, the lack of this authority has the
    potential of requiring the Court to choose between compromising other
    court operations by using funds intended for them to cover costs of the
    Family Court and delaying in our commitment to construction contracts,
    which must be fully funded at signing.
        This subcommittee has been very generous in securing sufficient
    funding for the Family Court effort. It is hoped that in timing as well
    as in amount the subcommittee will continue in that support.
        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, thank you for the opportunity to
    talk about the Family Court budget request for fiscal year 2003. I
    appreciate your continuing interest and support and the solid working
    relationship we have built. I am happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.

                                  FAMILY COURT

        As the panelists are aware, we are going to have a second
    hearing--and I believe it has already been scheduled--to go
    into some more detail about the aspects of the new Family Court
    and how the reforms are coming along. So, the purposes of this
    hearing are really just to touch on the budget issues, and I
    may have one or two questions about the progress of our
    reforms.
        But let me just be clear that in your budget request for
    the courts, we are requesting an additional $22.3 million above
    the President's 2003 budget submission. We have acceleration of
    the Old Courthouse, $5.1 million, fully implemented; the
    integrated justice information system, $1.5 million; general
    repair projects, $5.5 million; and then 23 additional full-time
    staff positions requested for various functions. Is that
    approximately right?
        Chief Judge Wagner. That sounds about right. I would feel
    more comfortable relying on my figures in the book, but I think
    that is about right. The Family Court is $22.9 million.
        Senator Landrieu. This is above the President's request.
        Chief Judge Wagner. We had made a comparison chart, but we
    did not bring that or do not have it readily available. We can
    provide that.
        Senator Landrieu. You can submit that for the record and
    just make sure that we have the request accurately.
        [The information follows:]

                                 D.C. COURTS FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST COMPARISON
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                President's                          Request above
                                                                   budget        Courts' request      President's
                                                               recommendation                            budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Court of Appeals.......................................         $8,352,000         $8,640,000           $288,000
    Superior Court.........................................         80,140,000         81,530,000          1,390,000
    Court System...........................................         38,902,000         40,894,000          1,992,000
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, operations.............................        127,394,000        131,064,000          3,670,000
    Capital................................................         31,651,000         50,352,000         18,701,000
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Federal Payment...........................        159,045,000        181,416,000         22,371,000
                                                            ========================================================
    Defender Services......................................         32,000,000         45,014,000         13,014,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask, Judge King, just a couple of
    general questions. Remind me now of the total number of judges.
    It is 59 in the court?
        Chief Judge King. That is correct, in Superior Court, 58
    associate judges and a chief judge.
        Senator Landrieu. Then of those, 15 are Family Court judges
    or have been designated as such?
        Chief Judge King. As it now stands, it is up to 15 can
    serve in the Family Court. I have at present 12 who have
    volunteered and are agreeing to serve the 3-year term
    applicable.
        Senator Landrieu. That compromise, which we debated at some
    length, as it worked out, as I recall, was a 3-year term for
    current judges serving and then new appointees will be 5 years?
        Chief Judge King. Correct.
        Senator Landrieu. With the opportunity to renew service if
    requested.
        Chief Judge King. Correct. And I would say on the basis of
    our experience in hiring magistrate judges, that what I had
    hoped would happen in that environment is that there will be
    some number--I would not want to predict now, but there will be
    some number who will do just that. They will want to extend to
    substantial additional amounts of time and become just the
    experts that the bill contemplates.
        Senator Landrieu. So, of the current 59 judges, 12
    volunteered to step into the Family Court role and take on the
    responsibility for 3-year terms.
        Chief Judge King. Correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And then we can fill the remainder of
    those seats, which would be three additional seats, with new
    appointments that the President would have to make to people
    interested with some background in this area for 5-year terms.
        Chief Judge King. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Is it your understanding the President is
    in the process of doing that or can you give us an update?
        Chief Judge King. The way that we are approaching this so
    far is that to add three judges, we will need additional space.
    So, we will have to be part-way down the road in our
    construction efforts. So, I have signaled that we do not intend
    to push yet for the current vacancies to be filled. They will
    fill other vacancies in the court and that probably, as best we
    can estimate now, it would be late summer when we would push
    for the three additional positions. I will work with the
    commission and the White House to see, to the extent that I can
    persuade them, that the criteria under the act are met in those
    appointments.
        Senator Landrieu. And then how many magistrates will be
    attached to Family Court?
        Chief Judge King. We have just added five and we
    contemplate an additional four, which again we would probably
    reach toward the end of the summer. The magistrate judges, of
    course, we hire so that we can do that on our schedule. So, it
    is really going to be key to construction and completing the
    revision of our calendars and so on so that we will have the
    logistics worked out to take them into the Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. So, this will be nine magistrates for the
    Family Court when it is stood up.
        Chief Judge King. Correct. I should point out that we have
    eight already. This is in addition to eight that we have now
    who are already doing other things other than child dependency
    cases. Child support is one series of cases that are being
    addressed by magistrate judges. We have uncontested domestic
    relations calendars and so on. So, there are cases that have
    already been addressed by magistrate judges, and there are
    eight of those.
        Senator Landrieu. So, these nine magistrates do not do just
    exclusively Family Court issues or they do?
        Chief Judge King. They do.
        Senator Landrieu. But it is a range of issues. It's abuse
    and neglect, domestic violence, divorce, custody.
        Chief Judge King. Correct. The nine that we are in the
    process of adding, the five that we have just taken in will do
    nothing but abuse and neglect until we have all the cases
    brought in from judges outside the Family Court. Their job is
    to help that process and make sure that those cases come in
    smoothly and are assigned to judges and magistrate judges in an
    effective way.
        Senator Landrieu. As you know, one of the great purposes of
    this reform was to try to get a handle on the cases and
    committing one judge per family, consolidating cases, and
    expediting the hearings of these cases. I know it is early in
    these reforms. Any information that you could provide to our
    committee between now and the time of our next hearing about
    the results of that effort to date in terms of the more rapid
    process of reaching either conclusion of some of these cases
    would be very helpful.
        In addition, because our staff does not seem to have this,
    I would really be interested in seeing how the total budget of
    your court, the total dollar amounts are allocated between the
    five divisions, which would be your civil, your criminal, your
    family, your probate, and your special operations division. So,
    if you all could get that to us. We may have it, we just did
    not have it handy. Take your total budget and try to tell us 40
    percent of your total funds are allocated to your Civil
    Division, 30 percent to your Criminal Division, 10 to your
    Family Division, whatever the percentages are of your total
    budget. It would be helpful for us to have.
        Chief Judge King. Without committing to how completely that
    can be broken out, we will certainly get you whatever
    information we can on the general proportionality of
    expenditures.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask, while the staff is getting
    some of the other questions organized--and this is a little off
    the subject. But I know that you are laying plans for the
    renovation of the new Family Court. As we talked when we
    contemplated this new facility or renovated facility, we wanted
    to use some of the best practice models around the Nation,
    about mediation, having opportunities for family counseling, to
    make the facility and the building work to maybe reduce the
    tensions of the litigation and to maximize the positive
    outcomes of some of these very tense and difficult situations.
        Can you just comment about how that is coming along in
    terms of the planning for the physical construction or the
    physical space of the Family Court?
        Chief Judge King. We are working directly with the GSA
    architects to devise plans for both the short-term and longer-
    term arrangements for space. As part of the effort for us to
    cooperate with them and to inform our direction and so on, we
    have consulted with a number of other courts around the
    country. In fact, 10 days ago we went out to Santa Clara County
    to talk with a judge there on how they handled the business of
    getting services to people who needed them in their dependency
    court.
        We will be submitting in the transition plan our tentative
    space plan--and I say tentative at this point, only to the
    extent that I do not think the architects have fully completed
    their decisions about what the options are. But whatever we
    have available, we will include in our plan. It very much does
    contemplate a construction of space that is not just a
    collection of courtrooms and chambers. It will be waiting
    rooms, conference rooms, mediation facilities so that we can
    accomplish the immediate delivery of services in a comfortable
    and family friendly setting.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to say for the record I
    am very certain that my ranking member feels as strongly about
    this as I do. But if we are going to spend any amount of money
    renovating and have the opportunity to either renovate or
    construct a facility, we would really like this to be a state-
    of-the-art facility. I understand that either your staff or
    ours or both just visited Los Angeles County, which my records
    show became the first in the Nation to establish a dependency
    courthouse designated specifically as a child sensitive
    facility. The courtrooms are smaller, less intimidating to
    children than traditional courtrooms. Special areas are
    designed for children to play in, engage in interesting
    activities, or catch a nap. These features are obviously meant
    to reduce as much as possible the stress and trauma associated
    with the child's experience with the legal system.
        So, I know that our committee would be very interested in
    pursuing. While money is not unlimited, we want to make sure
    that any effort is an effort worth engaging in, that the
    outcome is something that we can really be proud of, and serves
    as a model for the Nation.
        I believe that we just have gone far astray in our design
    of court buildings to accommodate the kinds of cases that we
    are speaking about here. There is a special way for civil cases
    to be handled when you are talking about adults and money and
    finance, and then there is a whole other set of accommodations
    when you are talking about mothers and fathers and love and
    hate and children who are desperate for the kind of outcomes
    that will affect the rest of their life. So, we need to keep
    that in mind.

                            LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

        Let me ask, if I could, Judge Wagner, if you would just
    explain a little bit more about your long-term care benefit. I
    am not familiar with this. Maybe it is a benefit that Federal
    employees have that I am not familiar with.
        Chief Judge Wagner. Maybe I should ask Ms. Wicks to
    respond. She probably has a better handle on the long-term
    health care issue. We understand it is not quite implemented
    yet with the Federal Government, but it would be available. But
    there is no employer contribution to the program, and that
    would be the thing that would run the costs up for us. To the
    extent we could get into it without having to make an employer
    contribution to it, it would be of benefit.
        Ms. Wicks. Chief Judge Wagner is correct. My understanding
    is in October of this year, it will be a benefit available to
    Federal employees, and I believe the employee pays the full
    cost of the insurance. It is long-term care insurance for once
    we all get older and need to take care of ourselves, so we do
    not burden our families.
        Senator Landrieu. So, it is your understanding that this is
    a new benefit that Federal employees are going to have.
        Ms. Wicks. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And you would like it extended to the
    courts.
        Ms. Wicks. To the court employees. Court employees
    currently get Federal benefits for health and life insurance.
    So, it would just be ensuring that we have that benefit
    available as well.

                      INCREASING COURT-WIDE SUPPORT STAFF

        Senator Landrieu. Judge King, you have asked for an
    additional 26 new positions. Is that correct? Or was that Judge
    Wagner? It does not matter which one of you answers.
        Chief Judge King. Yes, we have.
        Senator Landrieu. If you could just go into some more
    detail about these specific positions, not each one, but just
    generally.
        Chief Judge King. Yes. First of all, summarily and
    generally, they are employees who are necessary to strengthen
    our existing operations. The courtroom operations and support
    personnel are needed simply to keep up with large caseloads.
    Two of them address vacancies that now need to be filled in
    order to bring the staff to a level really where it should be
    to operate effectively.
        The accounting staff needs to be augmented to accommodate
    the new--we are doing a new automated accounting system which
    carries with it the need for additional people to operate. It
    allows us more effectively to keep track of and plan our
    finances.
        The Defender Services Branch needs clerks to operate the
    voucher program which we assumed from Public Defender Service.
    So, this is a new obligation we undertook. We have automated it
    and reduced the amount of staff needed to operate it, but still
    we do need some staff to carry out that function.
        Then for the capital infrastructure, as it now stands, we
    have no coverage of any of our campus buildings. If emergencies
    arise, we have to call out. In fact, in the recent fire, that
    was a factor. There was a delay in getting the fire department
    to the facility. We need people to add to the engineers and
    mechanics staff.
        The project director for the Old Courthouse I believe is--I
    am going to defer to Chief Judge Wagner, but I think that is a
    self-evident need for somebody to run that project for the
    courts.
        And then on the web application programmer, we have now
    been enjoying the beneficence of the D.C. Bar in operating our
    web page. That has been a terrific collaboration, but
    ultimately the bar is interested in service to lawyers and in
    providing service to the court of benefit to lawyers. We have a
    broader mandate to serve the public to provide information to
    jurors and members of the public that we feel merits bringing
    the web page operation into the court system itself, and we
    need someone to run that.

                        COORDINATION WITH D.C. AGENCIES

        Senator Landrieu. I just have two additional questions, and
    then if there are not any from the other members.
        Judge King, particularly Senator Durbin and Senator
    Voinovich have expressed this concern to me about the
    importance of the courts working with the D.C. Family Service
    Agency and the Metropolitan Police, as well as the public
    schools, to have a rather seamless or coordinate effort,
    particularly in the area of identifying child abuse and neglect
    early, stepping in at an early and appropriate stage, taking it
    through to the next step if the allegations are proved to be
    true, and then prosecuted, et cetera with the right outcome. In
    order for that to work in any community, there really needs to
    be a seamless operation between the entities most likely to
    identify the abuse or neglect, which would be in most instances
    the school systems, but not in every instance.
        So, can you comment about your ongoing efforts to try to
    make this as coordinated and as seamless as possible? What
    steps has the court taken to date? What steps are you
    contemplating? And if you or any of the other judges that are
    here want to--you know, be as specific as possible about that.
        Chief Judge King. The first and most important coordination
    effort, of course, is with Child and Family Services Agency,
    since they are the first line of responsibility for acquiring
    services and coordinating services. I have myself had a number
    of meetings with Dr. Golden, the director of the agency, and I
    have also encouraged and in fact planned with Family Court
    Presiding Judge Satterfield to have biweekly meetings with her
    so that we never get off the same page on any issue for more
    than 10 days or so before we can sit down and get it fixed and
    coordinate our efforts.
        The Child and Family Services staff were consulted in
    hiring the new magistrate judges. They have a social worker on
    our advisory committee. They are on our implementation
    committee, as are other city agencies, including the public
    schools, so that as we develop the transition plan. Then, when
    we move into the implementation and oversight phase, they will
    be right there at the table reviewing our initiatives and
    consulting with us as we go forward.
        So, I would not agree more. I think it is critical that we
    work very closely with them.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, anything that this committee can do
    to facilitate that working together and that cooperation we
    would very much like to. If there is not kind of an annual
    conference held and follow-up to bring leaders of the school
    system together, the Family Services Agency, the courts, and
    the police, we could help to facilitate such an annual event.
    We could help facilitate some additional training opportunities
    that would be very, very helpful. Really, in order for us to
    turn around the situation, which is desperate in this city--and
    it is not the only city that has a problem, but it is a very
    serious problem and of great concern to the members of many
    committees in Congress. Anything that we can do to facilitate
    that and continue. So, just because we passed the bill, just
    because we build the building, once we build the building,
    there are a lot of other pieces that have to go into creating
    the kind of system that I think the community can be very happy
    with and the Congress can be proud of.
        Now, I have got to get to the floor. Is there anything else
    you want to add in closing?
        Chief Judge Wagner. You had mentioned in your statement
    that you would like us to do a presentation on the Old
    Courthouse. Of course, we will not have time to do that here,
    but it is a part of our overall master plan, which is underway,
    which will both identify the optimal location for the Family
    Court, as well as how to use all of the space in the courts'
    complex. We would like to come down at some point and do a
    presentation with both the Law Enforcement Memorial and with
    our court system and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed
    Forces, because it is all on one square, as to exactly what we
    would be doing.
        I think you would be interested in knowing that restoration
    of the old courthouse will free 37,000 square feet in the
    Moultrie Building, when the Court of Appeals moves into the
    restored building. The Superior Court would have space
    available to expand other operations and better accommodate
    their new Family Court and their other functions that are going
    to move for the Family Court immediately.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I would really like to set that up
    with the staff, a briefing for the physical complex, and we
    will do that as soon as our schedules allow.
        I want to recognize our Shadow Senator, Paul Strauss, who
    is with us today.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        If there are not any further questions or comments, we will
    adjourn the meeting.
        Chief Judge Wagner. Thank you.
        Chief Judge King. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to
    reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu and DeWine.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                   Education

    STATEMENT OF PEGGY COOPER-CAFRITZ, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT
                OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF EDUCATION

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. The meeting of the subcommittee on the
    District of Columbia will come to order.
        If the first set of witnesses would come to the front
    tables, if you would: Mr. Chavous and Ms. Graham and Dr. Vance
    and Ms. Cooper.
        My staff reminds me, Kevin, that it is ``Chavous.''
        Mr. Chavous. Yes, Chavous.
        Senator Landrieu. But because I am from Louisiana, I do the
    correct pronunciation, as you know. You and I have talked about
    this. We know about these pronunciations.
        Mr. Chavous. I have been called worse, Senator.
        Senator Landrieu. So I apologize.
        Let me welcome all of you all to this hearing, and I am
    particularly pleased that our ranking member could be with us
    this morning, because both for Senator DeWine and for myself,
    this is a very, very important issue, not only for the District
    and our roles as chairing and ranking member of this committee,
    but we have both been very, very involved at our own areas in
    education in our States and communities at home.
        As I have said many times in this committee, as the parents
    of many children--together we have ten; of course, he gets the
    credit for eight, and I get two, so he beats me on that score--
    but we are in the process of raising ten children ourselves and
    know the----
        Senator DeWine. Not together though, right?
        Senator Landrieu. Not together, though, yes.
        Separately, yes. But we know the trials and tribulations of
    that.
        But this committee hearing we wanted to have this morning,
    and I have a written opening statement for the record. But I
    think in light of the times, to kind of get to the heart of the
    matter, I would like to just submit my opening statement for
    the record and make just a couple of brief points in summary.
        Then I am going to ask you all, so that you can be thinking
    while I am making a few opening remarks, if you would do the
    same thing, to submit your testimony in writing. And then I am
    going to ask a question about goals and vision for the
    District. I am going to be asking you about your current
    vision, where you would like to see the school system 10 years
    from now and where you expect the school system to be 10 years
    from now.
        If you could think about one example that the District has
    made some significant progress in the last several years and if
    you can begin thinking about two or three of the greatest
    barriers to achieving your vision. And I am going to ask each
    of you maybe to give 5 minutes in that regard, so that we can
    get a good dialogue here of questions and answers and really
    try to hone in.
        But let me frame the beginning of this hearing by simply
    saying that every State and every community is struggling with
    how to create excellence in public schools uniformly. We all
    recognize that there is excellence in our public school systems
    in pockets throughout this Nation. And there are some
    extraordinary examples of schools doing extraordinary work with
    limited resources and very challenging circumstances.
        I could cite any number of examples from Louisiana. Senator
    DeWine could cite examples from Ohio. We could cite examples
    here, and I know that you all would agree, right here in the
    District.
        But our challenge, and you can see that it is coming from
    Congress in a very bipartisan way, both Democrats and
    Republicans, is to try to embrace public education and try to
    improve it and try to create a system where truly no child is
    left behind.
        It takes a combination of things, which was the result of
    last year's great effort here in Congress, which is to say that
    systems of accountability and reform are very necessary, along
    with new investments, and that those things need to be matched
    to make sure that we really can provide excellence for each
    child.
        A second point that I want to make is the same point that I
    make to every mayor that I talk to, including my own mayor in
    New Orleans and my mayors throughout Louisiana, and to my
    chambers of commerce, which is, if you are speaking about
    economic development and you are not speaking about excellence
    in school, then you are not going to have the kind of results
    that you might think you are going to have or intend to have,
    because economic development for any community and the
    strengthening of any community really has--the schools are one
    of the primary focuses of that effort.
        Why do I say that? Obviously people who want to build their
    businesses and expand their businesses and have to hire
    employees want to be in communities where the schools are good
    and robust and excellent, so that they can then attract the
    employees for their companies. You know, building a strong
    middle class for a community is very important. Besides having
    a reduced crime rate and good city services, I think the
    primary focus of people is to have excellent opportunities for
    children.
        So needless to say, many of our communities and States are
    challenged. And we have taken, I think, a very extraordinary
    step, really, in Congress to begin saying to every district,
    and that includes the District, that the Congress has made a
    decision to stop funding failure. And we want to start funding
    success and rewarding success and investing in reform and
    investing in high expectations for all children. And that
    really is the bottom line of this, of the bill that was passed
    this last year.
        So I can say for myself, and I think Senator DeWine will
    also jump in here in a moment to say it, that I want to be a
    partner with you in helping to fashion this plan and program
    for the District.
        I think there are some plans that are already underway and
    seem to be working. Perhaps some directions have been taken
    that are not working. But every school district including the
    District is now going to be required by new Federal legislation
    to meet certain standards or, of course, there will be real
    consequences for failure.
        With that, I am going to ask Senator DeWine if he has an
    opening statement, and then I am going to reask my question and
    we will start the panel.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to
    this important hearing on the status of the District of Columbia Public
    Schools. I want to express my appreciation for the witnesses we have on
    our first panel today, particularly Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President of
    the District's School Board and Mr. Paul Vance, Superintendent of
    Schools. Mr. Vance is recuperating from major surgery, so I am
    specially indebted to him for coming today. We also have Kevin Chavous
    with us today, the Chair of the City Council's Education Committee, and
    Carolyn Graham, the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families. I
    thank these witnesses for attending.
        The District of Columbia is enjoying a renaissance. Once a fiscal
    and management nightmare, the City's budget is now in better shape than
    the budgets in Maryland and Virginia according to some media accounts.
    The City was once ruled by a control board, today the officials elected
    by the District's citizens are now in charge. A rampant crime rate
    chased citizens from District neighborhoods for the suburbs, now people
    are coming back. Property values are rising, new businesses are
    opening, and the City is working to beautify the Anacostia waterfront.
    I applaud Mayor Williams, the Council led by its Chairman Linda Cropp,
    and the people of the District of Columbia for this turnaround.
        This success while in many ways remarkable is still very, very
    fragile. There is a long- term structural imbalance in the City's
    finances that Congress and the City must address and we will hold a
    hearing on this next month. With the on-going threat of terrorism, the
    Mayor remains concerned and I share this concern that the City is
    operating one disaster away from financial difficulty.
        The school system will either play a vital role in the continuation
    of the District's success story or it will create additional budget
    woes that will threaten that success. What do I mean by that? As I
    said, people are coming back to D.C. They want to take advantage of
    what the city has to offer: restaurants, museums, sports and
    entertainment venues. But they will only stay for the long-term if they
    believe that their children can get a high quality education in the
    District. As long as they stay, as long as they own property and
    patronize businesses, pay their property taxes, the District's
    renaissance will continue.
        I am concerned, however, that right now the schools are
    contributing to the fragile nature of the District's financial success.
    The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the District's
    budget projects a $240 million shortfall in fiscal year 2002.
    Fortunately, the majority of the $240 million can be covered through
    the use of reserves, but that will not leave a lot of reserves left
    over for next year. There are several reasons for the shortfall
    according to the CAFR: the City still needs to improve its Medicaid
    collections, for example. But the biggest item in the shortfall is an
    $81 million projected deficit for the District of Columbia Public
    Schools and the there is widespread agreement that the reason for this
    shortfall is cost overruns in special education.
        Currently the District spends about one third of the total school
    budget on the 16 percent of all students who are in special education.
    I know transportation costs are a big factor here. Many of these
    students attend private facilities in Maryland and Virginia. There have
    also been reports of lawyers former public school employees gaming the
    special education system. The Washington Post reported on one lawyer
    who finds potential special education clients and refers them to a
    diagnostic testing service that he controls. Once the client has been
    diagnosed as needing special education services, the lawyer wins
    tuition from the school system to send the student to a private school
    he also controls.
        This year, Congress is set to consider the re-authorization of the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the main Federal law on
    special education. Members, like myself, are anxious to use this re-
    authorization as an opportunity to examine what is working and what is
    not working in special education in America. On October 3, 2001,
    President George Bush established a Commission on Excellence in Special
    Education to collect information and study issues related to Federal,
    State, and local special education programs with the goal of
    recommending policies for improving the education performance of
    students with disabilities. In the 6 months since its inception, the
    Commission has found children are often mislabeled or under served in
    special education.
        Some of the problems plaguing the system here in D.C. are also
    experienced in other school districts throughout the Nation, but some
    are unique. Clearly, special education has placed a tremendous strain
    on the education budget. Yet, are the services delivered the best and
    most cost effective alternatives available? No, they are not. Clearly,
    special education in the District of Columbia needs reform. I am
    concerned that without reform the City's overall financial management
    picture will suffer. This problem must be solved. I do not want to see
    the bad old days of deficits, poor services, and control boards return
    to the District on my watch.
        I realize that all of the problems will not be solved today. If we
    need to hold some kind of special education summit in the near future
    to hammer out a solution, we can do that. As the Nation's capitol, the
    District of Columbia should serve as a model for other districts in
    America, a living testament to an ideal upon which this country was
    founded, equal opportunity for all.
        In addition to special education, I want to discuss the District's
    public schools plans for implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. As
    many of you know, this year marks the first year in a new way in
    education thinking. This exciting reform, if properly implemented, has
    the potential to transform public education not only in the District
    but also in America. The District has a long way to go toward meeting
    the goals laid out by the No Child Left Behind Act. They need to
    implement a district wide accountability system complete with yearly
    assessments of school children grades 3 through 8; they need to put in
    place a system that ensures all teachers teaching in high poverty
    schools are fully qualified and they need to implement programs aimed
    at having all children proficient in reading by the third grade. While
    these requirements may seem onerous now, I can assure you from personal
    experience in my State, they will yield amazing dividends.
        While this law will make a substantial investment in public
    education, there will be greater accountability required as well. I
    want to see to it that the District's public schools are not left
    behind in meeting the requirements of this legislation. I have seen the
    terrific work schools in Louisiana are doing in this area. My State had
    already implemented a number of the accountability reforms contained in
    the national legislation and they have yielded great returns. I hope we
    can share some of these best practices with the District and other
    school systems.
        Today's second panel will help us to explore some of the best
    practices in areas that are critical to the cities ultimate success in
    education. We will hear from Andrew Rotherham, Director of the 21st
    Century Schools Project at the Progressive Policy Institute; Mr. Robert
    Cane, Executive Director of Friends of Choice for Urban Schools; and
    Virginia Walden Ford, a parent in the District and Executive Director
    of D.C. Parents for School Choice. I thank these witnesses for coming
    today.
        John F. Kennedy once said, ``Our progress as a Nation can be no
    swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our
    fundamental resource.'' In the knowledge based economy of the 21st
    Century, these words are even more compelling. The District can either
    accept the challenge or they can be left behind. The choice is theirs.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

        Senator DeWine. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very much
    for holding this hearing, and I will also submit my written
    statement for the record.
        We look forward to this hearing. All of us, we all know the
    horror stories about the District of Columbia school system.
    Quite candidly, these problems, though, can be found in many
    urban school districts. They might be a little different, but
    urban school districts are one of the major crisis points
    really in our country today.
        If we do not, as a country, begin to address the problems
    of our urban schools, the future of this country and the future
    for our children will clearly not be what we want it to be.
        In my own home State of Ohio, the graduation rate in one of
    our major metropolitan school districts is only about 36
    percent. So this is not a problem that is totally unique to the
    District of Columbia.
        But it is a problem the District has. The District has not
    performed--the school system has not performed in the past,
    obviously, as well as any of us would like it to.
        Each year, the District spends over $9,500 per student on
    education, and that is more spending per pupil than any of the
    50 States. The national average is actually a little over
    $7,000.
        Earlier this year, Education Week gave D.C. schools a D
    grade in standards and accountability, and a D in improving
    teacher quality.
        But our purpose here today is not to talk about the past.
    Our purpose today is to talk about the future and to talk about
    what has been accomplished in the last year or so. And that is
    really what we are looking forward to, is hearing the testimony
    from our witnesses.
        Some ask, you know, ``What role does the Federal Government
    play?'' The chairman has, I think, outlined this a little bit.
    I would just add one more statistic. The Federal Government
    puts in about 17 percent of the money for the school district.
    That compares with 8 percent for schools nationwide. And we
    just completed a national debate about education led by the
    President and the Congress. And I think that was a very, very
    good debate.
        But if it is important for what happens in Ohio when we
    only put in 8 percent, it is certainly equally, if not more
    important, for the District of Columbia, the oversight by the
    United States Congress.
        So we are looking forward, Madam Chairman, to hearing our
    witnesses, to hearing what progress has been made, what vision
    has been made, what vision they have, and candidly what they
    see as the working together of the public officials and the
    community. I am interested in the involvement not only of the
    Board, not only of the mayor, but also of the parents, what has
    been their involvement and how do they fit into the overall
    scheme of putting our schools in the District of Columbia the
    way we would like them to be.
        I thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Let me just update for the record, and Senator DeWine was
    putting into the record the last figures from the Department of
    Ed, but we just received some updated figures and I wanted to
    share them for the record.
        It is now $12,343, Senator, per pupil the District spends,
    which is the highest of any of the districts in the Nation
    compared to States. New York, just for reference, is second at
    $10,481. Ohio is $6,962, and Louisiana is $5,968. So there is a
    great disparity.
        We are trying to make sure that these are apples to apples,
    and oranges to oranges. This supposedly is not with Federal
    funds, but if you will have other figures, Peggy, we can put
    them into the record at that time.
        So if this is not accurate, please help us to qualify that,
    because it is very, very important for us to have good
    comparative data, and we are really struggling with it. So I
    wanted to submit that.
        In addition, I would like to say that the District should
    be commended in the sense of trying to increase investments in
    education. One of the goals of this hearing is to see if these
    new investments are commensurate with some of the reforms.
    Since 1998, the total funding has gone up from $670,000 to over
    $1 billion.
        I do not have the percentage of increase, but you can see
    from this pie chart that it seems to be a very substantial
    increase in funding that has been a good decision by the local
    officials and with additional Federal funding.
        Senator Landrieu. Now, if this is not accurate, then we
    need also to know, you know, because that is what we are
    working off of. We are trying to get good, good solid data.
        But let us begin with the opening question. Would each one
    of you share your vision for the District's education system?
    Please begin by stating from your point of view what the
    schools look like today; what do you think they look like
    today, what should they look like in 10 years; one example of
    an area where you think the District has made significant
    progress and explain.
        What are the two or three greatest barriers to excellence,
    uniform excellence in education facing the District as of
    today? And what are you or the agency that you represent doing
    to address these barriers?
        If you could, do it in 5 minutes. First, if you would
    identify yourself. And, Peggy, we might want to start with you
    as the school board president, and I think that would be very
    helpful. And then we will go into a round of questions.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Fortunately, I had your revised
    questions and that is what, you know, this is. I think that I
    will go through it quickly. I will just take some highlights
    from it. And then I did write down this vision thing.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Peggy Cooper-Cafritz

        Good Morning, Chairperson Landrieu and members of the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am Peggy
    Cooper Cafritz, President of the D.C. Board of Education (Board). It is
    my pleasure to appear before you today to speak to the status of
    education in the Nation's Capital.
        The board, in its role of enacting policy and providing effective
    oversight, has made significant progress in the first fifteen months of
    our existence. To name just a few of our accomplishments:
      --We adopted a D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) strategic plan that has as
            its goal the total programmatic rebuilding of a very broken
            system;
      --We approved a DCPS master facilities plan designed to rebuild our
            schools;
      --For the first time in thirty years, we have broken ground on new
            construction or major modernization at six facilities--Miner
            Elementary School, Barnard Elementary School, Kelly-Miller
            Junior High School, Key Elementary School, Patterson Elementary
            School, and Randle Highlands Elementary School--and have
            completed construction of the new Oyster Bilingual Elementary
            School;
      --In an effort to ensure that all District public schools provide
            quality instruction, we began the charter revocation process in
            regard to four poorly-performing charter schools and
            successfully completed this process in one instance. Two of the
            schools are challenging us in court on the issue of whether or
            not they are entitled to a contested case hearing in regard to
            the proposed revocation. While it is our position that federal
            law clearly requires an informal hearing only, we would
            appreciate Congress' further clarifying this issue to prevent
            the charter revocation process from being mired in legal
            challenges in the future;
      --We approved policies for public/private partnerships, educational
            facilities planning, and school design and construction to
            ensure quality and maximize the use of private funds in our
            capital improvement program;
      --We approved board rules requiring the superintendent to submit a
            performance-based budget beginning in fiscal year 2004, to
            enhance accountability in our school system;
      --We approved the superintendent's central office transformation plan
            designed to streamline the DCPS central office and save DCPS
            $17 million annually;
      --We directed the superintendent to exclude from DCPS students with
            incomplete immunization records, a mandate that resulted in
            thousands of children being immunized. We brought the count
            from 41,000 unimmunized students to less than 20;
      --We approved rulemaking on corporal punishment written in
            conjunction with DCPS unions and children's advocates, in an
            effort to protect the rights and well-being of both DCPS
            students and staff;
      --We approved rules limiting reimbursement for special education
            independent evaluations and services, to bring these charges
            into line with standard costs in the field and prevent over-
            charging;
      --For the same reason, we approved rulemaking requiring special
            education attorneys both to submit their bills within forty-
            five days and to provide proof of legal representation when
            they file special education due process hearing requests;
      --We approved rulemaking broadening the scope of DCPS' prohibition on
            harassment and sexual harassment to safeguard the emotional and
            physical well-being of DCPS children and personnel;
      --We approved a complete overhaul of the chapter of board rules
            regarding special education that includes a provision mandating
            that DCPS place students in only those private schools that
            have contracted with the school system unless required by court
            order, hearing officer's determination or settlement agreement
            to do otherwise. This was done in an effort to ensure DCPS'
            ability to control costs and effectively monitor facilities
            housing our students with disabilities;
      --We enacted policy requiring DCPS teachers and principals to give
            timely notice (by April 30th) of whether or not they plan to
            return to the school system in the fall, to enhance our ability
            to project DCPS vacancies far enough in advance to allow for
            effective recruiting and staffing; and
      --We passed a policy that allows DCPS to create special education
            schools for level 4 and 5 students, in partnership with private
            providers, and then to apply for a charter for these schools.
            In addition, to encourage others to apply for charters for
            special education schools, we compressed the amount of time it
            takes to get a charter for such facilities.
        We are also very proud of the improvements that the superintendent
    has made during the new board's tenure. There is a new and better
    atmosphere in our schools, thanks to such improvements as dress codes
    for adults and children and behavioral codes for students. One of the
    administration's latest accomplishments is the completion of contract
    negotiations with the Washington Teachers' Union that will return
    management control to the superintendent. For example, it will enable
    the school system to institute a staggered bell time system, yielding
    millions of dollars in transportation savings. Under this agreement,
    our teachers will receive 5, 5, and 9 percent salary increases, but
    will still fall sadly short of being competitive with their
    counterparts in Montgomery and Arlington Counties.
        We are working with Elise Baach, special master for the Petties
    case pertaining to DCPS special education, to develop other fiscal
    efficiencies in our provision of services to students with
    disabilities. However, I am very concerned about the conflict between
    the pressure we are under to institute savings in special education and
    the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
    (IDEA), which prohibits any decrease in such spending from year to
    year. In order for us to obey the Council, the Chief Financial Officer,
    and Mayor, we will have to break federal law. The Board of Education
    seeks guidance from you on this issue.
        As DCPS improves the way all children are instructed, fewer
    students will require the specialized services provided to children
    with disabilities. Statistics from our transformation schools prove
    this. Referrals for special education evaluations at H.D. Cooke, for
    example, have decreased from thirty-one last school year to one in
    school year 2001-2002. Similarly, referrals at Turner Elementary School
    are down from thirty-eight to seven and Simon Elementary School's
    referrals have decreased from thirty-six to eleven in a single year.
    The accomplishment of which I am most proud is bringing health, mental
    health, and social services into our schools. We are only in about 25
    schools. We are severely limited by lack of funds, but hope to have
    this in all of our schools. Under the leadership of Deputy Mayor
    Carolyn Graham, Dr. Vance, and Dr. Seleznow, DCPS chief of staff, we
    are on our way to having the best holistic approach to education in the
    country.
        I was deliriously happy when I discovered that one of the questions
    you wanted an answer to was my vision for the schools. Moving from
    budget crisis to budget crisis and the need to address other problems
    with urgency have severely limited the opportunity to discuss vision.
    My vision is one of a sea change that will produce students and schools
    on a par with Montgomery, Arlington and Fairfax Counties. My vision
    activates change in three phases.
        First, I see an administration rebuilding the foundational
    infrastructure of DCPS, to include all basic systems, such as payroll
    and procurement. I envision this infrastructure being operated by a
    staff fully trained in all necessary computer programs.
        I also see our master facilities plan being placed on the fastest
    track humanly possible. How can we expect our children to go to school
    in our crumbling buildings when they see what everyone else has on
    television or on visits to non-DCPS schools? It is a horrible message
    to give to already fragile young egos shunned by much of society. I
    have a vision of you, Senator Landrieu, taking up the battle cry for a
    Marshall plan for the rebuilding of D.C. public schools. We cannot wait
    the 15-20 years that implementation of the facilities master plan will
    take.
        I envision us being bold, energetically solving problems, getting
    people like this year's Pritzker Prize winner, Glenn Murcutt, of
    Australia to work with DCPS to design a school or schools that are
    ``green friendly'' and environmentally sustainable, using new materials
    never used on schools but that are less expensive than the conventional
    bricks and mortar. I see us building beautiful schools that respect
    their surroundings and recognize that they are for students, not
    prisoners. The best architects charge the same fees as bad ones. The
    architectural firm of Devrouax and Purnell just built a beautiful
    building for Pepco. Let's extend such architectural beauty to our
    schools in southeast Washington.
        Second, I envision classrooms with high quality teachers who have
    met the requirements of the new federal education law, H.R. 1, the
    ``Leave No Child Behind Act''. These teachers are supported by a strong
    instructional leader, and teachers and principals are partners with
    parents who are engaged in their children's schools. In my vision,
    teachers are excited about teaching the students before them, and the
    students are eager to learn because their needs have been met and they
    are able to focus. I envision a K-12 core curriculum that ensures that
    each child is taught core subjects with equal rigor from neighborhood
    to neighborhood but also allows teachers to have enough freedom to
    bring their own creativity, knowledge, and magical touch to the
    classroom.
        In the third phase of my vision, I see all of the other elements
    critical to a good education fall into place. As a required part of the
    school day K-12, I see students participating in intramural sports,
    fitness programs, arts programs, intellectual games, and every
    extracurricular activity that exists at, for example, Montgomery Blair
    High School in Montgomery County. I imagine our school day ending at
    4:30 p.m. in elementary schools, 5:00 p.m. in middle and junior high
    schools, and 6:00 p.m. in high schools.
        And speaking of high schools, I would abolish the institution, as
    we know it today! Instead, I would allow high school students to test
    out of core subjects. We would have a cooperative program with our
    colleges and universities so that our students could graduate from high
    school having already completed two years of college.
        The core curriculum would be classically-based but would embrace
    afrocentrism and other racial and ethnic studies. Every high school
    student would take four core subjects--English, math, history and a
    foreign language--daily from 9:00-12:00 for four years, but would also
    have available a menu of additional vocational and academic
    opportunities from which he or she could select an educational and
    career path. It might be three years of advanced history courses or it
    might be going to one of our state-of-the-art vocational education
    centers to study management information systems or it might be
    attending a sports agency and development program. All courses would be
    taught with the same rigor from southeast to northwest.
        After junior high school, I see our high school teaching force
    becoming largely part-time (which, by the way, would help alleviate the
    current teaching shortage), giving DCPS the flexibility to, perhaps,
    have a former Senator who is now at Akin, Gump Come and teach a course
    in political science in a DCPS high school. The fate of the District's
    future rests on preparing young people to pursue all of the endeavors
    that being uniquely Washington requires, such as: foreign languages;
    tourism; federal court clerkships; and jobs as pollsters, Senate aides,
    or experts on terrorism. I could go on, but I hope you get the gist of
    my vision. It would be possible to select from many options. The city
    would be one big building and every DCPS high school student would own
    it, transversing it from the Potomac to the anacostia river, excitedly
    learning every day.
        Let me note that I am specifically answering your question. The
    Board of Education has not discussed or adopted my vision. We did, as a
    board, adopt the superintendent's strategic plan, and I fully support
    that. I must also emphasize that we are a policy board, not an
    operations board, so it is Dr. Vance, not I, who would have to do all
    the work required to make my vision a reality!
        Unfortunately, substantial obstacles stand in the way of DCPS'
    achieving my vision for the school system, most notably, a lack of
    resources. Despite significant increases in education funding approved
    by the Mayor and Council in recent years, we still fall far short of
    having the monies necessary to make all of the improvements required to
    provide our students with an education that is comparable to that
    provided in our surrounding jurisdictions. Just a cursory review of the
    numbers reveals why this is the case.
        (All of the DCPS numbers in my testimony were computed by an
    independent financial analyst in accordance with the methodology used
    by the metropolitan boards of education (MABE) in producing its annual
    report on expenditures of school systems in the Washington metropolitan
    area. The MABE report is the source of my data for neighboring
    jurisdictions. Its numbers include local education agency expenditures
    and 80 percent of certain grant funds.)
        While DCPS per-pupil expenditures are often described as among the
    highest in the country, our per pupil spending rate ($8,637 in fiscal
    year 2001) is, in fact, significantly lower than that of three of our
    suburban counterparts (Arlington--$11,254; Alexandria--$10,609; and
    Montgomery County--$9,063) and only slightly higher than that of
    Fairfax County ($8,553). Excluding special education costs, our per
    pupil expenditures ($7,031) lag even further behind.
        Moreover, as an urban school system with a largely decrepit
    infrastructure, we are forced to spend more for security and building
    maintenance than our wealthier neighbors. Add to that the facts that
    DCPS is still recovering from the draconian cuts that we experienced in
    the 1990's and that our students are much needier than those in the
    suburbs and it is clear why an fiscal year 2003 budget of $772 million
    will not make our students competitive with those of the surrounding
    jurisdictions.
        In fact, for all of the reasons set out above, as well as the
    astronomical sums that DCPS is forced to pay out for private school
    special education tuition and related costs, DCPS expenditures for
    local school instruction ($4,546 in 2000) fall far short of those of
    Alexandria ($6,132), Arlington ($6,347), and Montgomery County
    ($4,826). For these same reasons, DCPS funding for local school, as
    opposed to private, special education services ($5,929 in 2000) also
    lags behind that of Alexandria ($6,709), Arlington ($7,592), and
    Montgomery County ($7,662).
        Moreover, even as we fall farther and farther behind our
    neighboring jurisdictions in funding, our costs continue to soar.
    Implementation of the new H.R. 1, ``Leave No Child Behind Act'', for
    example, will have significant cost implications for the school system,
    as we strive to comply with the testing and personnel requirements in
    this legislation.
        Some say that the school system could go a long way toward solving
    its money problems by disposing of its ``excess'' space. However,
    recent studies suggest that the square footage of D.C. public schools
    has been over-estimated. Moreover, if our schools are to become the
    centers of neighborhood life that District residents want and need, and
    if DCPS students are to be educated inside of our city limits rather
    than in costly suburban private placements, the school system has, in
    fact, little if any extra space.
        Another ``solution'' to DCPS' underfunding that is sometimes
    offered is a suggestion that the school system trim its ``bloated
    bureaucracy.'' A review of the numbers in this regard reveals that, in
    reality, DCPS spends significantly less on central administrative costs
    (an average of $574 per pupil in fiscal year 2001) than Arlington
    ($2,747), Alexandria ($2,247), or Montgomery Country ($645).
        For all of these reasons, I ask that Congress to now provide DCPS
    with the additional funding that we so desperately need if my vision
    for the school system is to begin to become reality. Other District
    leaders are, justifiably, appealing to you for congressional
    representation and a return of the federal payment, and we applaud
    these efforts. However, those issues fall outside of the purview of the
    board and the DCPS administration. Our sole responsibility is to the
    children of the District of Columbia. With this in mind, we urge
    Congress to give us the fiscal resources that we need so that we, in
    turn, can provide the children of our Nation's Capital with the quality
    education that they deserve.
        We also need our own Chief Financial Officer for the school system.
    Dr. Vance must be able to manage well and know where every penny is
    spent. We, the board, cannot expect this if he does not have fiscal
    independence and the ability to protect DCPS coffers from the whims of
    the city's CFO. Most critically, however, a new plan must be devised
    for adequately funding District public schools.
        That concludes my prepared statement. Dr. Vance and I would be
    happy to answer any questions that you might have.

        Senator Landrieu. Well, that is okay. You do not have to--
    you can submit those answers for the record. I mean, you could
    just, off the top of your head, say what your vision is for the
    school system and one area where you think the District has
    made substantial progress; and then maybe just two areas that
    you, you know, feel we have really got to hone in on.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay.
        Senator Landrieu. And this is just really a free flowing
    discussion.

                               SPECIAL EDUCATION

        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. I think that the system has made
    significant progress in special education. The Board has
    completely overhauled the rules regarding special education. We
    are requiring private schools to have contracts with the system
    or they cannot be used, unless it is court ordered.
        Okay, we have also come up with standard charges, so that
    lawyers and evaluation and, you know, service providers cannot
    charge us escalating and ridiculous amounts.
        We have approved a way for the superintendent of the school
    system to engage in partnership with private providers to
    create schools and apply for charters. We have also created a
    way to compress the time that it takes to get a charter, and we
    are encouraging others to come through with charter
    applications so that we will be able to create enough beds, for
    example, for us to bring back from Minnesota and other far-
    flung places our students who are sent away in special
    education.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay, if I could just ask a question. I
    do not know, Mike, if we want to ask questions as we go or have
    everybody make their statements.
        Why do we not have everybody make their statements, because
    it may get a little bit too detailed, and we want to try to
    stay in the big picture. But I will make a note of some of the
    questions on special ed, and I think Senator DeWine--but go
    ahead and continue.
        What are the two barriers that you might consider to the
    reform--two of the most significant barriers that your agency
    is facing?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. The two most significant barriers are
    the way that we are funded, which leads to tremendous
    misunderstanding about what we have and what we do not have.
    Let me see if I can find this, just so you can hear this.
        Senator Landrieu. That would be very helpful if we could
    understand what that barrier is.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. While I am looking for this, another
    thing that I wanted to point out: With the schools that we have
    reformed, we only had money to do nine--they are called the T9
    schools. We have had a decrease in the number of kids referred
    to special education because now everybody is getting a good
    education.
        At one school, it decreased from 31 to 1, 25 to 7, and I
    have a whole list of that in my testimony. I just want to find
    this.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Oh, okay, good.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead. Take your time. If you need to,
    I can come back to it, if you want.
        Okay.

                              SCHOOL EXPENDITURES

        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. I have it. Okay, all right.
        Okay, let me--all of the DCPS numbers in my testimony were
    computed by an independent financial analyst in accordance with
    the methodology used by the Metropolitan Boards of Education,
    MABE, which is located in Montgomery County--yes, in Montgomery
    County.
        In producing its annual report on expenditures of school
    systems in the Washington Metropolitan Area, the MABE report is
    the source of my data for neighboring jurisdictions and D.C.
    Its numbers include local education agency expenditures and 80
    percent of grant funds.
        Just so you will understand, MABE takes it takes the
    amounts of money that school systems spend and they break it
    down so that apples are compared to apples, and oranges are
    compared to oranges.
        Senator Landrieu. And what is your total from that? What is
    your district total per student on----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. While DCPS per-pupil expenditures
    are often described as among the highest in the country, our
    per pupil spending rate, $8,637 in 2001 is in fact
    significantly lower than that of our suburban counterparts.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. It is $8,000 what----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Just a moment. $8,637.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That is fine. We will just----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Arlington----
        Senator Landrieu. That is okay. We will just take that and
    try to reconcile the numbers and see.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. And I have the surrounding
    jurisdictions in my testimony.
        Senator Landrieu. In your testimony, that would be great.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Right, yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And we can then take those numbers and
    try to reconcile them with ours. That is very important.
        So your biggest reform is the special ed reform, and your
    biggest barrier is funding mechanism for the school board. Did
    you have a second barrier, or do you want to come back to that?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. There is--I mean, the biggest thing is
    funding, okay.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. And the biggest thing is the tremendous
    misunderstanding that exists about our funding. I mean, just
    for example, if I could get somebody--can I bring this up to
    you?
        Senator Landrieu. Oh, get somebody to bring it up to me.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. But the----
        Senator Landrieu. But we can come back to that, because
    that is part of what this hearing is about, to try to help us
    clarify some of these funding numbers.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Right, right.
        Senator Landrieu. But why do we not come back to that in
    the question and answers? And let me move to Dr. Vance, because
    we want to try to stay on schedule. If you could share that
    with----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. May I please, before you move on,
    speak to my vision?
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me come back to you, Peggy,
    because I want to take everybody----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. All right.
        Senator Landrieu. I want to give everybody some time, and
    if we take too much--but I promise you, we will come back in
    the question and answer.
        Dr. Vance, would you just give a brief overview of your
    vision, where you think the school system is now, where would
    like to see it and actually believe it could be in ten years?
    What is the greatest reform you think has been accomplished or
    is in the process, and what are the two barriers that you see?
    STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL L. VANCE, SUPERINTENDENT,
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
        Dr. Vance. I think simply stated, my vision is one that can
    be shared with you, and it goes like this.
        My vision is for us to have a school system where parents
    of children who are school age can stick their chests out and
    say, you know, ``I am proud, because my youngsters attend a
    DCPS public school.'' That has to be the vision.
        That is the vision of every school system I have worked
    with. That is the vision of every school system where I have
    been a superintendent. And I see no reason why that cannot
    eventually be the vision for our school system here.
        I believe we are set out on that course with, what I would
    consider to be, some very strategic planning. I am aware of the
    fact that we have made some gains.
        But in a moment of candor, the longstanding, deeply
    entrenched challenges remain, unacceptable test scores--and
    they are unacceptable--inadequate infrastructure that is broken
    and one which we are in the process of correcting; ineffective
    systems that have been allowed to exist; other challenges such
    as the much publicized recent budget ills that have been
    unearthed along the way.
        Yet, I insist that we are undeterred and will remain
    focused on the highest priority of this school system and any
    school system, and that has to be student achievement. And the
    true measure of a quality school system will always be the
    success of our students.
        This is our motivation in school safety. It is our
    motivation in procurement and finances. It is our motivation in
    professional development and human resources. It is our
    motivation in transformation schools. And it is our motivation
    in the content of our curriculum.
        So to me, this is our motivation in every dollar that we
    spend, and that is to facilitate classroom teaching and
    learning, and the success of our children with their various
    levels of achievement.
        That, in effect, is where I think we are now. And those are
    some of our immediate short-range goals and some of the
    challenges.
        But I do think that, to me, our greatest accomplishment of
    the past year has been the extent to which this entire city at
    all levels of government and higher education joined together
    to work with the school system to develop a strategic plan for
    the transformation of our school system, which placed the
    school system as one of the highest priorities in the continued
    renaissance of the District of Columbia.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Dr. Vance. And there is a plan simply stated under the
    guidance of McKenzie and Company, that impacts the key building
    blocks in making any school system successful.
        One is what you mentioned, develop, attract and retain
    excellent principals and teachers. Last year, in a period of 1
    year, you will recall we fired almost 600 teachers who were not
    qualified.
        Working with Teach for America and other organizations and
    our human resource department, we hired, we believe to be, very
    highly qualified teachers, over 650 of them.
        We also went through the process of hiring and selecting 41
    new principals. Just about 25 percent of those principals were
    recruited from outside of the District of Columbia. And we have
    programs for their continued development and induction into our
    school system.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Paul L. Vance

        Good morning, Chairman Landrieu, members of the subcommittee, and
    others in attendance. I am Paul L. Vance, Superintendent of the D.C.
    Public Schools and am pleased to appear before you this morning to
    share with you the progress of our school district. In the past year,
    we have undertaken many administrative actions and initiatives that are
    effectively moving the D.C. Public Schools toward our transformational
    goals, the school reforms envisioned by the leaders of this city, and
    the vision of President Bush and Secretary Paige in which no child is
    left behind.
        Approximately 1 year ago, our administration was steeped in a
    comprehensive assessment of school operations and a host of exciting
    new beginnings. We had just put a senior executive team in place, had
    kicked-off the development of our strategic business plan and had
    recently announced our new D.C. Teaching Fellows. We were publicizing
    corporate and community support for our new Technology High School at
    McKinley and were planning a comprehensive, extended day summer school
    program.
        One year later, the planted seeds have yielded its first fruits.
    Our business plan is completed and is now guiding special education
    reform and the transformation of central administration. The response
    to the Teaching Fellows program exceeded all expectations, bringing
    many gifted mid-year professionals to our classrooms. The principal
    hired for the new Technology High School is now overseeing all phases
    of this project in preparation for opening in September 2003. The new
    Oyster Bilingual School, our first new construction project in over 20
    years and product of a creative public-private partnership, opened in
    September. And, our highly successful summer school program became a
    model for the expanded day programs and opportunities that will become
    standard in all transformed schools.
        We are pleased, but ever so cognizant that our visible progress
    remains in the realm of beginnings. The long-standing, deeply
    entrenched challenges continue--unacceptable test scores, inadequate
    infrastructure and broken, ineffective systems. Other challenges, such
    as our recent budget ills, have been unearthed along the way. Yet, we
    are undeterred and remain focused on highest priority of academic
    achievement. The true measure of a quality school system will always be
    the success of its students. This is our motivation in facilities and
    school safety, in procurement and finances, in professional development
    and human resources, in our transformation schools and the content of
    our curriculum. This is our motivation in every dollar that we spend--
    to facilitate classroom instruction, to improve academic achievement
    and to expand educational opportunities for all students. We simply
    cannot claim success until the majority of our students are proficient
    or advanced in both reading and math and until every child's education
    fully enables that child to stake out his or her place in the world.
        We are years from complete reform, but we have exhibited a
    commitment to accountability and higher expectations. This year, in the
    name of accountability we undertook many things--some new, others long-
    deferred. The successful immunization of roughly 21,000 in period of
    just over 2 months began with a tough decision by the Board of
    Education to hold ourselves accountable for the fundamental well being
    of children. This was a significant milestone in the perpetuation of
    high standards and accountability, and commitment to community and
    government working harmoniously.
        I briefly mention other noteworthy accomplishments.
      --This year, we got the school year off to a good start by certifying
            to the Board and Council that all ordered textbooks were
            delivered to every school in time for school opening;
      --This school year, we enforced certification for ALL TEACHERS, even
            before the new ESEA authorization, and strengthened teacher
            recruitment so that we were successfully able to hire 527 new
            teachers with improved staff work, better use of technology and
            marketing and support from our D.C. Teaching Fellows Program
            and partnership with Teach for America;
      --This year, we focused on schools leadership and developed, in
            partnership with the Council for Basic Education, the
            Principals Instructional Leadership Academy that included a
            Summer Institute for senior high principals and the 39 new
            principals that we hired;
      --This year, we focused on high schools with our blue-ribbon panel,
            comprehensive assessment that yielded important recommendations
            to guide senior high school transformation;
      --This year, our new Advanced Placement Office that has increased AP
            class enrollment, teacher training, and the number of students
            taking the SAT;
      --This year, we expanded programs for girl's athletics to move us
            closer to Title IX equity;
      --And this year, we have begun to more effectively link key
            components in the academic arena, e.g., state-of-the-art
            curriculum, standards, assessments, benchmarking, professional
            development and state-of-the-art technology.
        The major undertakings of which we are most proud are school
    transformation and school facilities. The major undertaking that
    continues to offer the greatest challenges is special education. But,
    here, too, we are undaunted and are confident that we will finally put
    all of the pieces in place.
      --For school transformation, we began operating nine transformation
            schools referred to as T-9 Schools. Transformation is a fast
            track approach reserved, initially, for the lowest performing
            schools so that these schools will move more quickly toward
            overall institutional reform. The focus of these first months
            has been both on literacy and professional development so that
            the proven instructional models that are being implemented in
            the T-9 schools are implemented effectively. The focus on
            literacy helps to establish an appropriate academic environment
            and is intended to give students the foundation essential to
            improved achievement. It is early, but we are beginning to see
            signs of the multi-faceted benefits of fixing the problem
            rather than treating the symptoms. We are anxious to assess one
            full year of operation as we prepare to support more schools in
            similar fashion;
      --In the area of school construction, we have made substantial
            progress in rectifying the unacceptable condition of our school
            facilities, holding ground- breakings for six school
            construction and modernization projects, with several more on
            the horizon. These are the first fruits of implementation of
            our facilities master plan which calls for the modernization
            and replacement of 143 facilities over a 10-12 year period and
            a $2.4 billion investment in our children and in the future of
            this city. But, it is important to note that we continue to
            face challenges as we move toward our school facility
            improvement goals. Space in schools and former school
            buildings, once viewed as underutilized and surplus, is needed
            throughout the city for the in-house special education programs
            that will meet student needs, cut transportation requirements
            and reduce private tuition costs. Space is also needed to
            accommodate fluctuations in class sizes, to house wraparound
            service providers that will become the hallmark of
            transformation schools, and to serve as swing space for
            students displaced by new construction.
      --Finally, to meet our greatest challenge of special education, we
            are implementing a seven-point plan for Special Education
            Reform. The plan has seven strategic points, each with a set of
            outcomes, measures, cost savings, as well as management
            initiatives, detailed action plans, timelines and deliverables.
            The seven strategic points are: Accept responsibility at all
            levels to serve students at their local schools; strengthen
            DCPS internal special education capacity and offerings; improve
            management of the use of non-public providers; improve
            management and operations within the Office of Special
            Education; effectively manage transportation; establish new
            legal, legislative and policy strategies; and build creative
            partnerships with other agencies.
        We are currently finalizing partnerships with private providers to
    serve our special needs students within the city at significantly lower
    cost than private providers in surrounding jurisdictions. We are also
    just beginning to implement a staggered bell schedule for SY2002-2003,
    now possible after the re-negotiation of the contract with the teachers
    union. We continue to improve our Special Education Tracking System
    (SETS), which was audited at 94 percent accuracy at 128 of 152 schools
    earlier this year, to provide better services and funding to serve our
    students with special needs. And, notably, we are working with leaders
    from the Mayor's office, the D.C. City Council, OCFO, and other city
    agencies to form a Task Force on Special Education that will help to
    monitor, support, and implement the most complex, cross-cutting
    components of special education reform.
        Our progress on many fronts is pursuant to our business plan and
    transformational goals that are essential to placing the DCPS house in
    order. The plan is focused on the performance and measurement that
    represent the imposition of high standards that will yield long-term
    results. This is a mode of operation--a way of doing business where by
    every opportunity is maximized to the advantage of students. While we
    cannot accomplish everything at once and as quickly as we would hope,
    given the urgency of our tasks, we are confident that if we stay the
    course, knowing what to do and how to do it will get us there. The
    longstanding challenges can and will be resolved with due diligence and
    fiscal responsibility.
        We are working with the leadership and members of the Board of
    Education, the Council and our Mayor to build a rock solid foundation
    of resources and support, and to solve our budgetary woes once and for
    all. We are pleased with the support we are receiving from the
    community at large and believe that our sharing of information with our
    many constituencies and overall transparency are multiplying our early
    successes through heightened awareness and increased participation.
        We move confidently toward a future, step-by-step, that is within
    our reach. But, beyond the range of our 3-5 year business plan and the
    milestones we will have passed, a new school system will emerge that is
    responsive and relevant to the needs of all children and the needs of
    our community. This will be a school district in which the students
    with special needs are served in such way that education for all
    children becomes equal opportunity and student accomplishment. This
    will be a school district where schools are synonymous with the
    enterprise of learning and those activities and services that support
    this process. This will be a school district where parents are truly
    partners, and one in which the entire community feels ownership.
        We are pleased to have been given this opportunity to make a
    difference in this community and to do right by our children. We are
    appreciative of your interests and involvement and would be pleased to
    address any specific questions you might have.
        Thank you.

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me ask this: You then stated
    that the greatest reform has been the unity, the development of
    a strategic plan and the unity around that specific plan. And
    then you cited two specific examples, the hiring of 600 better
    qualified, more energetic, more motivated teachers, and 41 new
    principals.
        What are the two barriers that you see, the largest,
    looming barriers from your view as superintendent, and how are
    you trying to address these two specific barriers?
        Dr. Vance. My perspective on that question is, barrier
    number one is that the District of Columbia and the school
    system are really not seen as competitive. They are really not
    seen as the places where bright, energetic people who, one, who
    are new to the profession or those who are at mid-careers and
    choose to make a change in their profession and to come into
    education, do not see the District as a viable alternative that
    has history to it.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes. And what would the second one be?
        Dr. Vance. The second one would be an internal feeling
    amongst the school system employees, which means that ``No one
    really loves us''----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Dr. Vance [continuing]. Or ``No one really cares for us. No
    one is really preoccupied over us, our well-being, and what we
    have been doing over the years to try and to keep the school
    system together.'' And so I would say the second serious
    challenge is the level of morale amongst our employees----
        Senator Landrieu. Low morale.
        Dr. Vance [continuing]. And particularly of those of some
    standing and tenure in the school system.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Graham.
    STATEMENT OF CAROLYN GRAHAM, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR CHILDREN,
                YOUTH AND FAMILIES, GOVERNMENT OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Ms. Graham. Good morning, again, Senators Landrieu and
    DeWine. On behalf of Mayor Williams, I want to applaud you for
    this hearing this morning and certainly our presence here to
    begin what we are hoping to be an ongoing dialogue with you and
    with the city around the reform of public education here.
        Mayor Williams's vision for public education in the
    District of Columbia is that of a vital, effective system that
    is made up of school choice, which gives every child access to
    a high quality education in a safe, healthy environment.
        That vision recognizes that all children must come to
    school prepared to learn, so we are not looking at school as
    beginning within the walls of the public system, but rather
    within the context of community, which means schools now must
    be linked in a new and a different way to the community process
    and learning.
        It is a vision that recognizes that all children are taught
    to be responsible citizens and they make valuable contributions
    to their local, as well as global, communities; and that all
    children have access to adequate social support that will
    support their ongoing learning. And it is a vision of a system
    in which teachers and principals can both inspire and be
    inspired, and where parents are viewed as partners in the
    learning process.
        It is a vision of a system where all school buildings are
    safe and sound and adequately equipped with modern technology.
    And finally, it is a vision of a system that exemplifies the
    health and vitality of this capital city, one that can become a
    national, indeed an international model for success and
    achievement, attracting and producing the best and the
    brightest educators and students that the world has to offer.
        We believe that the school system now is in the process of
    change. It is in flux. It is a system that is embracing now
    many of its own historical issues and problems. Actually, many
    of those issues have come to light.
        Certainly under Dr. Vance's leadership, Mr. Chavous'
    leadership on the Council, and Ms. Peggy Cooper-Cafritz's
    leadership on the Board, the administration has begun to
    embrace the issues, the historically embedded issues of the
    system. And I believe it has begun to move, to move forward in
    making the necessary changes in the infrastructures that Dr.
    Vance alluded to.
        I believe that some of, or one of the major achievements of
    this system over the past year and a half or so has been the
    unity that has emerged with all of the branches of government,
    committed to the one goal, and that is the reform of the
    overall public education system and the embrace of systems that
    not only begin, as I said, in community, but also transcend the
    walls of the public system itself, looking at the relationship
    between lifelong learning that finds a place in out-of-school-
    time activities for children and also beginning now to
    understand the vital role that parents play in the overall
    strengthening and learning process of children.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Carolyn Graham

        Good morning Chairwoman Landrieu, and members of the Committee. My
    name is Carolyn Graham, Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families and
    Elders in the District of Columbia, and I am here to testify on behalf
    of Mayor Anthony Williams. I am accompanied by Mr. Gregory McCarthy,
    Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Legislative Affairs. It is a
    pleasure to be here today to discuss the Mayor's vision for public
    education and for the children and youth of the District of Columbia.
    The Vision
        Mayor Anthony Williams' vision for public education is a vital,
    effective a system of traditional and charter schools that gives every
    child access to high quality education in healthy and safe
    environments. It is a system in which all students: (1) come to school
    ready to learn, and leave with the necessary skills to be successful in
    today's technologically advanced society; (2) are taught to be
    responsible citizens and to make valuable contributions to their local
    and global communities; and (3) have access to adequate social services
    to support their learning. It is a system in which teachers and
    principals can both inspire and be inspired, and where parents are
    partners in their children's academic development. It is a system where
    all school buildings are safe, sound, and adequately equipped with
    modern technology. And, finally, it is a system that exemplifies the
    health and vitality of this capital city, one that can become a
    national model of success and achievement, attracting and producing the
    best and brightest educators and students.
        Recognizing that progress has been made since 1995 when Congress
    passed the D.C. School Reform Act, the District is still faced with
    many challenges. Many students enter school with developmental
    challenges that have not been effectively identified and addressed.
    Moreover, we recognize that the District must do more to improve
    student achievement scores in kindergarten through 12th grade. In
    school year (SY) 2000-2001, some 25 percent of District of Columbia
    Public Schools (DCPS) students scored below basic on the Stanford-9
    Reading test and 36 percent scored below basic in math. The more
    significant challenges include a rapidly growing special education
    population, increasing demands for adequate facilities for both
    traditional and charter schools, and the need to retain a highly
    qualified teaching staff.
        Indeed, the District is a long way from fully realizing the Mayor's
    vision. Mayor Williams looks forward to continued collaboration among
    his Administration, the City Council, the D.C. Board of Education, the
    D.C. Public Charter School Board, the DCPS Superintendent, and other
    city leaders, to make our combined goals a reality.
    Priorities for Achieving the Vision
        Educating our children continues to be the first and foremost
    priority of Mayor Williams' Administration. Indeed, this is absolutely
    central to the Mayor's broader effort to expand our economy, attract
    new residents, and revitalize our neighborhoods. The Mayor is focusing
    on a number of goals in the area of education that will help to achieve
    his vision. These goals support the reform agenda and other initiatives
    of the Board of Education and the Superintendent, and marshal the
    resources of the executive branch around the following:
                Adequately Funding Public Education
        The Mayor, with the support of the City Council, approved
    significant budget increases for schools. Funding for public education
    has increased by 44 percent over the last 4 years; going from $558
    million in fiscal year 1999 to $800 million in fiscal year 2002.
    Moreover, the Mayor's fiscal year 2003 proposed budget, currently
    before the District Council is $906 million, another increase of 13
    percent over fiscal year 2002.
        The Mayor has maintained his commitment to fund public education
    through a transparent, sound process. Prior to the enactment of the
    Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (``Formula''), funding for the DCPS
    was based on the expressed needs of the system and the District's
    ability--at that time--to meet those needs within limited existing
    revenues. The Formula, as prescribed in the District of Columbia School
    Reform Act, is a budget development and execution process that was
    designed to protect DCPS from the public competition over scare
    resources. It provides a more structured, data-driven, equitable
    approach to funding both DCPS and public charter schools. The fiscal
    year 2003 proposed funding level is largely based on an analysis of the
    Formula conducted by the District's State Education Office (SEO), and
    includes an 11 percent increase in the Formula's foundation, which is
    the minimum amount a funding each student receives. It also adjusts the
    funding level for special education services. Although the District is
    still behind some of our neighboring jurisdictions on per pupil
    spending, implementation of the revised Formula will move us closer to
    parity.
        One of our biggest challenges with respect to financing public
    education is special education. The special education population is
    approximately 17 percent of the overall DCPS student population, while
    it is 11 percent of the public charter school population. The cost of
    educating special education students, particularly those in non-public
    placements outside of the District, far exceeds that of general
    education students. Transportation and non-public school tuition costs
    for special education students are a huge strain on the District's
    budget. However, the District is coming together to aggressively
    improve the operations of special education. To provide the
    comprehensive support that DCPS needs, the Mayor, in collaboration with
    Councilmember Chavous and the Board of Education, is creating a
    Taskforce on Special Education.
                Supporting a Vibrant System of Public School Choice
        Washington is home to one of the most vibrant charter school
    movements in the country. The D.C. charter school law is rated among
    the top five in the Nation by the Center for Education Reform. Since
    1996, both the Board of Education and the D.C. Public Charter School
    Board, our two chartering authorities, have approved a total of 38
    charters. Currently, there are 36 public charter schools operating on
    39 campuses in the District with a total enrollment of more than 8,000
    students.
        The vitality of charter schools is testimony to the Mayor's
    commitment to competition within a system that give parents choice. Our
    charter schools offer a variety of educational programs including math
    and science, technology, arts, English as and Second Language (ESL) and
    dual language immersion, character development, public policy, and
    college preparatory study. They also offer many approaches to learning
    including individualized instruction, small academies, and schools
    within schools. Despite our efforts, the problem of adequate facilities
    to house our newest public schools still exists. The District has not
    been able to meet the need or demand for space, but we are working with
    both the public charter schools and DCPS to resolve the problem.
        The charter school movement is very young and it is still too early
    to judge the long-term success of these institutions. We anxiously
    await the completion of the 5th-Year Review currently underway at two
    of our first charter schools. Several other schools will be up for 5th-
    Year Review within the next year.
                Providing Healthy, Safe, Technologically Appropriate
                        Facilities for Every Child
        The desire for quality school facilities continues to be one of the
    key priorities of District citizens. The Facility Master Plan developed
    by DCPS in December 2000 outlines an ambitious 10 to 15 year proposal
    to ensure that all DCPS schools are safe, sound, educationally
    appropriate and efficient to operate. Currently, there are 150
    operating elementary, middle, junior high, high schools and special
    education centers in DCPS. The average age of these schools is over 65
    years, with eight schools constructed in the 19th century. Oyster
    Elementary School, which was completed in fall of 2000, was the first
    school to be built in over 20 years. Some 70 percent of DCPS schools
    have been determined to be in poor physical condition.
        The bulk of DCPS buildings were designed for a different society.
    There are no health suites, no early childhood classrooms, and, in some
    cases, no lunchrooms. These schools were not designed with summer
    school in mind, many are not fully accessible to persons with
    disabilities, and play and parking spaces around the buildings are less
    than adequate. Because most of the schools were built prior to the use
    of modern technology, they are not wired for Internet access or
    outfitted to meet today's technology needs. In addition to limited
    technology, many schools face problems with basic systems such as
    windows, roofs, boilers, and ventilation systems. More importantly most
    schools lack educational amenities such as science labs, art rooms, and
    up-to-date career and technology facilities, etc.
        The Facility Master Plan represents the largest school construction
    program in generations, and it reflects the urgency ascribed to
    rebuilding our schools after decades of disinvestment. The projected
    cost of implementing the Facility Master Plan, which will modernize or
    replace 143 schools over the next 10 to 15 years, is more than $2
    billion.
        There is $183.4 million in the fiscal year 2003 DCPS capital
    budget, and a total of $694 million over the next 6 years. In order to
    align the District's capital budget with identified facility needs
    within the proposed 10 to 15 year timeframe, additional funding will be
    required in future years. Because of structural funding problems, such
    as the District's limited bond and debt capacity, as well as the fact
    that DCPS must compete with other city agencies for limited capital
    dollars, full funding of the Facility Master Plan will present major
    challenges. District leaders have begun a dialogue around ways to
    augment current capital funding levels. One promising solution is the
    Fair Federal Compensation Act (H.R. 3923) introduced by the District's
    Delegate, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and supported by Mayor
    Williams and District Council Chair Linda Cropp. This bill will create
    a dedicated infrastructure fund to be used for funding capital
    improvements, including school construction.
                Supporting DCPS Efforts to Attract School Leadership for
                        the 21st Century by Recruiting and Retaining
                        Outstanding Principals and Teachers
        Teachers are one of our city's most treasured resources. We cannot
    afford to lose our best teachers because they are tempted by better
    salaries and working conditions in neighboring counties. In an attempt
    to attract and retain good teachers, the Mayor has dedicated
    significant resources to more adequately compensate our teaching staff.
    He has supported a 20 percent increase in teacher salaries over the
    next 3 years. This proposed funding level will bring the District of
    Columbia closer to parity with surrounding jurisdictions.
        Other efforts to improve the quality of our teaching staff include
    the D.C. Teaching Fellows program, which attracts professionals from a
    variety of careers. These new teachers bring their experiences,
    knowledge and record of achievement to the classroom and positively
    affect the lives of students. Teaching Fellows receive financial
    incentives including signing bonuses, reduced mortgage and low/no down
    payment programs for home buying, educational awards to assist with
    tuition costs, vouchers for classroom supplies and cancellation or
    deferment of student loans. In addition, under the leadership of the
    Board and with the support of the Mayor, DCPS has successfully
    implemented the LEAD Principal program, which will recruit and train a
    cadre of highly qualified principals.
                Supporting DCPS Efforts to Turn Around Low-Performing
                        Schools Through Wrap-Around Services and Out-of-
                        School Time Programming
        In support of the DCPS's Transforming Low-Performing Schools
    initiative, the Williams Administration launched a partnership with the
    DCPS, called Transforming Schools into Neighborhood Places. This effort
    brings together two essential goals: (1) providing an array of social
    services in a community-based setting; and (2) integrating social
    services around schools to improve the lives of children and families.
    With the support of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and other
    philanthropic organizations, D.C. Government agencies will provide an
    array of support programs including on-site mental health services,
    recreation programs, and literacy at nine schools that have shown four
    continuous years of low- or stagnated-performance on academic tests.
    The Department of Mental Health has already begun providing mental
    health services in the Spingarn cluster of the DCPS system and will
    expand services into each Transformation School.
        An integrated data management system, called the Safe Passages
    Information System (SPIS) is being created to support the Transforming
    Schools into Neighborhood Places partnership. The Safe Passages
    Information System will enable the District to better track services
    being delivered to children throughout the District of Columbia. The
    effort is the initial phase of a redesign of the human services
    delivery system that will be focused on integration and coordination of
    data-sharing across agencies.
        To increase the availability of structured programs available to
    youth during the critical hours of 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily, Mayor
    Williams created the Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
    (The Trust) in 1999, which provides out-of-school time programming to
    children and youth in the District. The Trust Corporation is an
    independent, nonprofit organization incorporated to ``. . . increase
    the quality, quantity, and accessibility of services,'' particularly in
    the areas of early childhood development, out-of-school time programs,
    and youth entrepreneurship opportunities, by leveraging public and
    private funds. To date, the District has provided more than $22.5
    million to the Trust, which funds more than 70 community-based
    organizations throughout the District. During fiscal year 2002 alone,
    21 community-based organizations were added to the partnership of
    grantees. The Trust Corporation reports that over 1,500 children and
    families will be served through these new awards. Two of the programs
    selected this year serve as parent centers, and six were selected for
    literacy initiatives.
        Much of the Trust Corporation's efforts center on residents east of
    the Anacostia River in Wards 6, 7, and 8. Each Trust grantees has
    specific areas of focus. Early Childhood Development grantee partners
    focus on parent education, social services, and the immunization and
    health of very young children (newborn to 5 years of age) to ensure
    these children are ready to learn. Out-of-School Time grantee partners
    engage older children and youth in stimulating and enriching curriculum
    in the critical hours before and after school, weekends, holidays and
    summers. Youth ages 12-21 benefit from the career training
    opportunities and personal development experience offered by Youth
    Entrepreneurship Trust Corporation grantee partners. These grantee
    partners offer a tremendous variety of innovative programs across the
    District, each with a unique approach to quality programming. In
    addition to funding the Trust, the District provided $12 million to
    D.C. Public Schools to provide before and after-school programs to
    District youth. During the summer of 2001, day long academic and
    enrichment programs were available to all children in the District at
    more than 110 District schools.
                Fostering Effective, Structured Interagency Collaboration
        While the Transforming Schools Initiative is a prime example of the
    renewed commitment to our interagency collaboration, the District is
    also launching an interagency initiative designed to create a more
    coordinated approach to the provision of literacy services. According
    to the District's State Education Agency--Adult Education Office, 37
    percent of the District's adult residents are reading at or below the
    third grade level. In an effort to ensure that adults have access to
    quality learning services that enable them to actively participate and
    fulfill their roles as parents, workers and citizens--through a
    combination of adult education, child education, interactive parent-
    child activities, and parenting classes--the District and the Workforce
    Investment Council (``WIC'') are spearheading city-wide family and
    workplace literacy initiatives. Through the partnership with WIC, a
    Literacy Coordinating Council will be established to use existing and
    new resources more effectively.
        The WIC is an existing entity that was named by Mayor Williams to
    serve as the District's Workforce Investment Board, as required under
    the Workforce Investment Act. WIC is a private-public partnership
    comprised of key business, education, labor, government and community
    leaders to ensure that the District's workforce needs are met.
        Agencies under the Children, Youth, Families and Elders Cluster and
    the WIC will continue to work collaboratively and employ a multi-facet
    approach to increase family and workplace literacy throughout the
    District of Columbia. To provide just one example of this type of
    collaboration--in fiscal year 2001, the Department of Human Services,
    D.C. Public Libraries, the District's State Education Agency, the
    Department of Employment Services, the Workforce Investment Council and
    many private sector employers held the District's first 3K Literacy
    Walk. A series of book readings and reviews followed and interagency
    partners worked together on a regional book collection drive. The
    Williams Administration would like to see this type of collaboration on
    literacy initiatives continued and expanded upon over the next three
    years.
                Expanding early childhood intervention, such as increasing
                        child care slots, and opening parent development
                        centers
        The District has developed more than 9,261 new childcare slots for
    TANF and low-income families in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002
    we are aiming to increase this number by approximately 500 slots. To
    improve the quality of programming the Office of Early Childhood
    Development is encouraging more child development centers to seek
    national accreditation by offering a Tiered Payment System that awards
    higher subsidy payments to centers that are nationally accredited. The
    Tiered system categorizes child development and Head Start centers as
    either Bronze, Silver and Gold based upon their implementation of
    accreditation standards that focus on teacher certification,
    information technology application and other key indicators. The
    Department of Parks and Recreation is leading the way by having
    achieved national accreditation for more than 20 of its 21 child
    development centers.
        Parent development programs are also essential to ensuring that all
    children and youth live in healthy, stable and supportive families. The
    District, through the Department of Health and the Trust Corporation
    have emphasized parental readiness by offering innovative support
    programs for parents, especially parents of newborns. The Department of
    Health offers parental support through its Newborn Home Visitation
    programs which offers home visits to parents of newborns within 48
    hours of discharge from the area's major birthing hospitals--Columbia
    Hospital for Women, Howard University Hospital, Georgetown Hospital,
    Providence Hospital, the Washington Hospital Center, Greater Southeast
    Hospital and George Washington Hospital. The Children Youth Investment
    Trust also funds 8 early childhood/parent development centers
    throughout the District to provide support for parents of children ages
    newborn to 5 years.
                                   conclusion
        Much has changed over the last few years, as our school system
    emerged from crisis to steady and measurable progress. Perhaps the most
    significant change is that the city's elected and appointed
    leadership--the Schools, the Board of Education, the Executive, and the
    City Council--are working together closely to advance a reform agenda.
    The Board and Superintendent Paul Vance have made early strides in
    improving education and promoting a sense of hope and reform in the
    system. Top-level staff are similarly equipped to provide effective
    leadership.
        I have attempted to outline the Mayor's vision for education, and
    how the Administration has set out to achieve these ambitious goals. To
    date, effective partnerships have been formed with the Board and
    Superintendent and the Williams Administration around critical issues
    in the school system such as transforming low-performing schools, child
    immunization, and special education. The City Council, particularly
    through the efforts of Councilmember Kevin Chavous, has been very
    supportive of this work. As we move forward, we must continue to work
    jointly to solve the challenges ahead of us. We will also be calling on
    the support of the Congress as we continue to make strides and tackle
    obstacles.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you and I welcome
    any questions at this time.

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. You cited the specific advancement.
    What are the two barriers that, from your position, you see as
    substantial barriers to achieving the vision that you just
    outlined?
        Ms. Graham. We must have significant capital investments
    and new facilities in the system. The first new building that
    was built in over 20 years came on line this year in the
    District of Columbia, realizing the goal certainly of the
    capital plan to create healthy learning environments for
    children that are community centered and linked will be
    important.
        The next most significant, if not maybe the first
    significant, issue facing this system is, of course, special
    education, and the relationship of that and the financing of
    that, and the way in which--the fact that the school system
    does not have, at this point in time, the adequate
    infrastructure to do the kind of Medicaid billing and whatnot
    that supports this, the financing of special education in the
    City.
        It is a system that has largely been over the past years
    defined as a system that is a special education system. We must
    flip that paradigm. It must be a system that embraces the needs
    of all children.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chavous.
    STATEMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER KEVIN P. CHAVOUS, CHAIR,
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, COUNCIL OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Mr. Chavous. Thank you, Senators, Senator DeWine and Madam
    Chair. It is good to be with you again and I thank you both for
    your commitment to the City.
        Let me just briefly speak to my vision. The benefit of
    going last is you get to hear everyone else, then I can
    highlight and amplify some things you may have already heard.
        The overall vision is that each and every child in the City
    has equal access to a quality education. The way I view that
    would mean that starting as early as age three, every child
    would have access to a quality based pre-K program. They would
    be well nourished, well supported in their homes and in their
    neighborhood, and we would be well on our way toward educating,
    not just the child, but the whole child and the whole family.
        That means that our system would have to be working in
    tandem with the other social services entity, or entities in
    the government, so that we are able to, early on, diagnose and
    ascertain what ailments afflict not just a child, but the
    family, because those are the type of ailments that impact on a
    learning experience.
        My vision would include school choice, where by the time a
    child enters into first grade, parents have the option of
    sending their children to charter schools. The District has the
    highest percentage of school-age children in charter schools in
    the country. And I think that that, in and of itself, has been
    a major, major reason for some of the reform initiatives.
        I am a strong supporter of charter schools, and they are
    absolutely essential to the future survival of our overall
    public school system. We have to recognize that one size does
    not fit all.
        When you talk about the parents, the frustrations that
    parents have, a lot of those frustrations are based on the
    disconnect between the bureaucracy and the school system and
    their every-day experiences. And my vision would include
    destroying that disconnect so that parents feel that they are
    part of a system that embraces them and that they can, you
    know, they can participate in it.
        In terms of some of our accomplishments, I think that as
    you have heard from some of the other panelists, clearly the
    most important and significant accomplishment has been the
    ability of the mayor, the Council and the Board and the
    superintendent to all work together.
        We meet on a regular basis several times a month. Some of
    the meetings are grueling. Some of the meetings are extremely
    candid, but overall they are productive. It is these types of
    hands-on involvement by the collective leadership in the City
    that will ultimately reap dividends for parents and children.
    And that has been the single most important distinction this
    year as opposed to previous years.
        The second accomplishment I would point to is years ago the
    Council led an initiative through my committee to push the
    system toward better school autonomy. By having a per-student
    funding formula, we were going through the questions about how
    much we spend to educate our children, and we attached all of
    our funding to the child, and then we attached that funding to
    each school.
        That has led to greater control by principals over their
    resources. We are not where we need to be, but school autonomy
    is essential to progress and reform in our school district.
        That leads me to the barriers. The single biggest barrier
    to reform, not just in this school district, but any school
    district in the country, is the entrenched bureaucracy. The
    bureaucracy is self-perpetuating, and it is the antithesis of
    the school autonomy that must occur in the local school level
    for parents to feel a part of what is going on.
        We are now moving well past the days where school
    principals have to requisition downtown to get their books
    ordered and to get a principal--I mean, to get a teacher
    replaced. But some of those days still are with us. And school
    choice will not work, innovative and creative programing will
    not work if you have a bureaucracy that continues to feed
    itself at the expense of our children and our parents.
        I think that is the single biggest challenge that we all
    have in trying to move a reform agenda forward; that is, the
    bureaucracy that is in existence, not just in this school
    system, but in others.
        Second, along with Deputy Mayor Graham, I agree that
    special education is a huge problem right now. I think the
    problem is more immediate, because we have not done some of the
    other things that would naturally cut into the special
    education problem.
        If we educate the whole child, if we have quality pre-K at
    age 3 for every child in the City, and we are able to diagnose
    the problems attendant with them, with those children, then
    that will cut into the expenses that we spend at the end of the
    equation with special education when we realize that at age 13
    and 14 we are losing these children because we did not give
    them what they needed early on.
        So those are just my thoughts in terms of some of the
    questions you raised.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Kevin P. Chavous

        Good morning, Chairwoman Landrieu, and members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for your invitation to testify at this hearing today to
    discuss the vision as well as the status of education in the District
    of Columbia public school system, and report on the efforts and
    progress that the Council of the District of Columbia, the
    Administration, the District of Columbia Board of Education, and the
    Public Charter School Board have made in implementing the requirements
    of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995.
        As you are aware, we are in the midst of major school reform in the
    District of Columbia. With the selection of Dr. Paul Vance as
    Superintendent, the new School Board and the active involvement of the
    Mayor and the Council, I am more optimistic about the future of public
    education in the District than ever before. As education stakeholders,
    we have all formed an intimate partnership that includes regular
    meetings and, ultimately, policy consensus in a number of areas.
        It is our vision that each and every child has equal access to a
    quality education. We are caretakers to our kids and this is the most
    sacred public trust--how we approach educating our children. With this
    in mind, we need to recognize some of our failures in the past--How
    bureaucracy, cronyism, and misplaced priorities negatively impacted our
    vision. Now, with our new leadership, we are collectively and
    aggressively working to reform the system and stay true to the needs of
    our children.
        From the Council's perspective, specifically, through my Committee
    (Education, Libraries and Recreation), we have been instrumental in
    providing both legislative and budgetary support for our schools, as
    well as vigilant oversight of their activities. Over the past 5 years,
    we have added over $400 million new dollars to public education. This
    amount includes new money for our charter schools, which I have been
    one of the strongest proponents for.
        The Council has also passed far-reaching school reform legislation
    that has improved the quality of education that our children receive.
    For example, the composition of the School Board has been changed. We
    now have a hybrid School Board which is comprised of appointed and
    elected members. Additionally, my legislation created the State
    Education Office, which was designed to be an independent monitor of
    State related functions administered by both the District of Columbia
    Public Schools (DCPS) and District of Columbia Public Charter Schools
    (DCPCS). These successes demonstrate that we are poised to continue to
    implement reform efforts in the public schools.
        One of the areas ripe for reform is the area of early childhood
    education. Last summer, I introduced legislation that would lower the
    compulsory school attendance age from 5 years old to 3 years old. This
    legislation will build upon the success that has been experienced by
    the Office of Early Childhood Development. To explore the viability of
    this unprecedented piece of legislation, I appointed the Commission on
    Primary Education Reform and have partnered with the American
    University to develop a blueprint for its implementation. This
    blueprint has been completed and we are reporting on the findings in
    city wide town hall meetings taking place throughout our city. Our
    third one is tomorrow evening at American University for Wards 3 and 4.
        Late last year, this same panel testified in the House of
    Representatives on the financial crisis that faced our schools.
    Although we have made much progress in addressing the issue of
    overspending, the real solution to solving the special education
    problem lies in a deeper commitment to providing services to our
    children within the City's borders and also a more united approach to
    addressing the Special Education transportation problem. To this end,
    the Mayor and I have created a special taskforce on special education
    to act as a collaborative partnership to not just monitor the school
    system's progress in implementing its special education plan; but also
    to ensure that specific government agencies are there to provide the
    needed and immediate support.
        This ``across agency line collaborative'' approach is significant
    because one of the biggest underestimated challenges confronting our
    children, is the social conditions in which they live. Many of our
    parents are not socially or financially equipped to be parents.
    Success, security and growth all stem from a tight social fabric at
    home. If that fabric is torn, our children directly suffer. Home life
    has a major impact on a child's ability to learn. We will continue to
    create partnerships and collaboratives across agency lines to ensure
    that the social foundation is intact. This ingredient is a critical
    component to achieve true education reform.
        Finally, although we face daily tests in the public school system,
    it is of paramount importance that the good work that has been
    accomplished by the educational stakeholders in the District not be
    overlooked or minimized. The Council, the Office of the Mayor, the
    Superintendent of Schools, and the Board of Education are committed to
    transforming the state of public education in the District of Columbia.
    Working together, with the support of Congress, we can build a first
    class education system that can be a national model.
        Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
    subcommittee.

        Senator Landrieu. Excellent. I want to thank you all for
    giving us such good, good responses to that question, because
    it really helps us. Each one was able to identify one specific
    reform, and then two remaining barriers. And it will help us to
    make the next decisions, the decisions about what steps this
    committee might take next, to either focus in a certain area to
    help move along some of these reforms.
        But, Peggy, I promised--Ms. Cooper-Cafritz--to get back
    with you, to give you some time to add to the record before we
    go into our questions.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Well, I would like to give you some
    sense of my vision for the schools.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Can you do it in 1 minute, if you
    would?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Yes. I envision classrooms with high-
    quality teachers who have met the requirements of the new
    Federal education law, HR1, the ``Leave No Child Behind'' Act.
    These teachers are supported by a strong instructional leader;
    and teachers and principals are partners with parents who are
    engaged in their children's schools.
        In my vision, teachers are excited about teaching the
    students before them, and the students are eager to learn
    because their needs have been met, and they are able to focus.
    I envision a K-to-12 core curriculum that ensures that each
    child is taught core subjects with equal rigor from
    neighborhood to neighborhood, but it also allows teachers to
    have the freedom to continue to have their individual magic
    touch in each of their classrooms.
        In the next phase of my vision, I see all other critical
    elements falling into place. As a required part of the school
    day, K through 12, I see students participating in intramural--
    --
        Senator Landrieu. We need the microphone. I am sorry. You
    need the microphone; is that what you are trying to tell me?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. I am sorry.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Go ahead.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. All right. Okay.
        Senator Landrieu. If you could just--about 30 seconds here.
    I know you have got a lot, but that is okay. You are doing
    great.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. I know the----
        Senator Landrieu. Just go on.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Okay. I envision us being bold,
    energetically solving problems, getting people like this year's
    Pritzker prize winner Glenn Murcutt of Australia to work with
    DCPS to design a school or schools that are ``green friendly''
    using materials never used on schools, but that are far less
    expensive on public buildings than conventional bricks and
    mortar.
        I see us building beautiful schools that respect their
    surroundings and recognize that they are for students, not
    prisoners. The best architects charge the same fees as lousy
    ones. The architectural firm of Devrouax and Purnell just built
    a beautiful building for PEPCO. Let us extend such
    architectural beauty to our schools.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. I can see all the other elements
    critical to a good education falling into place.
        Speaking of high schools, I would abolish the institution
    as we know it today. Instead, I would allow high school
    students to test out of core subjects. We would have a
    cooperative program with our colleges and universities so that
    our students could graduate from high school having already
    completed two years of college.
        The core curriculum would be classically based, but would
    embrace Afro-centrism and other racial and ethnic studies.
    Every high school student would take four core subjects,
    English, math, history and a foreign language daily from 9:00
    to 12:00 for 4 years, but would also have available a menu of
    additional vocational and academic opportunities from which he
    or she could select an educational or career path.
        Senator Landrieu. Peggy, let me tell you, I am going to
    have to ask you to submit the rest for the record.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Yes. Fine.
        Senator Landrieu. And so we need to get some questions into
    the panel.

                               SPECIAL EDUCATION

        Let me start, if I could, with special education. Maybe Ms.
    Graham could--or could anybody identify how many students we
    are speaking about that are in special education and what the
    overall cost generally of special education is, broken down per
    student?
        I understand, and I will just tell you what I understand,
    but if you are getting these for the record, because it is
    important that we get it for the record, I understand that
    there are approximately 7,700 children in special ed.
        I also understand that the cost can range anywhere from
    $10,000 per child to over $100,000 per child. I understand that
    the bulk of these children are in school outside of the public
    school system.
        Could anyone clarify those, just facts, not opinions, but
    just facts for us?
        Dr. Vance. Thank you. I am going to ask Anne Gay, our
    assistant superintendent of special ed to come up to the table
    quickly. Of course, the facts I have here would indicate that
    our latest count indicates that there is a total of 11,666
    students being served in special education.
        Anne.
        Mrs. Gay. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead. We will pull up another chair
    for you, Anne, right here. Kevin is going to get it for you.
        Dr. Vance. Here, why do you not start?
        Mrs. Gay. Okay. Let me just start by saying we do have
    11,666 students now eligible for special education services.
    This is 17.04 percent of the overall school population.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. And how many do you have on the
    waiting list asking for that designation?
        Mrs. Gay. We have right now a backlog of 239 students
    awaiting initial referrals. We are averaging about 185 new
    referrals, new initial referrals per month.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. And that is 17 percent of your
    district. Do you know how that compares to other comparable
    districts?
        Mrs. Gay. In Boston, which has about 64,000 students
    overall, they have a little bit over 19 percent of their
    children in special education. So their overall population is a
    little bit smaller than ours.
        Cambridge, Massachusetts, has about 23 percent of their
    population in special education.
        Senator Landrieu. And special education, under the Federal
    definition includes gifted and talented as well as the whole
    range of special education or----
        Mrs. Gay. These are all the students who are eligible under
    the law for special education.
        Senator Landrieu. The Federal law, which ranges from gifted
    and talented to--no?
        Mrs. Gay. No. No.
        Senator Landrieu. Not gifted and talented. This is not
    gifted and talented. This is the children who are challenged.
        Mrs. Gay. Yes, under IDEA, yes, it is the children who are
    identified under IDEA. Of that 11,666 we have 8,997 students in
    our public schools. We have 2,519 in non-public. That includes
    1,916 in non-public day schools, 368 in residential and they
    are, as Dr. Vance alluded to, all over the country.
        There are 234 students who are in what we call interagency.
    These are students who are in foster care in 13 surrounding
    counties and attending those county school programs.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mrs. Gay. So approximately 22 percent of ours, of our
    children are placed outside of the public school system.
        Senator Landrieu. And getting a range of costs per each of
    those students--I know this is very hard, because some are a
    few thousand all the way up to maybe your most critical care,
    but what is your range? Is my estimate accurate, $2,000 to
    $100,000?
        Mrs. Gay. Yes. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And can you give, you know, or submit to
    the committee, not today, but basically a breakdown just for
    our records about how many students would be in each category,
    like we will submit to you ``Between zero and ten thousand, how
    many children? Ten to twenty thousand, how many children?
    Twenty to thirty thousand, how many children?''
        It is just so that we can get a real clear picture of some
    of the costs associated with special ed, recognizing the
    Federal Government is not, for the District or for any
    districts, picking up the 40 percent of that cost that we
    intended. However, money is not always the answer to every
    problem. And we recognize there are some shortages.
        Senator DeWine, do you have any questions? Because I would
    like to just maybe go back and forth with you on some things
    that you might have.
        Senator DeWine. Sure. Dr. Vance, can you put just kind of a
    face on the student that we are talking about who is a special
    ed student, who cannot get services close by, that you have had
    to contract out, and that child is in a different State?
        Dr. Vance. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. Tell me who that is.
        Dr. Vance. Well----
        Senator DeWine. Not a name, but I mean, tell me: Who are we
    thinking about?
        Dr. Vance. Well, I think in telling you--trying to put a
    profile on the youngster is to describe the conditions.
        A decade ago, when school systems around the country were
    bringing their students home and were preparing local programs
    within local school settings for a range of youngsters who had
    disabilities, the school system, the District school system was
    doing just the reverse. It was sending youngsters out of the
    school district.
        So what we are confronted with today is a two-fold program.
    The problem is we have to build and develop the programs
    locally to see and to take care of those youngsters, while at
    the same time bringing them back from the private school
    placements.
        So I do not know that there is an actual face on those
    youngsters, because the data would indicate, you know, they go
    across the range of disabilities for the----
        Senator DeWine. Well, try me. Try me, Doctor.
        Dr. Vance. Go ahead, Anne.
        Senator DeWine. Explain it to me.
        Mrs. Gay. If I could assist here, our--about 47 percent of
    our population are children who are described as or are found
    eligible as learning disabled. Almost 19 percent of our
    population are now children who are described as being
    emotionally disturbed. The majority of students that we send to
    residential placements, about 70 percent of those students are
    emotionally disturbed.
        I should also say that the school system is not the sole
    party in making the determination that these children need to
    go to a residential. It is often the Youth Services
    Administration, the Juvenile Justice System, or the foster care
    system that we are working with in those determinations.
        The largest percentage of children who are in non-public
    day programs are also--and that is about 34 percent--are also
    emotionally disturbed. And a majority of those students come
    also from foster care, and either foster care children residing
    within the District or, again, foster care children.
        About 248 of those students are foster care children
    attending non-public day programs, but living in Maryland or
    Virginia, which very much complicates the cost of
    transportation.
        Senator DeWine. The special ed kids consume about what
    percentage of your budget?
        Mrs. Gay. It is about one-third with direct and indirect
    costs.
        Senator DeWine. So 17 percent of the population consumes
    about----
        Dr. Vance. One-third.
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. 33 percent.
        Ms. Garvey. 33 percent.
        Dr. Vance. Yes, sir.
        Senator DeWine. It is----
        Mr. Chavous. If I may, Madam Chair, Senator?
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. One thing that we need to alert the committee
    to is that the mayor and the Council and the Board are working
    together to put in place a task force on special education,
    which will really work to not just hold the school system's
    feet to the fire in terms of meeting their goals and timetables
    and deliverables with respect to building local capacity to
    take care of these children, but just to significantly make
    sure that there is the full range of government agencies there
    to support these children.
        As you heard from Mrs. Gay and Dr. Vance's testimony, the
    problem with special education cuts across social services
    lines. And even if we are going to build, for instance, if we
    want to build a brand-new school in the City especially
    designed for children with special needs, we want to make sure
    that there is no bottleneck in it, no bottleneck in the
    permitting process.
        So this task force will be meeting on a regular basis. It
    will have representatives also from the U.S. Department of
    Education, a full range of involvement by parents as well, and
    we will hold the school system to some of their, you know,
    their promises. But at the same time, we will take off the
    table some of the excuses in terms of the government's not
    supporting the initiatives.
        I think this is going to make a huge difference in terms of
    following up on some of the collaborative initiatives.
        Senator DeWine. And similarly to that, though, do you want
    to talk to me a little bit about the whole idea of tapping into
    all the other social services in the community?
        I mean you have that child who has special needs.
    Undoubtedly, that child has multiple special needs. How well
    are the other agencies in the city government cooperating with
    the schools? How are you working together? And it is something
    Ms. Cooper and I were--we were talking about it earlier.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Yes, when this board came into being in
    January, okay, I asked the mayor if he would buy into a plan of
    wrap-around services, so that our children would have access to
    all of this. At this point, we have those services in about 25
    schools, our nine transformation schools and about 16 other
    schools, okay?
        It is working beautifully. It is just a seamless experience
    for the child. And the parents are also brought in as partners
    in it, in this effort.
        In order for us to put that in all schools, which will
    ultimately save a lot of money, because you can see the results
    in the reduction from, you know, say 31 kids being referred, to
    1 kid being referred out of one school. But in order for that
    to happen, it is going to take new and different money. And it
    is going to take an understanding of that, okay, because our
    bureaucracy has been stripped and by the end of this week, our
    whole building will be transformed. The superintendent has come
    up with a plan, you know, to do that.
        Senator DeWine. Well, let me be very candid. I am not
    talking about the District of Columbia, but I will tell you
    that I have seen other cities and other counties where there is
    a wall between the school system and social services.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Yes. Not here.
        Senator DeWine. If this child is a Children's Service's
    problem, this child is a mental health problem, this child is a
    substance abuse group problem, how do you break those walls
    down?
        And let me ask Ms. Graham about that, because one of her
    responsibilities, I think, is to deal with the Children's
    Services or Child Welfare in the District.
        Ms. Graham. It is one of my responsibilities, Senator
    DeWine. And we are working, as Ms. Cooper-Cafritz has attested,
    to put in place a system that is, in fact, seamless.
        This task force, I think, will--that Mr. Chavous has
    referenced is going to help us move pretty aggressively to
    realizing a dream of comprehensive community-based services for
    children and families. At this point, we have in place in a
    number of our schools, and I will get the exact number for you,
    mental health services for children.
        Remember now that the Department of Mental Health is just
    coming out of receivership. And in the receivership status,
    these agencies, the Child Welfare Agency as well, were isolated
    from the other agencies. That exacerbated over time the
    situation in the public schools, because it meant in order for
    the schools to access mental health services and some of the
    other support services that families and children needed, they
    had to pursue, you know, the legal route to get those services
    and/or send children outside.
        Now that these agencies are back, it gives us a great
    opportunity and we do have a plan in place that we are
    beginning to bring to scale now that creates schools as
    neighborhood places. You will find some of that information in
    my testimony.
        We are also moving to implement the Safe Passages
    children's information system, which will--my staff admonishes
    me for using this term--but it is tracked. It will capture the
    data of all children beginning with those in the public
    schools, link to youth services. The children in the Child
    Welfare System, children in the court system--you all were
    active, I believe, in the Family Court Bill, which added a
    piece of--for information technology. The data for these
    children will now rest in what is called a Safe Passage Child
    Tracking System which will give and better inform the school
    system as well as all of the other agencies about what is----
        Senator DeWine. Let me say I appreciate that very much. And
    I just wish you well. I do not know that there is anything that
    we have discussed this morning that is more important than
    that.
        Ms. Graham. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. It is tough to implement, and you know
    that. And you know, all the good intentions in the world, you
    know, you get entrenched bureaucracies and people who are used
    to doing things one way. And it is tough to do.
        So we are going to watch this, and the next time we have
    the next hearing on this subject, we are going to ask you about
    it and see how it is coming, because it is tough. And I am not
    skeptical. I just think I am a realist and know how, in the
    real world, how difficult it is to do, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. And I appreciate that,
    Senator.
        I am hoping because the special education piece is such a
    big piece of the challenge before the District, and frankly it
    is on the minds of Congress, we will, as soon as we move past
    the Energy and the Board of Security and Homeland Security,
    eventually get back to education. And when we get back, we are
    going to be on special education for the whole country. So it
    is quite timely.
        Perhaps because of the comments by the councilman, and if
    Senator DeWine is amenable to this, we may have another hearing
    on only special education, giving your task force some time to
    work and come up with a plan, and then you could make that
    presentation, because he and I would both be very interested, I
    think, in that, in supporting those reform efforts.
        But let me ask about charter schools for a minute, because
    we have got to wrap up this panel and move on to our next one.
        Mr. Chavous, you gave your vision about charter schools
    being a catalyst for change and reform. I happen to share your
    enthusiasm for charter schools within the public school system,
    to give parents more choice, to create competition, to create
    what I would call a very healthy tension, so that parents do
    have choices and children have choices. Therefore, there is
    some competition to continue to be good, so you can attract
    good students and parents that want to help and participate.
        But what are the challenges before the charter schools?
    What do you see as a barrier? And I specifically am interested
    in the ability of charter schools to get facilities----
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Capital facilities after
    they have proven that they can operate. And we all know some
    charters will fail. And I have tried to express my opinions,
    which may be different than others. I mean, unless you are
    really trying, you will not fail. So, you know, I do not mind
    failure if it can be a failure, regrouping, and move on,
    because without, you know, failure, there really is no success.
        We cannot be afraid of failure. If we are too afraid of
    failure, we will never achieve greatness. If you want to
    achieve greatness, you have to realize there will be some
    misses and starts, but what will ultimately come out, which is
    what our Nation is good about producing, is the strong, and to
    go on, and the strengths are clear. And the weak fall by the
    wayside, not to be left behind, but to regroup and pull
    themselves up with help. And that is true of any enterprise,
    business or of schools.

                                CHARTER SCHOOLS

        So what about the facilities of charter schools? Are they
    able to kind of get their feet on the ground with facilities,
    or what could we do to, you know, to kind of help this along,
    if anything?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, Senator, that is the largest challenge
    with respect to your--just quickly, parenthetically, with
    respect to your statement about failure, one good thing about
    failures of charter schools, if they do not work, they close
    them. I mean, there----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Mr. Chavous. There are a lot of traditional schools that I
    would like to close, because they failed. And that is the good
    thing about charter schools. They have 5 years to offer up
    their deliverables and to meet their mission. If they do not
    meet their mission, they come up for periodic review, and then
    they are gone. And that is the essence of quality-based
    control.
        The biggest challenge that charter schools face here in the
    District is the issue of facilities. As I said, we have a
    larger percentage of children than any place in the country
    that are in charter schools. And right now our charter schools
    are faced with the difficult prospect of not being able to
    grow, because they do not have the space.
        That facilities problem has some of its roots in this whole
    bureaucracy and, as Senator DeWine said, the unwillingness to,
    you know, to change or to see things differently. Frankly,
    there was a period of time prior to Dr. Vance's arrival where
    there was open hostility and declared warfare by the District
    of Columbia Public Schools and of the charter schools. I think
    that was a disservice to the parents. But the remnants of that
    still exist.
        I think the facilities problem can be solved, in addition,
    in a couple of ways. One is, and we have been working closely
    with the mayor and the charter schools community on this, that
    the mayor's economic development office has to help free up
    some buildings that are in the inventory of the District
    Government. They have made strides in that regard, but they
    have to be more aggressive in freeing up space.
        The problem is--and we all like economic development. I am
    a big proponent of it, but there is this tendency to want to
    cluster all of the economic development buildings you have in
    your arsenal and make these large projects. I think some of
    these buildings, particularly former schools, should have a
    priority attached to them for the charter schools.
        Second, in DCPS's inventory, they have some, some
    buildings. And I like the idea of partnering, where you can
    have schools within schools. You can have one building that is
    under capacity. There is no reason why a charter school, if the
    principal at the traditional system is willing, should not be
    able to share that space. The charter schools will pay their
    way. They will pay their, you know, freight, so to speak.
        So I think that there just has to be some aggressive
    commitment, not just verbal commitment, but aggressive
    commitment by both the mayor's office, as well as the school
    system to open up space for charter schools because these are
    our children as well.
        Senator Landrieu. And one thing I want to add for the
    record and I think Senator DeWine is aware of this, but one
    excellent thing the District has done is to attach a sort of a
    maintenance-and-operation per child that moves to a charter
    school, so not only do they move with their operational funds,
    but they move with, I think it is, what, $1,000 that is sort of
    estimated to be operations and maintenance per child.
        So it is ``x'' amount for teaching and ``x'' amount--is
    that the way you all broke it down, or am I misled about that?
        Mr. Chavous. I do not know the number, but I think it is--
    --
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. It is $1,500.
        Senator Landrieu. $1,500.
        Mr. Chavous. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. So it is $1,500 attached to each child,
    which basically could be allocated for some sort of, you know,
    building improvements.
        And then how much, Peggy, is it per child for the actual
    teaching? What do you send with each of these charter children?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. It is the same----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay, what is it?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. [continuing]. Same per pupil.
        Senator Landrieu. So it is--so what are you sending them?
    $1,500 for the maintenance----
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Right.
        Senator Landrieu. And then the per-pupil, which is----
        Dr. Vance. $8,000.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. I do not know. $8,600?
        Dr. Vance. That is----
        Senator Landrieu. $8,600?
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Yes, right.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. We are going to have to wrap this
    panel up.
        Senator, do you have any additional----
        Senator DeWine. Yes. I have----
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. I have one more question.
        Mr. Chavous, I am intrigued by your school beginning at 3
    years of age. Do you envision that as being mandatory
    schooling?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, that was the original legislation I
    introduced, but what I did to really try to ferret out the best
    approach is I appointed a commission of educators, parents and
    administrators and partnered with American University--it was a
    commission on primary education reform. They just released that
    report. We have had townhall meetings around the City, and we
    have got one actually tomorrow.
        Senator DeWine. What kind of reaction do you get?
        Mr. Chavous. Well, it is good. Some parents are concerned,
    because they do not understand. We are not saying that every 3-
    year-old has to go into a classroom and be ready for a
    standardized test.
        What we are saying is that we already have, under Ms.
    Graham's leadership, a good early childhood development
    program. There needs to be that marriage between an early
    childhood development program that is in her shop with what Dr.
    Vance is doing in the public schools. So early childhood
    development should have more quality-based pre-K instructors.
    Every citizen should have access to that.
        Now, we know some parents do not want that. So we would
    exempt home schooling. We would exempt, you know, those who
    want to send their children to Montessori, you know, Montessori
    schools and private schools and religious schools and the like.
        But we are seeing that too many of our children, as I have
    said on many occasions, enter first and second grade at age 6
    and 7, and they have never seen a number or a letter block.
        This goes to the special education problem. If we can
    identify at that young age how many children there are that are
    being disserved at home, then we will be able to intervene
    through social services so that we are not losing children to
    special education down the road.
        So the committee came up with universal pre-K as the
    recommendation, and they said the goal should be universal pre-
    K for every 3- and 4-year-old. And mandatory may be the way to
    go, but they are leaving it up to the policymakers.
        What I envision happening after these hearings, and Dr.
    Vance is being very supportive and helpful in this, is that the
    Council will vote on some legislation that will pave the way
    for more universal pre-K and put in place a pilot program that
    Dr. Vance and Ms. Graham have already been working on.
        We want to carve out funding for this. I mean, I do--I
    really believe, Senator, that if we can get more of our young
    children to have an early start, when they run that 100-yard
    dash, they will not be 50 yards behind the starting line. And
    that is what we are seeing now. And I think it will make a huge
    difference if we give our children an early start. I am glad
    the President and the First Lady is involved in that, are
    involved in this.
        Senator Landrieu, I know this is one of your passions,
    because the problem with special education is really this
    problem that we failed our children at such a young age.
        Senator DeWine. While I appreciate your comments and I
    think we can spend all day, all year on this, on this issue,
    and we are not--obviously we are not going to do that, but I
    think we all know that early childhood development is so very,
    very important and, you know, whether you are a parent or
    whether you are a teacher or if you are just around kids, you
    understand what is happening and when that child is 2 years of
    age and 1 year of age, you know, all these are very, very
    important.
        You know, as a society, we are going to have to work on
    this. And how we do it, it is going to be very, very difficult,
    because you do not want to supplant the parents. You do not
    want to violate what the parents want done.
        But on the other hand, you want that child to have every
    advantage that we can give that child.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I would just----
        Senator DeWine. So that is how we work through that. It is
    very tough and, you know, how much do you involve the parents
    in that? You know, do you work more with the parents? And some
    States have tried that; Missouri, for example, when Senator
    Biden was governor. One of the programs that they initiated is
    still going, I understand, and is to work more with there
    parents.
        So there are many different ways of getting at that. And I
    applaud you and your interest in it, and I look forward to
    watching and seeing how you do.
        Mr. Chavous. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Landrieu. And I would just--Ms. Graham, did you
    want to add something?
        Ms. Graham. I would like to do that. We certainly believe
    that parental involvement and engagement in this process is so
    important. We have established eight parent development centers
    that are directly linked to the early childhood development
    process as we have expanded early childhood development
    opportunities for families in the District of Columbia. So we
    are watching this very closely, recognizing that parental
    involvement goes hand-in-hand with child success in school.
        Senator DeWine. And it is not just in the sense of giving
    the parents veto or giving parents----
        Ms. Graham. No.
        Senator DeWine. It is also helping that parent to develop.
        Ms. Graham. Exactly.
        Senator DeWine. And that parent who may not know how to
    read or write, or that parent who may lack at the age of 17,
    parenting or parental skills----
        Ms. Graham. Right.
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. And not have that--you know,
    there are many different ways that we, you know, can approach
    this. And I think that, you know, we all understand that we
    have to do it.
        Senator Landrieu. And I would just like to ask one
    question, and then do a final comment.

                                PARENTAL CENTERS

        Are these parental centers that you just identified, are
    they linked specifically to schools, neighborhood schools? Is
    there a partnership between those parent centers and schools,
    or are they independent?
        Ms. Graham. They are independent, because they are funded
    with government dollars.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Graham. But they will be working with the T9 school
    initiative, where they are in the communities that these
    transforming schools are located.
        Senator Landrieu. Because one of the links that is so
    important is to link your parent centers and your Head Start
    and Early Start programs with elementary schools, so that it is
    a seamless feeding system along with linking, in some
    instances, to universities.
        The District is a little at the short end of that, because
    you do not have a system of public universities like in many
    other cities, but you know, we are working on that. But still
    there are other private universities that could serve the same,
    you know, function here in the District, so that you have got
    your universities linked to your elementary schools, and your
    elementary schools with links out to your parental centers and
    your Head Start and your Early Start.
        But one comment about mandatory early childhood education,
    I would be very committed to the creation of universal options,
    but not mandatory. Some parents feel very strongly about
    keeping their children home until the age of 5 or 6 and doing a
    lot of that development at home, and some parents are more than
    capable of doing that across the spectrum.
        Then some parents need choices and really are desperate for
    choices to send children to quality programs at the age of 3
    and 4, because many parents are working and absolutely have to
    have some sort of alternative other than, you know, mediocre
    at-home care or mediocre neighborhood care. But I would just
    caution us and--to keep on the side of giving, providing it and
    letting parents make choices, because it is very empowering
    when parents have choices and are not, you know, forced and
    because, you know, one shoe does not fit all and it is a very
    independent individual choice for families.
        But moving to having it offered universally for every 3- or
    4-year-old is spectacular. I am not sure there is a State that
    has met that goal. I think there are States for 4-year-olds. I
    think Georgia has a 4-year-old program and maybe Texas. But I
    do not know anybody that has gotten it together enough for the
    funding for the 3-year-olds as well, which would be
    extraordinary.
        Then, Dr. Vance, you wanted to end with just a comment. And
    then we will close this panel.
        Dr. Vance. Our commitment to the early childhood education
    initiative and our work with Ms. Graham and Mr. Chavous is
    really steeped in the most recent brain development research,
    which has come out of the laboratories, research laboratories
    in this section of the country. And it is heavily steeped in
    that.
        One of the compelling features of that research, which
    really made me a convert was that the possibility exists with
    many of our youngsters, because of environments over which they
    have no control by the time they are three, and certainly by
    the time they are 4 years old, we may have already lost them.
    And in developing a research model that is closely akin to the
    recommendations that came out of that research, I believe here
    in the District on a pilot basis, giving parents options. We
    certainly can render a service to our student population, and a
    student population which dramatically needs that service.
        When we set about to make certain that we had immunized
    41,000 youngsters who were in our public schools who had not
    been immunized, and then this year we had reduced that figure
    to 21,000, it was just dramatic.
        Ms. Graham can talk about this as well as I can. The
    conditions we found with young people, and particularly the
    very young, young people, and in talking with the nurses that
    had come over from Health and Human Services to work with us
    and to support us, they just were shattered.
        They came and they met with me, and they said, ``Dr. Vance,
    you know, we are talking with youngsters who are in high school
    who have never been to a primary care provider in their lives,
    a doctor,'' and we are just appalled at that.
        But we are taking steps to correct them with Federal
    funding and nutrition and health and continuing this assault.
    And by the way, that number of youngsters that have not been
    immunized is down to 80, and we are convinced that before the
    school year is over, we are going to somehow capture them and
    immunize them.
        I just wanted to make those comments about the research
    model that we have worked on collaboratively.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. And just real quick.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Thirty-seven percent of the adult
    population in D.C. is illiterate, and one of the things we have
    approached the mayor on is using the Federal literacy money so
    that we can have, you know, family literacy, and link them, you
    know, together that way. It is a very difficult nut to crack.
        Senator Landrieu. Many districts are doing that. It is an
    excellent concept. Thank you. This panel has been terrific.
        We are going to take a 5-minute break before our next
    panel.
        Ms. Cooper-Cafritz. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you all very much.
                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Welcome to our second panel. We
    have Mr. Andrew Rotherham, Director of 21st Century Schools
    Project for the Progressive Policy Institute. Welcome.
        We have Mr. Robert Cane, Executive Director of Friends of
    Choice in Urban Schools; Ms. Virginia Walden-Ford, Executive
    Director for D.C. Parents for School Choice.
        All of you have been deeply involved in the issue of public
    schools and school excellence in the District. We are looking
    forward to hearing your testimony. And if we can begin,
    obviously, you know, your testimony as you have written it will
    be submitted to the record. So if you will, just summarize it.
    And each one of you will have 5 minutes, and then we will have
    a round of questioning.
        Unfortunately, we are going to have to close this hearing
    at 11:30, so our time is a little bit short, but please
    proceed.
    STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROTHERHAM, DIRECTOR, 21ST CENTURY
                SCHOOLS PROJECT, PROGRESSIVE POLICY
                INSTITUTE
        Mr. Rotherham. Great. Thank you, Senator; Senator DeWine,
    as well. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I will
    be brief and submit my testimony for the record.
        Special education is an issue that bears on students around
    the country whether or not they have special needs, and that is
    true here in Washington as well.
        I do not come before you today as an expert on the District
    of Columbia's schools, but rather as an analyst on special
    education and education generally, and I do believe some of the
    work we have done at Progressive Policy Institute will be of
    great use to the committee as you consider these issues.
        In advance of the current reauthorization for the
    Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act, IDEA, the
    Progressive Policy Institute partnered with the Thomas B.
    Fordham Foundation to examine special education a quarter
    century after the passage of IDEA and, as I said, in advance of
    this current reauthorization.
        We initiated this project, because while PPI and Fordham,
    while we have some common goals on education, we are certainly
    not ideological soul mates on this issue, but we felt that by
    bringing people together from across a diverse spectrum to
    examine these issues, we could stimulate some fresh thinking.
        The result of that was a 2-day conference and the
    publication of this book, ``Rethinking Special Education for a
    New Century.'' I will certainly not submit that for the record,
    but it is available to you and your staff.
        In short, we found that special education and IDEA have
    accomplished a tremendous amount for students with special
    needs. The legislation was ground-breaking, and it not only
    opened our school to students with special needs, but became a
    catalyst for a major culture shift with regard to these
    students.
        But despite these accomplishments, we also found that IDEA
    has developed some problems that demand the attention of
    policymakers. Rather than go through all of the 14 papers and
    our recommendations and analysis, I am going to focus on three
    that I think particularly bear on the issues that we are
    discussing today. Those are the over-identification of
    students, and minority students in particular, for special
    education; inadequate student outcomes; and financial issues.
        It is important to remember that as opposed to other policy
    areas, where the bulk of policy is fundamentally State and
    locally developed, special education policy is overwhelmingly
    dictated by this law, by the IDEA law, which is a Federal law.
        In terms of over-identification, there are several findings
    that I think the committee should keep in mind. First is a
    counter-intuitive finding that researchers Matthew Ladner and
    Christopher Hammons found. They found that there is an over-
    identification problem, but they have had a very counter-
    intuitive finding that, first of all, race is the primary
    predictor for identification for special education, which
    should trouble all of us.
        However, they found that as minority enrollment in a school
    district declined, special education identification of minority
    students increased. And that is a counter-intuitive finding and
    a very troubling finding.
        Subsequent to that, the civil rights project at Harvard and
    the National Research Council elaborated on these issues. The
    NRC report found that while nationwide African-American
    students comprised 17 percent of the student population, they
    account for 20 percent of students identified for special
    education and 33 percent of those identified as mentally
    retarded, and 27 percent of those identified as having
    emotional disturbances. Those are troubling issues.
        The larger over-identification problem is exacerbated by
    inadequate reading instruction, as the first panel highlighted,
    and also problems with access to prenatal care, health care for
    women and so forth, and inadequate pre-K preparation as
    Councilman Chavous said on the first panel.
        In terms of student performance, I think everybody would
    agree that the outcome for too many students nationwide and in
    Washington are unacceptable. Nationwide in 1998, only about 55
    percent of students with disabilities left high school with a
    diploma. That is an increase of about 4 percent during the last
    decade, which is encouraging; but at the same time, that means
    that almost half of students with special needs are entering
    the knowledge economy without even the basic credential of a
    high school diploma.
        These days, I think we would argue at the Progressive
    Policy Institute that we must view civil rights in education
    not only as an issue of access, and IDEA has made tremendous
    gains of access, but also as an issue of quality. And if you
    look at special ed, and I think that some of the problems that
    D.C. has exemplify this, it is a system that penalizes and
    rewards schools based on compliance rather than performance.
    Schools are naturally going to respond to those incentives, and
    that comes at the expense of performance.
        The cost issue--there is some new research that is in my
    testimony on costs, and I think in D.C. you can see the cost
    problem. The three ideas that I come before you with, very
    briefly, the first one is the issue of teacher quality. The
    other two witnesses this morning are going to testify about
    charter schools and choice.
        We strongly support public charter schools and public
    school choice, but it is important to remember Adam Smith's
    rules do not differentiate among various things in the
    education universe. Teachers, as well, will respond to
    competitive incentives, and we need to attract and retain
    special education teachers in the City.
        We are, quite simply, going to have to pay them more. What
    we have right now is an untenable situation where teachers come
    to D.C. and then they leave for the suburbs. D.C. should be
    commended, unfortunately, for offering a tremendous training
    and recruiting service for the suburban districts that ring
    this city. That is not the situation that we want.
        This is, in part, a working conditions issue. Special
    education teachers spend 5 hours a week on paperwork. That is
    as much as they spend on lesson preparations and ten times more
    than they spend communicating with parents. But it is also an
    issue of breaking away from the salary scale and paying
    professionals more.
        As I said, pre-K is a huge issue. There is a gap in pre-K
    participation in the City. I share your concern about making it
    mandatory, but access is key. That will go a long way towards
    preventing these issues, as will better health care.
        Then finally two very D.C. specific issues: I do think that
    some cap on routine legal fees is going to have to be put in
    place in the City to get special education costs under control.
    At the same time, the school district, they have a seven-point
    plan. It is going to seriously have to implement efforts to
    improve the capacity of the school system to serve these kids.
        Quite frankly, the capacity is not there to serve a range
    of students with special needs. That is unacceptable. It leads
    to an unacceptable number of children being served in private
    placements and contributes to this out-of-control cost
    structure.
        The rest of my testimony is in here. Well-intentioned
    people can disagree about issues with special education, with
    issues about the District of Columbia, but I think it is clear
    that special education in the District of Columbia is not going
    to improve until the general education situation does as well.
    But likewise, reforming special education is a key step in
    improving overall education quality.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Rotherham

        Chairwoman Landrieu and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify before you this morning about an issue of
    such importance--ensuring high quality education for students with
    special needs. Senator Landrieu, I would like to acknowledge, for the
    record, all of your efforts on education in the Senate. I've been
    consistently impressed at your willingness to tackle the tough and
    controversial issues that don't lend themselves to easy or simple
    solutions.
        Special education is an issue that bears on students around the
    country whether or not they have special needs. While I am not an
    expert on the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), as an analyst
    of special education the Progressive Policy Institute's (PPI) work
    should be useful to the subcommittee as you consider the issue of
    education, and special education in particular, in the District of
    Columbia.
        In advance of the current reauthorization cycle for the Individuals
    with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), PPI partnered with the
    Thomas B. Fordham Foundation to examine special education a quarter-
    century after the passage of IDEA. While we share some common goals,
    PPI and Fordham are certainly not ideological soulmates on the issue of
    education. But we believed that by coming together to jointly
    investigate this issue we could stimulate some fresh thinking about
    IDEA and helping students with special needs and demonstrate that
    addressing the challenges they face need not be ideologically divisive.
    The initial result of our collaboration was a two-day conference and
    the subsequent publication of Rethinking Special Education for a New
    Century. Rethinking is a volume of 14 original papers along with
    analysis and preliminary recommendations from PPI and Fordham. On
    behalf of trees everywhere I will not submit Rethinking for the record
    but it is publicly available and widely cited and we would be happy to
    furnish committee staff with copies if you would like.
        Not surprisingly, we found that special education and IDEA have
    accomplished a tremendous amount for students with special needs. This
    groundbreaking legislation not only opened our schools to students with
    special needs but also literally became the catalyst for a major
    culture shift that opened the doors of opportunity for these
    youngsters. However, despite these accomplishments, we also found that
    IDEA has developed problems that demand the attention of policymakers.
    These problems are not the fault of any particular policymaker or lobby
    but are rather the consequence of an inevitable collision between
    complex procedural legislation, changes in the educational landscape in
    this country, and advances in research. More to the point, it's
    important to remember in the context of what we're discussing today
    that many of the problems with special education are outgrowths of
    larger problems with education generally and must be treated as such.
    It's no coincidence that many of the communities struggling with
    special education challenges are the same communities plagued by
    general education deficiencies.
        Rather than go through all of the analysis and recommendations in
    Rethinking, today I will focus on three points that are national issues
    and also issues DCPS should consider with regard to special education.
    These are over-identification of students and minority students in
    particular for special education, inadequate student outcomes, and
    fiscal issues. As opposed to other policy areas in education where the
    bulk of policy is largely determined at the State and local level, it
    is important to remember that most, but not all, special education
    policy is derived from Federal statutes, particularly IDEA.
                   over-identification for special education
        The issue of over-identification of minority students for special
    education is not a new concern and has been discussed in special
    education literature for some time. However, renewed attention to the
    achievement of minority students has sparked increased attention and
    research into this issue. In the District of Columbia, according to the
    most recent data we found, a slightly higher percentage of students
    were enrolled in special education than the national average of 12
    percent.
        As part of the PPI-Fordham special education conference researchers
    Matthew Ladner and Christopher Hammons presented a paper analyzing
    over-identification and found that race predicts identification for
    special education more than any other variable they examined including
    class size, spending, and poverty. Most significantly, Ladner and
    Hammons found that as minority enrollment in a school district
    declined, special education identification for minorities increased.
    This is a counter-intuitive and important finding. The paper is
    included as a chapter in Rethinking.
        Subsequently, research from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
    University and the National Research Council (NRC) elaborated on these
    issues. The NRC recently issued a report by a commission headed by
    former Council for Basic Education president and Bush Administration
    education official Christopher T. Cross. The NRC found that there are,
    ``biological and social or contextual contributors to early development
    that vary by race and ethnicity.'' Specifically the NRC report pointed
    out that minority students are disproportionately poor and thus more
    likely to be exposed to effects of poverty such as, ``higher rates of
    exposure to harmful toxins, including lead, alcohol, and tobacco.''
    However, like the Ladner-Hammons study, the NRC also found that school
    experiences contribute to differences in special education
    participation among various racial and ethnic groups.
        According to the NRC report, while African-American students
    comprise 17 percent of the student population they account for 20
    percent of students identified for special education. More troubling,
    black students account for 33 percent of those identified as mentally
    retarded as well as 27 percent of those identified with emotional
    disturbances.
        This means that an African-American student is 2.28 times more
    likely to be identified as mentally retarded and 1.58 times more likely
    to be identified as emotionally disturbed than a white student. Thus
    while a higher incidence of disabilities may be partly explained by
    poverty and related factors, the data clearly indicate a more
    substantial education problem as well.
        The larger over-identification problem is exacerbated by inadequate
    reading instruction, which I will discuss in a moment, and also
    insufficient attention to heath and prenatal care for women and
    children in too many communities.
                              student performance
        Special education has accomplished a great deal with regard to
    student performance. Increased access to the general curriculum and an
    increased emphasis on performance is helping to improve achievement for
    students with special needs. Nonetheless, substantial challenges
    remain.
        The high school graduation rate for students with special needs is
    unacceptably low. According to the Department of Education in 1998 only
    about 55 percent of students with disabilities left high school with a
    diploma. It should be noted that this is almost a 4 percent rise since
    1994, but it still leaves almost half of special needs students facing
    life in the knowledge economy without a high school diploma.
        Further, while more special needs students are participating in
    assessments of performance--a key accountability tool--their
    performance is still disappointing. According to the National Center on
    Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota, in only 15 States
    are special needs students performing better on assessments than in
    previous years. In 18 States performance is unchanged and it is lower
    in 4 States. Thirteen States lacked this data illustrating that despite
    the 1997 law, data about special education participation and outcomes
    are still too frequently incomplete. While some of the problems here in
    Washington are extreme, DCPS are not alone in terms of inadequate data
    collection and analysis for special education.
        While IDEA has largely accomplished the goal of ensuring access to
    schools, that accomplishment remains insufficient: The goal is ensuring
    access to education.
        We must now view civil rights in education as an issue of quality
    not only of access. In Rethinking we conclude that some of the problems
    with performance exist because current special education policy rewards
    and penalizes schools for compliance rather than outcomes and schools
    are responding to these incentives at the expense of performance and
    quality.
                                     costs
        Surprisingly, despite the attention to special education spending
    over the past few years, only recently have well documented spending
    numbers emerged. In Rethinking, after reviewing several estimates and
    analyses we concluded that spending is in the $35-$60 billion range
    annually. Last month, the American Institutes for Research (AIR)
    released a study stating that special education spending is
    approximately $50 billion annually. This means that the cost of
    educating students with special needs is 21.4 percent of K-12 spending
    in the United States.
        When thinking about special education costs it is important to
    remember that the lowest incidence disabilities that carry the highest
    costs. Thus, anecdotal and apocryphal stories about students who cost
    tens or even hundreds of thousands to educate must be viewed in the
    appropriate context. Nevertheless, for small and rural districts these
    students can present enormous fiscal problems because while funding for
    special education is dispersed based on identification-neutral
    formulas, educational costs for a particular high-cost child are
    concentrated in the particular school or school district where that
    child resides. Although it is beyond the scope of this subcommittee,
    PPI believes that some mechanism for direct payments for students with
    severe disabilities should be incorporated into IDEA. Rethinking
    included this recommendation as well.
        In addition, the category of special education identification that
    has grown the most during the past 25 years carries with it, generally
    speaking, lower costs than other disabilities. This is the learning
    disabilities category that has ballooned from 21.6 percent of students
    identified for special education in 1977 to 46.2 percent in 1998 and is
    now over 50 percent. As Wade Horn and Douglas Tynan pointed out in
    Rethinking, this 233 percent growth stands in contrast to 13 percent
    growth among all other special education categories combined. Some of
    this expansion can be explained by more sophisticated diagnostic
    measures but there are also clearly more complex issues involved not
    all of which are understood. One that policymakers can deal with from
    an evidence-based standpoint is reading problems among young children--
    too many of whom end up in special education needing remedial help that
    could have been avoided with proper instruction. This is a teaching
    disability rather than a learning one, and better training for
    teachers, research-based reading practices, and high-quality early
    childhood programs with early screening for problems will help address
    this issue.
        There is currently no analysis of the net fiscal and special
    education enrollment impact of a better emphasis on prevention of
    reading problems (including more robust pre-k education) coupled with
    better screening to identify those who do have genuine learning
    disabilities but now go undiagnosed. It is counterproductive to
    withhold increased funding for IDEA pending resolution of these issues
    but IDEA funding should be considered in the context of these broader
    reforms.
                            considerations for dcps
    Teacher Quality
        First, a common thread that runs through many special education
    issues and K-12 education overall is teacher quality. Although a
    generalized problem, this issue is particularly acute with regard to
    special education. Today other witnesses are testifying about how
    competition in public education through charter schools and public
    school choice can improve education. PPI strongly supports public
    school choice and charter schools. However, policymakers must remember
    that Adam Smith's rules do not apply only to some parts of the
    education universe and not to others. Teachers too will respond to
    competitive incentives.
        A shortage of special education teachers means that extra
    incentives must be in place to attract and retain these teachers in
    challenging positions. In part this is a working conditions issue,
    particularly with regard to paperwork issues. According to the
    Department of Education, the average special education teacher spends 5
    hours a week on paperwork compared to 2 hours per week for general
    education teachers. This is as much time as special education teachers
    report spending on lesson preparation, five times as much as they
    report spending on professional collaboration and ten times as much as
    they do communicating with parents. In large part, however, addressing
    this challenge is a money issue. Attracting scarce professionals to
    these positions requires breaking away from an antiquated single-salary
    scale based on degrees and experience and instead compensating teachers
    with skills that are in high demand through increased compensation.
    Special education teachers are clearly in this category. In addition,
    as increasing attention is rightly focused on pre-k education it's
    important to remember that salaries are a key part of addressing
    teacher quality problems in that area as well. According to Bureau of
    Labor Statistics figures, the mean salary for pre-k teachers is $20,100
    annually or $9.66 per hour.
        The 7-point plan for special education improvement that DCPS
    developed includes measures to increase the emphasis on training
    general education teachers about special education issues. This is a
    key component of reform. Too often special education and general
    education operate in isolation from one another and too few teacher
    preparation programs adequately address special education for general
    education teachers.
    Pre-K and Prevention
        The DCPS have made an effort to ensure access to pre-k and
    kindergarten programs. In fact, an irony in the debate over choice in
    the District of Columbia is that while voucher proponents focus on the
    plight of parents seeking to exit the public school system; some
    parents from other jurisdictions seek to illegally enroll their
    children because of DCPS' full-day kindergarten program
        However, according to DCPS statistics, for the 1999-2000 school
    year pre-k enrollment was only 55 percent of kindergarten enrollment.
    That's a gap that should concern policymakers. Ample research shows
    that high quality early childhood education is an important step toward
    giving students a strong start in school and lessening the effects of
    poverty. Most recently, a longitudinal study funded by the National
    Institutes of Health and the Department of Education and conducted by
    the University of Wisconsin examined early childhood programs in
    Chicago. The researchers found that low-income children who attended
    quality early-childhood education programs were more likely to complete
    high school and less likely to be in trouble with the law than their
    peers. In terms of special education, the study found that 14.4 percent
    of the students participating in high quality early childhood programs
    were later enrolled in special education programs compared with 24.6
    percent of comparable students. Although outcomes for these students
    were still not on par with more affluent youngsters the results show
    that quality pre-k programs can help address disparities in
    opportunity.
        The behavior of affluent parents indicates that they understand the
    importance of early-childhood education. The Department of Education
    found that nationally 65 percent of children from families with incomes
    over $50,000 go to preschool compared with only 37 percent of children
    from families with incomes under $10,000. But the opportunity gap is
    frequently starker than these numbers suggest because of differences in
    the quality of programs available to low-income parents.
        In Rethinking, Drs. Reid Lyon, Jack Fletcher and others argue that
    early-childhood programs, along with strong literacy instruction in the
    early grades, can play a key preventative role with regard to special
    education. But, they caution that, ``A major problem with such efforts
    is that special educators who typically provide instruction to children
    with [learning disabilities] have not been integrated into the early
    identification and prevention initiatives and have not had a role in
    efforts to design and implement early prevention programs. It is
    important that both regular and special education embrace these efforts
    and view prevention as part of their mission.''
        To help prevent the need for special education, the District of
    Columbia should focus on ensuring quality and enhancing access to pre-k
    programs. Beyond helping students before they fall behind, greater
    prevention has the potential for cost savings and allows special
    educators in the District more effectively to concentrate their
    efforts.
        Finally, although it is beyond the scope of this morning's hearing,
    an emphasis in public policy on prenatal and health care issues for
    women and children is essential to addressing these issues as well.
    Costs and Performance
        Improving the performance of special needs students is embedded in
    the 7-point plan the DCPS has developed to improve its special
    education program. However, because of the nature of the current IDEA,
    compliance and regulatory issues also feature prominently. A focus on
    improving data collection and tracking is an absolutely necessary step.
    But, it is essential that officials remember the overarching goal of
    special education--improving the performance of special needs
    youngsters.
        Two steps we recommend with regard to costs and performance are:
      --Restore a cap on routine legal fees so that special education
            dollars are spent on education while allowing larger fees in
            extraordinary cases;
      --Expand and enhance DCPS' capacity to offer special education
            services and programs to lessen the need for private placements
            and improve quality.
        A key problem with IDEA is that despite admirable and well-
    intentioned efforts, too many low-income parents are at a disadvantage
    in terms of accessing IDEA's procedural safeguards. In the case of
    Washington, there is no evidence that removing the caps helps address
    this problem. As School Board Chair Peggy Cooper Cafritz has pointed
    out in the Washington Post, the fee cap does not seem to impact private
    placements for poor African American students.
        Moreover, Washington has a well-documented problem with abuses of
    the special education system. Most recently Justin Blum of the
    Washington Post documented rampant conflict of interest and abuse of
    the special education process by a private company. The cap should also
    apply to public charter schools.
        The amount of money DCPS spends on private placements is appalling.
    By some estimates it is as much as $100 million per year. In 1999, a
    Washington Monthly article estimated the costs of private placements as
    at least $56 million. That alone would account for $791 per DCPS
    student in spending (assuming an enrollment of 70,762). Some of these
    placements are necessary because as in most communities there are
    students who have exceptional needs that the school system cannot meet.
    However, a combination of poor services and abuse of the system creates
    an untenable situation that thwarts reform. The ultimate victims are
    all students in DCPS.
        The issues of capacity, legal costs, and private placements are
    interrelated and must be dealt with in concert. DCPS must deal with the
    issue of private placements by upgrading its own special education
    programs and capacity to legitimately serve students with special needs
    as well as retooling its administrative and legal approach to special
    education to avoid abuse. Curbing the torrent of money spent on legal
    costs is a difficult but important step in this process. Expanding the
    number of charter schools and other options for serving special needs
    students is another positive step if these schools and their programs
    are well designed and implemented and not a new incarnation of present
    shortcomings.
                                   conclusion
        Reasonable and well-intentioned people can disagree about
    particular special education reforms in the District of Columbia and
    nationally. Nonetheless, it's clear that special education in the
    District of Columbia will not improve until the general education
    situation does as well. However, improvement of general education is
    also linked to special education reform in DCPS and around the country.
    Again, Senator Landrieu I applaud you for discussing these tough issues
    and appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. I
    look forward to your questions and those of the other senators.

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me ask you one, and then I will
    come back.
        Is there anything in the District law or Federal law that
    prevents the District right now from paying special education
    teachers more than other teachers or paying teachers that teach
    in difficult schools more than in less challenging schools?
        Mr. Rotherham. That is a great question, Senator. In terms
    of Federal law, no, there is nothing. In D.C., there is a
    collective bargaining arrangement, which I am not an expert on,
    but in many areas, it does restrict the flexibility the school
    officials have and when they do have flexibility, it is usually
    simply moving somebody up a ladder. That is as in other
    districts. As I said, I am not familiar with Washington.
        But there is nothing concrete in policy that cannot be
    changed to address--to either have bonuses, better pay. The
    system we use to pay teachers now is almost 100 years old, and
    it was designed for a time that is long gone.
        Senator Landrieu. So basically if the teachers and their
    associations agreed with the concept, that teachers who teach
    in more challenging and difficult situations should be paid
    more and others should be paid less, that could be implemented
    without anything other than a decision on the part of the
    school board and the teachers.
        Mr. Rotherham. Well, I think the school board would have to
    change its policy as well. But there is disagreement among
    education associations in this country about the wisdom of this
    course. Some support differential pay and paying people who
    work in more challenging circumstances in the harder-to-serve
    areas like the hard sciences or special ed, paying them more.
    Some others do not.
        I think in education, we have sometimes made the mistake of
    equating equality with equity, and that is not necessarily the
    case and paying all teachers equally in D.C. is not going to
    provide equity for special needs students who simply do not
    have the teachers that they deserve.
        Senator Landrieu. Excellent point.
        Mr. Cane.
    STATEMENT OF ROBERT CANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS
                OF CHOICE IN URBAN SCHOOLS
        Mr. Cane. Thank you, Senator. It is nice to meet you. My
    name is Robert Cane.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Robert Cane.
        Mr. Cane. I am executive director of Friends of Choice in
    Urban Schools. We are a non-profit grassroots support
    organization for the District of Columbia Public Schools.
        Much of what is in my written testimony has already been
    said by others, panelists and yourself, and it is wonderful to
    hear you all saying it. So I should be able to be very brief.
        I just want to highlight a couple of things. You have
    already heard about the great popularity with parents of the
    public charter schools in the District. I would just like to
    say that after only 5 years, one out of seven of all public
    school students in the District now attend public charter
    schools.
        New schools will be coming on line next year, and we expect
    this figure to go up. The public charter schools are in the
    process, I should say, of revitalizing education and public
    education in the District in a number of ways. I have talked
    about four of these ways in my testimony, but I just want to
    highlight parts of two of them.
        First, the public charter schools are bringing to their
    students innovative approaches to learning, and the kinds of
    academic programs previously reserved for the well-to-do.
    Several of our charter schools employ cutting edge whole school
    design models. Others offer curricula focused on a particular
    subject theme, such as fine and performing arts, foreign
    language immersion, environmental studies or technology.
        Many target niche markets such as students who are several
    years behind grade level, children in the juvenile justice
    system, many children who have dropped out of school and are
    coming back, and even adult learners. And D.C. had the first
    public urban boarding school in the United States in the form
    of a charter school.
        Another innovation that was talked about a little earlier
    is that the public charter schools have brought real
    accountability to public education in the District. You had a
    colloquy with Mr. Chavous about the closing of public charter
    schools, but there is another element of this accountability
    that I think is very important to highlight. And that is that
    since the advent of the public charter schools, all public
    schools operating funds in the District go through something
    called the uniform per student funding formula.
        What this means is that every child in the District gets
    the same level of funding. And even more important, the schools
    are only paid for those students who are actually enrolled in
    their schools, and there is an independent audit every year.
        So a child that walks to a particular public charter school
    and is there on audit day, that charter school gets his or her
    funds. All the money goes into DCPS, which then divides its
    money up. But the audit also applies to DCPS.
        So what we have here is a double form of accountability.
    The closure of schools as you indicated only applies to the
    public charter schools, but it is very, very important. The
    idea of the charter school law in the District, which is a very
    liberal law and encourages the creation of lots of charter
    schools is that you find creative, dedicated people. You give
    them a chance to do better and if they succeed, you support
    them. If they fail, you take that charter and give it to
    someone else.
        It seems to me that this is a really rational way to
    approach public schooling, and it also creates powerful
    incentives for the schools to pay attention to the needs of the
    students and the desires of the parents.
        You asked the other panelists about barriers facing public
    education in the District, and you heard much about the
    facilities crisis that is facing the public charter schools. In
    fact, you asked about it. I just wanted to say that I do not
    really have anything to add to what Mr. Chavous said about
    this, except that this really is a crisis in the truest sense
    of the word.
        We have two successful public charter schools that will
    close at the end of this year if they do not find new
    facilities, because they are losing their lease. We have what
    we hope will be a very good school with 400 students. It is
    supposed to open with 400 students in the fall. It can only
    open with 40 students, because that is all the space they could
    find.
        Senator Landrieu. What are the two that are scheduled to
    close without new facilities?
        Mr. Cane. One is Washington Math, Science and Technology,
    and the other is Tech World. And these are both in the
    Waterside Mall in Southwest, and they have been there for a few
    years. And they have lost their lease.
        Senator Landrieu. And what is the one that wants to open
    with only 40 slots?
        Mr. Cane. It is called Barbara--no, no. It is called Tri-
    Community. I apologize.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Cane. Tri-Community.
        Senator Landrieu. Continue, please.
        Mr. Cane. We have other schools. One of our most prominent
    schools is Cesar Chavez School, which has received national
    recognition. It is at its maximum of 240 students in a woefully
    inadequate space. And they are going to actually have to shrink
    down next year because they cannot continue to do a good job
    with their students in that space.
        In closing, I would just like to mention a related issue
    that the Congress has helped us with in the past, and we hope
    may be able to help us with again, and that is the issue of the
    financing of purchase or leasehold improvements.
        If the charter schools are lucky enough to find a building,
    they have to--and the next step is to convince the bank, you
    know, to finance what generally are major costs in the millions
    of dollars. And many of these charter schools are new. Their
    founders are not people of great wealth. They cannot provide
    personal guarantees.
        Well, a couple of years ago the Congress set up a credit
    enhancement fund and found $5 million to put in it for the
    charter schools in the District. And this has enabled--so far,
    we have had four schools receive about $2 million in credit
    enhancement, which they have been able to use to leverage $9
    million in purchase and improvements.
        For this to serve all the charter schools that will need it
    over the next few years, we need to have about an additional
    $15 million in that fund. And this fund is administered by a
    committee appointed by the mayor. They have had some problems
    getting the money out fast enough, but they seem to be
    improving and, with some help, could improve more. And this
    would be a wonderful way to make sure that we do not have this
    artificial barrier to the charter school success, which would
    frustrate the will of the parents.
        I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Robert I. Cane

        Good morning Senator Landrieu. My name is Robert Cane, and I'm
    executive director of Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, a D.C.
    grassroots non-profit that supports D.C.'s public charter schools.
    Thank you for holding this hearing and for your interest in public
    schooling in the District of Columbia.
        D.C. has the most successful public charter school program of any
    city in the United States. Just 5 years after the first school opened,
    14 percent of all D.C. public school students attend school on 41
    public charter school campuses. Three new schools are scheduled to open
    next fall and enrollment, now just under 11,000, is expected to grow to
    around 13,000.
        impact of the public charter schools on public education in the
                                    district
        These public charter schools are revitalizing public education in
    the District in a number of important ways.
      --They are giving D.C.'s most disadvantaged families alternatives to
            troubled schools. Ninety-nine percent of the District's public
            charter school students are members of minority groups. Public
            charter schools are located in seven of the District's eight
            wards and are more frequently located in tracts with lower
            incomes and higher poverty rates than are traditional public
            schools. Nearly two-thirds of public charter school students
            qualify for free and reduced lunch.
      --They are bringing to these students innovative approaches to
            learning and the kinds of academic programs previously reserved
            for the well-to-do. Several of our charter schools employ
            cutting-edge whole-school design models. Others offer curricula
            focused on a particular subject theme, such as fine or
            performing arts, foreign language immersion, environmental
            studies, or technology. The remainder target niche markets,
            such as students who are several years behind grade level,
            children in the juvenile justice system, or adult learners. One
            D.C. charter was the first public, urban boarding school in the
            United States.
      --They are involving parents in their children's education to an
            unprecedented degree. By law, two parents of enrolled students
            must be on the board of trustees of every public charter school
            in the District. What's more, our public charter schools pride
            themselves on being parent-friendly and open to parental
            involvement at all levels. A recent survey sponsored by the
            National Science Foundation found that parents of D.C. public
            charter school students are much more favorably inclined toward
            their children's schools than are parents of children in the
            traditional schools.
      --They have brought real accountability to public education in the
            District. Since the advent of the public charter schools all
            operating funds of the school system and the individual charter
            schools are provided through a uniform per-pupil funding
            formula. Under the Formula DCPS and the public charter schools
            receive funding only for those students that an independent
            audit shows are actually enrolled in their schools. This
            creates competition for students and the funds they bring with
            them and puts pressure on the public charter schools and the
            school system alike to improve their schools. The pressure is
            especially intense on the individual public charter schools,
            which will close down if they do not attract and hold enough
            students.
        The District's public charter schools are accountable to parents
    and the public in another significant way. Schools whose students do
    not show sufficient academic progress or which mismanage public funds
    can be closed down. This very real threat of closure provides a
    powerful incentive for school improvement.
            problems faced by the district's public charter schools
        Two related problems have the potential to bring the public charter
    school movement to its knees.
        The first is a lack of suitable facilities, a problem that has
    reached crisis proportions. The second is that many of the public
    charter schools that do find facilities lack the wherewithal to obtain
    financing to acquire and improve them.
                             the facilities crisis
        Two public charter schools will have to close their doors at the
    end of this year if they do not find new facilities. Several others
    will not be able to add promised grades. A new school scheduled to open
    with 400 students will have only 40 because that's the only space they
    could find.
        Meanwhile, two dozen DCPS schools are more than half empty. The
    Board of Education could defuse the charter school facilities crisis by
    permitting the charter schools that need facilities most urgently to
    lease space in some of these buildings.
        Similarly, the District of Columbia administration controls nearly
    30 former school buildings. Under the School Reform Act passed by
    Congress in 1996, the public charter schools have a preference to
    acquire these buildings.
        Unfortunately, neither DCPS nor the administration has taken on the
    responsibility to solve this problem. What is needed is for District
    government to treat public charter school children the same way they do
    DCPS children and make sure they have decent places to go to school. If
    they do not do so soon the charter school movement will run into a
    brick wall.
                               lack of financing
        Most of the public charter schools start out with just a few grades
    and a relatively small number of students, usually in temporary space.
    After two or 3 years they outgrow that space and need to acquire new--
    preferably permanent--space. If they are lucky enough to find a
    suitable building they run into the next problem: convincing a bank to
    put up the money needed to buy it or to make leasehold improvements.
        Most who start public charter schools are people of modest means
    who can't provide personal loan guarantees. Thanks to the Congress, 2
    years ago the District established a ``credit enhancement fund'' for
    D.C. public charter schools. This $5,000,000.00 revolving loan fund,
    administered by a committee appointed by the mayor, has so far enhanced
    the credit of four schools to the tune of $2,000,000, and applications
    from other schools are pending. The two million provided so far has
    been leveraged into $9 million worth of loans.
        In order to serve all the schools that will need credit enhancement
    over the next few years, this fund needs to be increased by
    approximately $15 million. I've attached to my testimony the
    calculations that support this figure. We would be most grateful for
    your support in helping to build the fund to an appropriate level.
        Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Ms. Ford.
    STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA WALDEN-FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                D.C. PARENTS FOR SCHOOL CHOICE
        Ms. Walden-Ford. Good morning. Thank you for this
    opportunity to be here, and it is really nice to meet you.
        I came into this whole terrible problem as a parent. One of
    my own children was failing in the D.C. Public Schools. And we
    got a scholarship to take him out. I saw the turnaround in him
    and, as a result, felt like I needed to do something to give
    back to the community because we had a happy ending.
        So I started an organization called D.C. Parents for School
    Choice, which is an information dissemination organization for
    parents. We represent parents. We speak on behalf of parents,
    so today I would like to share with you some of the things
    those parents have been saying to us.
        We work primarily with low-income parents in parts of the
    City that oftentimes are neglected, and they feel that way. We
    hear from parents who have really bright children who are
    behind in math and reading. And they know they are behind. They
    may not have the same kind of education, but they want the best
    for their children.
        We also hear a great deal from parents who have children
    that are in special education that they many times feel have
    been mislabeled and feel like the schools have just really
    given up on those children and thrown them into, you know, the
    pit, as you will.
        We are also hearing from parents more and more about
    children dropping out or are beginning to prepare to drop out
    in middle school. I mean, I hear stories from parents about
    their seventh and eighth graders coming home because their
    schools are not giving them what they believe they need, and
    they start missing school and that is just a preparation for
    dropping out.
        Then, of course, when they get to high schools, which in a
    lot of cases are not serving the needs of the children, then
    that becomes a reality to those children.
        Many parents that call us, and we have hundreds and
    hundreds of parents that call us, tell us stories of how they
    fear for those children's lives and how they understand that in
    Washington, D.C. when children drop out of school, then they do
    not go back and they do not get GEDs, and then in most cases,
    they end up in jail or worse.
        We have found that the public charter schools have offered
    some degree of solution to these problems. More and more we are
    getting calls from parents telling us that they have taken
    advantage of some of the charter schools, and of all of the
    charter schools and have found this is the first time in their
    children's lives that they have had a positive educational
    experience.
        We would like to see more charter schools in the
    neighborhoods that we believe are being left behind by the
    reform efforts of the DCPS and which really concern us. We
    visit a lot of schools. We visit a lot of parents, and we have
    not seen a change in the fixing of the schools. And we want to
    know how long those parents will have to wait for those
    changes. And they want to know, and we cannot tell them.
        So we direct them constantly to charter schools. But that
    is always an issue, because the charter schools tend to be in
    communities away from the worst schools in the District. And a
    lot of those parents--even though, you know, we do not think
    about it, we kind of take it for granted that it costs $1.10 to
    ride across town. $1.10 for many of the parents that we serve
    is for 5 days back and forth is just an incredibly large amount
    of money that they cannot find.
        So their children end up being forced to stay in bad
    schools in high-crime communities. And we just spent a lot of
    time visiting housing projects in Southeast. And a lot of those
    parents feel there is nothing that is ever going to be done.
    They feel very hopeless and helpless about what is happening as
    far as the reform efforts for their schools. They feel like
    they will be the last ones, and their children will be lost if
    something is not done immediately for those people.
        Parents have been really--my staff and I spend a lot of
    time counseling and talking to parents just trying to make them
    feel less frustrated about what is going on, and trying to give
    them some solutions to what has happened with their children in
    education. But we are quickly running out of solutions to give
    them. It has become more and more difficult.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Virginia Walden-Ford

                status of education in the district of columbia
        Thank you, Chairman Byrd, for this opportunity to speak on behalf
    of so many desperate parents in the District of Columbia.
        My name is Virginia Walden-Ford. Several years ago, I was a single
    mother with a son in 9th grade. When my son started having problems in
    and out of school, I knew I did not want him to continue attending
    Roosevelt High School, a D.C. public school that had (and still has)
    many problems of its own.
        Thanks to a neighbor's financial help, I was able to send my son to
    a private High School, where his grades and attitude immediately began
    to improve. He has now graduated and in serving in the U.S. Marine Corp
    and doing very well. I still shudder to think how very different his
    life would have been had he not been able to attend a school that
    offered a strong academic program and an environment that inspired him
    to succeed.
        You have no idea what it is like to be trapped in poor performing
    schools like the ones in some of our neighborhoods here in DC. For
    years DC parents have been told to wait and reform would come. But is
    it right to sacrifice the educational future of our children by waiting
    four more or 6 more years and seeing no changes or changes that come so
    slowly they are impossible to see.
        I lead D.C. Parents for School Choice and counsel many low-income
    parents, and I know that being low-income does not mean caring any less
    about a child's education. We hear from parents who have bright
    children but those children are behind in reading and math based on the
    documented performance of many schools in the poorest communities in
    DC. Other children in those same neighborhoods, especially African
    American male children, have been inappropriately labeled Emotionally
    Handicapped or Learning Disabled and sentenced to a special education
    system that is one of the worst in the nation.
        Children in some of the worst high schools in the city have begun
    to acclimate themselves to the ``drop-out'' culture that pervades their
    schools. They will begin to expect to drop out the way many of their
    friends have. Tragically, parents are beginning to see the same
    attitudes even in our city's middle schools students. Parents have
    begun fearing for their children's lives. In our neighborhoods, when
    young males drops out they often end up in prison or worst.
        We have a system which leaves hundreds of thousands of low-income
    predominantly minority children in terrible schools with low academic
    achievement and high rates of crime.
        I have been an advocate of public charter schools since the
    inception of the public charter school law because it provides parents
    an alternative to failing neighborhood schools. We have received
    hundreds of calls from parents who were seeking to help their children
    and many felt as though they had no place to go.
        The DC Public Charter Schools offer parents a choice. Because they
    are open to children from all over the city and have different
    curriculums and themes, parents have an opportunity to find a school
    that can capture their child's interest. Charter schools are an
    excellent alternative for some families. Parents have continually
    called us back to report that for the first time they feel as though
    their children have a chance to benefit from quality educational
    facilities.
        As we have observed the operating public charter schools and
    listened to the parents and children they serve, we have seen that, for
    these families, a renewed involvement in their children's education is
    growing stronger. It is exciting for us to see that children who were
    not learning are now engaged and excited about their educational
    experience.
        In 1999, I got married and became stepparent to two youngsters, 14
    and 12 year old boys. I had to decide where they would be educated here
    in the District. The DC public charter schools offered us ideal
    opportunities finding placement for the boys in schools that met their
    particular needs.
        Parents here in the District are daily expressing their frustration
    in a school system that is taking too long to fix itself. Many of them
    have come to the point where they feel hopeless and helpless, which is
    often interpreted as not caring about their children. However, we have
    seen that, when children are placed in nurturing educational
    environments, they succeed and their parents become active and
    involved.
        We believe that DC Public School leaders have to listen to all
    parents and take their concerns and complaints seriously as they look
    to fixing the school system. Parents are tired of waiting. How many
    more children will we sacrifice?
        Thank you very much.

        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask on that, because we have just
    got a few more, and I could stay on this panel all afternoon.
    But let me ask you: In terms of trying to give some immediate
    help to parents, would it be of any assistance whatsoever to
    just provide some transportation to some of these parents,
    since there are no schools in their area, just so that they can
    get to some schools that might have space?
        Or is the problem that there is no space anywhere, even if
    they could get there, that there are more people in line to get
    in charter schools than there is space provided? Could somebody
    try to shed some light on that?
        Ms. Walden-Ford. I would like to answer that if I could.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Ms. Walden-Ford. Both. I think that we need to work with
    the charter schools so they will have the facilities where they
    can expand and make more space available for children. And once
    that has been done, I think some kind of transportation
    allowance would be really practical for the poorest families.
        Then those are the ones that are least served by most
    programs, and those are the ones that people often say are not
    concerned about the education of their children, but
    oftentimes, the problems in their lives are so overwhelming
    that that is one problem that is so big that they often cannot
    express it. You know, we counsel parents about that, so I
    believe that it is both.
        Senator Landrieu. And then the ultimate solution would be,
    of course, to have more options so that every neighborhood--and
    I think this committee took some action to help fund a specific
    startup for Thurgood Marshall which is going to be the first
    charter high school in the Anacostia area, I understand.
        Mr. Cane. Well, it is not the first. We now have about 29
    percent of the high school students who are in Anacostia are in
    charter schools. But many people think that it should be easy
    to find space east of the river, and it is just not. And so we
    have many of our schools, in fact, most of our schools want to
    locate over there, but have not been successful. You have heard
    of the Kip Academy. They are sitting in Ward Six, because they
    have not been able to find a place in Ward Eight.
        So I agree with Ms. Walden. The problem facilities problem
    is at the root of so much of this.
        Senator Landrieu. Right. If we could help you all solve
    that, then a lot of the other problems may work themselves out.
        Mr. Cane. Right.
        Ms. Walden-Ford. Well, I mean I just totally think that
    once the facility issues has been solved and we have more
    availability of space for kids, but then I think we still need
    to go to the people in those areas that are least served by
    this city, the poorest of the poor, and do some educating.
        You know, our experience has been that many of them do not
    know about what is available for them, so we spend a lot of
    time just providing information.
        Senator Landrieu. That is a very good service. Let me ask
    you: Ms. Ford, you said that you were able to get a scholarship
    and get out. Could you explain that to me, for your own child?
        Ms. Walden-Ford. I was a single parent raising three kids
    in Washington, and my last child was attending a D.C. Public
    High School that was just absolutely failing him and, you know,
    many people want to say it is because the parent is not
    involved. I was probably one of the most involved parents at
    the school, and could not figure out how to save my own child.
        I got a scholarship from a neighbor who saw some potential
    in my son. He had cut his grass and talked to him and we did
    not have a father in our home, so my son William had kind of
    gravitated towards this guy who was young and out there, and
    you know, he had a young child, so he liked having these
    teenagers around. And he and two of his friends paid his
    tuition to a Catholic school, where I saw him dramatically turn
    around. I mean not in a month, not in 2 months, but
    immediately; I mean, in a week, I saw a difference in this
    child.
        This was the child that the final straw had been the police
    brought him home because he did not go to school, and I came
    home to my son handcuffed to the porch. And I do not have any
    frame of reference for that. I am from Arkansas. I mean, I just
    did not get it.
        Then I found that he felt that nobody was taking care of
    him. And then this child graduated top of his class and is now
    in the Marine Corps serving his country in California. So, you
    know, the happy endings can happen.
        Oftentimes, parents like me, and I was not out there and
    vocal and visible. I was a parent. And I was a young struggling
    parent, and oftentimes parents when provided with the
    information and resources and a little bit of help, you know, I
    mean a little bit of personal attention, all kinds of things
    can happen.
        I mean, I cannot even imagine where I would be or what
    would have happened to my child, had it not been for that
    scholarship.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes. Well, so that is an excellent way to
    end this, to end with this panel.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        You have all been terrific. I thank you for your interest
    and your commitment in giving your personal time and your
    personal stories. And we are committed to working, this
    committee, with all of you, both on our second and first panel,
    to help fashion a school system and district that our whole
    Nation can be proud of, and recognize these challenges are not
    unique to this area, that all systems face challenges, but
    there are solutions, and there are happy endings.
        Thank you. God bless you all.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:44 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu and DeWine.

      PUTTING FAMILIES FIRST: THE ROAD TO REFORM OF THE D.C. FAMILY COURT

    STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
                WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, GENERAL
                ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Our subcommittee meeting will come to
    order.
        I thank our panelists for attending and for being with us.
    And I think the arrangements of this room will give us an
    opportunity to have a little bit more informal exchange, which
    might be helpful as we work with you and as a team to set up
    what we hope will be the finest family court in the country,
    because there is a tremendous amount of interest on our side of
    the table, and I think on your side in accomplishing that goal.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Let me welcome our panelists this morning. I am going to
    submit my opening statement for the record, because we only
    have about an hour and half of time, and I find that--that is
    helpful.
        I have got an extensive statement for the record, which I
    will submit.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
        The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. Welcome to this
    hearing on Putting Families First: the Road to Reform of the D.C.
    Family Court.
        Just the other day, I had the good fortune to participate in the
    National Day of Hope hosted by an organization that I am sure everyone
    in this room is familiar with, CASA--the Court Appointed Special
    Advocates. On this day, CASA invited members of the Washington, D.C.
    community to come and light 8,775 candles of hope, representing all of
    the children who are abused each day in the United States. That is a
    staggering statistic when you stop to think about it. What struck me
    most, however, was the irony of the situation. Here we were in the
    Nation's Capital, standing before the U.S. Capitol building where laws
    on child abuse are passed and programs to prevent abuse are funded--yet
    everyday nearly 9,000 children are still abused. So what does that tell
    us?
        As a long time advocate for children, I have come to learn that any
    positive, long term change in policy relating to children does not come
    from just one law, one program or one change in policy. Rather it comes
    from a community-based, collaborative effort that focuses on working
    together toward the achievement of shared goals. Effective reform plans
    involve creating a role and establishing connections between all
    related agencies, from schools and hospitals to law enforcement
    officers and business leaders.
        Early this year, the President signed into law the District of
    Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. This is historic legislation for the
    D.C. Courts because it will bring about the first change in the
    Courts's organization in 3 decades. With this law comes the unique
    opportunity for the District to start anew and to put in place a system
    that can serve as a model for the rest of the country.
        The core organizing principle of the Family Court Act is to
    establish a ``One Judge/One Family'' system. Too many children have
    fallen through the cracks because they get a different judge with every
    hearing. Add to this the fact that a child could have multiple social
    workers involved in their cases at different times and the results can
    be heartbreaking. We need to redevelop the D.C. court system so that it
    becomes a helpful intervention in the lives of at-risk families. A
    place where children can feel safe and protected. A place committed to
    ensuring that each and every child it meets has the chance to grow up
    in permanent, loving homes.
        A second organizing principle of the Family Court Act is that those
    working to protect the families of Washington should have a strong
    background and experience in working with families. A simple concept
    really. Under the new plan, the judges and associated magistrates asked
    to serve on this court will have experience and expertise in every
    facet of the District's family law and child welfare system. They will
    receive ongoing training in areas such as early childhood development
    and family dynamics so that they will be better equipped to protect
    children and nurture and support families.
        Third, the Act calls for the D.C. Courts to create family-friendly
    court facilities and to establish an information technology system for
    handling cases. Some people may think that the facility that a family
    court operates in is not all that important. I beg to differ. I think
    that the facility can be the linchpin to the court's success. A well
    designed, family and child friendly facility is a living testament to
    the principles that the court is built on, both figuratively and
    literally. If a court is truly committed to putting families first,
    then the building they work in should reflect that.
        Finally, the One Judge/One Family structure will not work if the
    information system for managing cases will not support it. Currently,
    the D.C. Courts use 18 information systems in its operations, covering
    the wide range of cases it hears whether criminal, civil, probate, or
    family, as well as the courts's administrative functions. Think about
    it: if a child comes before a judge on an adoption matter, the judge
    has to go to 18 different places to find out whether that child or that
    child's family have any other cases pending in the system. Add to this
    the complicating factor that the D.C. Courts's current systems are not
    integrated with other city agencies such as Child and Family Services
    and the Metropolitan Police Department, and it is no wonder that
    children fall through the cracks.
        The Family Court Act requires the Courts to report on its
    transition to the new Family Court. The witnesses today are Cornelia
    Ashby, Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security for the
    General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO has reviewed the transition plan
    and will make a report to the Subcommittee on that review. Chief Judge
    Rufus King, III and Deputy Judge Lee Satterfield, Presiding Judge of
    the Family Court, will talk about where things stand with the
    transition from their perspective. We will also hear from experts in
    the area of family courts who will give us examples of best practices:
    Matthew Fraidin, Legal Director of the Children's Law Center; Ms.
    Deborah Luxenberg, Chair of the Children in the Courts Committee of the
    Council on Court Excellence; and Ms. Jacqueline Dolan from the
    California Partnership for Children.
        I have three goals for the successful implementation of the Family
    Court Act that I want to discuss at this hearing. First, I want the
    District of Columbia to have a Family Court that serves and protects
    the best interests of the children and the families whose circumstances
    place them within the Court's jurisdiction. One Judge/One Family will
    help make that happen. Second, the new Family Court must be accountable
    and must implement evaluation systems based not only on the nuts and
    bolts of effective case administration, timing, computer systems, and
    paperwork processing, but evaluations based on the long-term outcomes
    for children and families. Finally, it is essential to me that the
    Family Court feels like home. For many of the children in the child
    welfare system, the Family Court may be the one constant in their
    lives. It must be welcoming, not frightening; a friendly place, not a
    sad one. It should be something a child looks forward to, not something
    the child has to ``get through'' like a medical examination.
        As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Family Court Act
    is an historic opportunity for the District of Columbia Courts. I hope
    the judges and city officials seize this moment as a starting point for
    fixing child welfare as we have known it. While I know getting the new
    Family Court up and running efficiently and effectively will take time,
    and fixing the child welfare system will take even longer, we cannot
    afford to wait to start.

        Senator Landrieu. I will ask my ranking member, Senator
    DeWine, if he wanted to make some statements in just a moment.
        Senator DeWine. Yes. I will submit my statement as well.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you, Senator, for including
    you or statement in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine
        Madame Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this very
    important hearing today on the District's Family Court transition plan.
    As I have said over and over again, it is absolutely imperative that we
    protect all children in the District--especially those caught in the
    child welfare and foster care system. That is why the Chairman and I
    introduced the DC Family Court Act of 2001, which President Bush signed
    into law in January. Our law contains reforms that are crucial for
    children and families in the District.
        When we were drafting that legislation, we realized that in order
    to have real reform in the District's Family Court, Congress would have
    to accept some financial responsibility.
        And so, as Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee, Senator
    Landrieu and I were able to allocate roughly $24 million for the DC
    Superior Court. But, through our Family Court Act, we stipulated that
    in order for the Court to access these funds, it must submit a
    transition plan to Congress within 90 days of the Family Court Act
    being signed into law. And that is why we are here today--to examine
    that plan for transition.
        I recognize that everyone involved in drafting this transition plan
    shares a common objective of ensuring that the children who come into
    contact with the DC child welfare system are placed in safe and stable
    environments. Part of that objective also is to ensure that children
    are not ``reabused'' by the very system designed to protect them. And
    so, as we try to assess the effectiveness of the District's plans to
    create the Family Court and its ability to meet these objectives, I am
    left with many questions and am anxious to hear from the panel today.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for taking such an interest in
    the families and children in the District. Judge King and Judge
    Satterfield--I know you have made reforming the Family Division of the
    DC Court your number-one priority, and I look forward to continuing to
    work with both of you. Additionally, I would like to thank Cornelia
    Ashby from the General Accounting Office, Deborah Luxenberg from the
    Council for Court Excellence, Matthew Fraidin [fray-den] from the
    Children's Law Center, and Jacqueline Dolan from the California
    Partnership for Children. Your expertise and dedication to this process
    are vital.
        As we discuss the District's transition plans, I would like to
    remind the Committee and the panel of the reform that I find most
    important--and that is the One-Judge/One-Family provision. The
    implementation of this policy will ensure that the same judge--a judge
    who knows the history of a family and who knows the child--will be
    making the decisions that will forever affect a child's life.
        This is vital for those hard cases involving abuse and neglect.
        Additionally, when there are multiple allegations and issues, the
    practice of One-Judge/One-Family would ensure that the same judge would
    hear the more complicated cases. A judge would no longer see only a
    piece of the puzzle, but rather would see entire picture. A judge needs
    to be aware of all of the issues--the entire situation not just a
    fragment.
        It was our intention when drafting the Family Court law that when
    the Court implemented the One-Judge/One-Family policy, a child removed
    from his or her home would be assigned to the same judge from the
    initial intake hearing to the child's ultimate placement. That same
    judge would hold an adjudication hearing regarding the abuse or neglect
    charges against a child's parent(s). This judge would be well informed
    and able to make the difficult decision about whether to reunify the
    child with his/her parent(s) or whether other permanency options need
    to be evaluated.
        All of these efforts are designed to help stop the practice of
    bouncing children from judge to judge to judge.
        Right now, it is unclear to me from the transition plan that this
    tragic practice will cease. We have given the Court the latitude to
    develop the One Judge/One Family System that will work best in the
    District. But, what that system will look like is still unclear to me.
    By the conclusion of this hearing, I am optimistic that I can say
    otherwise.
        Once again, I would like to thank you, Madame Chairman, for holding
    this hearing today. I am very interested to hear from our witnesses.

        Senator Landrieu. And let us get right in, if we could, to
    our panel. We have Cornelia Ashby with the General Accounting
    Office, the GAO, that has just completed a report, who is here
    to give us her testimony.
        We thought we would begin, Ms. Ashby, with your report,
    which should take about 10 or 15 minutes. And then we will hear
    from Chief Judge King, Judge Satterfield, who are respectively
    the chief judge and the presiding judge of the Family Court.
        We will then have some question-and-answer time for the
    judges, and then hear from Matt Fraidin of the Children's Law
    Center, who is a legal advocacy group for children here in the
    District; and Deborah Luxenberg, Council for Court Excellence.
    The Council for Court Excellence is a D.C. non-profit
    organization that works to improve justice in the region's
    local and Federal courts.
        And then Jackie Dolan from the California Partnership for
    Children--Ms. Dolan is a children's advocate who has worked
    extensively on developing family-friendly, less intimidating
    legal environments for children. She was actively involved in
    the design of the Edelman Courthouse in Los Angeles County,
    which I understand is a real success story. We are anxious to
    hear from her.
        But why do we not begin with the General Accounting Office
    study summary? Ms. Ashby.
        Ms. Ashby. Good morning.
        Senator Landrieu. Good morning.
        Ms. Ashby. Madam Chairman and Senator DeWine, I am pleased
    to be here today to discuss the progress made by the District
    of Columbia Superior Court in transitioning its family division
    to a Family Court.
        The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 required
    the chief judge of the Superior Court to submit to the
    President and the Congress a transition plan outlining the
    proposed operation of the Family Court. The Congress also
    required that, within 30 calendar days after submission of the
    plan by the Superior Court, GAO submit to the President and the
    Congress an analysis of the contents and effectiveness of the
    plan in meeting requirements of the Family Court Act.
        My testimony today is based on our analysis of the
    transition plan. Our final report will be submitted to the
    President and the Congress by Monday, May 6th, 2002.
        In summary, the Superior Court has made progress in
    planning the transition to a family court; but in implementing
    the plan, the Superior Court and the Family Court will face
    challenges.
        Completion of the transition hinges on timely completion of
    a complex series of interrelated, interdependent plans intended
    to obtain and renovate physical space to house the court and
    its functions. In addition the development and application of
    the District of Columbia Court's Integrated Justice Information
    System, known as IJIS, will be critical for the Family Court to
    be able to operate effectively. The Superior Court's transition
    plan addresses most, but not all, of the 10 required elements
    specified in the Act. Before I discuss the elements that are
    not fully addressed in the plan, I would like to briefly
    mention some of the processes the court outlined in the plan
    for transitioning to the one-family/one-judge approach required
    by the Family Court Act.
        I want to mention these processes because they form the
    foundation for the other determinations that were to be
    explained in the elements of the plan and of the challenges the
    court faces.
        The one-family/one-judge approach involves two processes:
    transferring back to the Family Court child abuse and neglect
    cases pending before judges in other divisions of the Superior
    Court; and, case flow management for cases in the Family Court.
        With respect to the transfer of cases back to the Family
    Court, the Family Court intends to have all child abuse and
    neglect cases, pending before judges serving in other divisions
    of the Superior Court, closed or transferred into the Family
    Court by June 2003.
        Some cases are to be transferred immediately, that is by
    June 2002. Cases that the court believes may not be candidates
    for transfer by June 2002, include those for which transfer
    could delay permanency.
        According to the plan, the court has asked each Superior
    Court judge to review his or her caseload to identify those
    cases that meet the criteria established by the court for
    immediate transfer to the Family Court.
        In this regard, magistrates recently hired under the
    expedited appointment process mandated by the Family Court Act
    are to assist the Superior Court judges with the transfer of
    child abuse and neglect cases back to the Family Court. The
    court estimates that 1,500 cases could be candidates for
    immediate transfer.
        With respect to case flow management for cases within the
    Family Court, the plan indicates the Family Court will
    implement the one-family/one-judge approach by assigning all
    cases involving the same family to one judicial team, comprised
    of a Family Court judge and a magistrate.
        This assignment will begin with the initial hearing by the
    magistrate on the team and continue throughout the life of the
    case. To facilitate this approach, the court plans to
    centralize intake.
        As part of centralized intake, case coordinators are to
    identify any related cases that may exist in the Family Court.
    To do this, the coordinator is to ensure that a new intake
    cross-reference form is completed for the parties involved in
    the case, and also check the 18 computer systems currently
    serving the Family Court.
        Closely associated with the successful transition to the
    one-family/one-judge approach is an effective performance
    evaluation system. The evaluation measures developed to assess
    the court's progress in reforming its operations could include
    additional measures that reflect outcomes for children. The
    evaluation measures listed in the plan are oriented more toward
    the court's processes, such as whether hearings are held on
    time, than on outcomes.
        According to a court expert, measures must account for
    outcomes that result in achievements for children. Measures
    could include the number of finalized adoptions, that is, that
    did not disrupt, reunifications that did not fail, children who
    remain safe and are not abused again while under court
    jurisdiction or in foster care, and the proportion of children
    who successfully achieve permanency.
        In addition, the court will need to determine how it will
    gather the data necessary to measure each team's progress in
    ensuring such outcomes and in meeting the requirements of the
    Adoption and Safe Families Act. Further, the court has not
    established a baseline from which to judge its performance.
        With regard to the requirements that were not fully
    addressed in the plan, the transition plan addresses the number
    and roles of judicial officers, but other human capital issues
    remain unclear. For example, the plan states that the court has
    determined that 15 judges are needed to carry out the duties of
    the court and that 12 judges have volunteered to serve on the
    court. However, the plan does not include a request that the
    Judicial Nomination Commission recruit, and the President
    nominate, the additional three judges to serve on the Superior
    Court, as required by the Family Court Act.
        In addition, the plan does not address the qualifications
    of the 12 judges who volunteered for the Family Court. Although
    the plan states that these judges have agreed to serve full
    terms of service, according to the act, the chief judge of the
    Superior Court may not assign an individual to serve on the
    Family Court unless the individual also has training or
    expertise in family law and certifies that he or she will
    participate in the ongoing training programs conducted for
    judges in the Family Court.
        Further, the plan does not include the number of non-
    judicial staff needed. The court acknowledges that while it
    budgeted for a certain number of non-judicial personnel based
    on current operating practices, determining the number of
    different types of personnel needed to operate the Family Court
    effectively is pending completion of a study.
        Finally, although specifically required by the act, the
    plan does not state how the court determined the number of
    magistrates to be hired under the expedited process.
        Of course, the transition plan is only a blueprint, a
    beginning. Full transition to the Family Court in a timely,
    effective manner is dependent on two critical factors:
    obtaining and renovating appropriate space for all new Family
    Court personnel; and, the development and installation of a new
    automated information system, currently planned as part of the
    D.C. Court's IJIS system.
        The transition plan states that there are a number of risks
    associated with the space plan. These include a very aggressive
    implementation schedule and a design that makes each part of
    the plan interdependent with other parts of the plan.
        The transition plan further states that the desired results
    cannot be reached if each plan increment does not take place in
    a timely fashion.
        The Family Court is currently housed in the H. Carl
    Moultrie Courthouse, and plans call for expanding and
    renovating additional space in this courthouse to accommodate
    the additional judges, magistrates, and staff who will help
    implement the D.C. Family Court Act.
        The court estimates that accommodating these judges,
    magistrates, and staff requires an additional 29,700 occupiable
    square feet, plus an undetermined amount for security and other
    amenities.
        Obtaining this space will require non-related D.C. court
    entities to vacate space to allow renovations, as well as
    require tenants in other buildings to move to house the staff
    who have been displaced.
        The plan calls for renovations under tight deadlines and
    all required space might not be available, as currently
    planned.
        As we reported in February 2002, a number of factors
    significantly increased the risk associated with acquiring and
    managing IJIS. Prior to issuing our February 2002 report, we
    discussed our findings with D.C. Courts officials, who
    generally concurred with our findings and stated their
    commitment to only go forward with the project when the
    necessary actions had taken place to reduce the risk to
    acceptable levels.
        In this report, we made several recommendations designed to
    reduce the risk associated with this effort. In April 2002, we
    met with D.C. Courts officials to discuss the actions taken on
    our recommendations and found that significant actions had been
    initiated, and if properly implemented, they should reduce
    risk.
        In addition, D.C. Courts officials told us that they are
    developing a separate transition plan that will allow them to
    use the existing systems, should the IJIS project experience
    delays.
        We will review the plan once it is made available to us.
    Although they recognize that maintaining two systems
    concurrently is expensive and causes additional resource needs,
    such as additional staff and training for them, these officials
    believe that the two systems are needed to mitigate the risks
    associated with any delays in system implementation.
        Although these are positive steps forward, D.C. Courts
    still faces many challenges in its efforts to develop a system
    that will meet its needs and fulfill the goals established by
    the Family Court Act.
        Examples of these include ensuring that the systems
    interfacing with IJIS do not become the weak link; by that we
    mean that deficiencies in the other systems will not inhibit
    the ability of IJIS to operate effectively.
        Other examples include effectively implementing the
    discipline processes necessary to reduce the risks associated
    with IJIS to acceptable levels, ensuring that the requirements
    used to acquire IJIS contain the necessary specificity to
    reduce requirement-related defects to acceptable levels,
    ensuring that users receive adequate training, and avoiding a
    schedule-driven effort. We believe the effort should be event
    driven and not schedule driven.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, on the whole, even though some important
    issues are not addressed, the transition plan represents a good
    effort at outlining the steps the Superior Court will take to
    implement a Family Court. However, as I have just explained,
    the court still faces key challenges to ensuring that its
    implementation will occur in a timely and effective manner.
        Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be
    happy to respond to any questions you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby
        Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
    here today to discuss the progress made by the District of Columbia
    Superior Court in transitioning its Family Division to a Family Court.
    In January 2002, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
    (Public Law 107-114) was enacted to, among other things, (1)
    redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District
    of Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court, (2) recruit
    trained and experienced judges to serve in the Family Court, and (3)
    promote consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges to the
    Family Court and in the consideration of actions and proceedings in the
    Family Court. The passage of this act represented the first major
    overhaul of the Superior Court's Family Division in 3 decades. The
    Congress, in considering such an overhaul, found that poor
    communication between participants in the child welfare system, a weak
    organizational structure, and a lack of case management were serious
    problems plaguing the Family Division.
        As a first step in initiating changes to the Family Division, the
    Family Court Act required the chief judge of the Superior Court to
    submit to the president and the Congress a transition plan outlining
    the proposed operation of the Family Court. The Congress also required
    that the chief judge submit the transition plan to the U.S. General
    Accounting Office (GAO) and that, within 30 calendar days after
    submission of the plan by the Superior Court, we submit to the
    president and the Congress an analysis of the contents and
    effectiveness of the plan in meeting the requirements of the Family
    Court Act. My testimony is based on our analysis of the transition
    plan, including discussions with court and child welfare experts,\1\
    juvenile and family court judges across the country, and officials from
    the District of Columbia Superior Court and the Family Court. To
    supplement our analysis of the transition plan, we also asked several
    court experts to examine the plan and highlight its strengths and areas
    that may need more attention. Our final report will be submitted to the
    president and the Congress by May 5, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We interviewed officials of a variety of organizations, such as
    the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; the National
    Center for State Courts; the Center for Families, Children and the
    Courts at the University of Baltimore; and the Child Welfare League of
    America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, the District of Columbia Superior Court has made
    progress in planning the transition of its Family Division to a Family
    Court, but some challenges remain. The Superior Court's transition plan
    addresses most, but not all, of the required elements outlined in the
    act. Significantly, the completion of the transition hinges on timely
    completion of a complex series of interdependent plans intended to
    obtain and renovate physical space to house the court and its
    functions. For example, the plan explains how the abuse and neglect
    cases currently being heard by judges in other divisions of the
    Superior Court will be closed or transferred to the Family Court;
    however, the plan states that the complete transfer of these cases can
    only occur if additional judges and magistrates are hired, trained, and
    housed in appropriate space. All required space may not be available,
    as currently planned, to support the additional judges the Family Court
    needs to perform its work in accordance with the act, making it
    uncertain as to when the court can fully complete its transition.
    Finally, the development and application of the District of Columbia
    Courts' \2\ Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) \3\ will be
    critical for the Family Court to be able to operate effectively,
    evaluate its performance, and meet its judicial goals in the context of
    the changes mandated by the Family Court Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The D.C. Courts includes three main entities--the Superior
    Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Executive Office--and provides the
    overall organizational framework for judicial operations. The Superior
    Court contains five components: Civil Division, Criminal Division,
    Family Court, Probate Division, and the Tax Division. The Court of
    Appeals, among other responsibilities, handles appellate functions
    referred to it from the Superior Court. The Executive Office performs
    various administrative management functions.
        \3\ Faced with a myriad of nonintegrated systems that do not
    provide the necessary information to support its overall mission, the
    D.C. Courts is in the process of acquiring a replacement system called
    IJIS. See U.S. General Accounting Office, DC Courts: Disciplined
    Processes Critical to Successful System Acquisition, GAO-02-316,
    (Washington, D.C.: 2002) for more details on the court's planning of
    IJIS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   background
        The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
    114) was enacted on January 8, 2002. The act stated that, not later
    than 90 days after the date of the enactment, the chief judge of the
    Superior Court shall submit to the president and Congress a transition
    plan for the Family Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in
    the plan the following:
      --The chief judge's determination of the role and function of the
            presiding judge of the Family Court.
      --The chief judge's determination of the number of judges needed to
            serve on the Family Court.
      --The chief judge's determination of the number of magistrates \4\ of
            the Family Court needed for appointment under Section 11-1732,
            District of Columbia Code.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ A magistrate is a local judicial official entrusted with the
    administration of the law, but whose jurisdiction may be limited.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The chief judge's determination of the appropriate functions of
            such magistrates, together with the compensation of and other
            personnel matters pertaining to such magistrates.
      --A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing needs
            (including the needs of both judicial and nonjudicial
            personnel) for the Family Court, including a description of how
            the Superior Court will handle the one family/one judge
            requirement pursuant to Section 11-1104(a) for all cases and
            proceedings assigned to the Family Court.
      --A plan for space, equipment, and other physical needs and
            requirements during the transition, as determined in
            consultation with the administrator of General Services.
      --An analysis of the number of magistrates needed under the expedited
            appointment procedures established under Section 6(d) in
            reducing the number of pending actions and proceedings within
            the jurisdiction of the Family Court.
      --A proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court of
            child abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of
            enactment of the act (which were initiated in the Family
            Division but remain pending before judges serving in other
            divisions of the Superior Court as of such date) in a manner
            consistent with applicable Federal and District of Columbia law
            and best practices, including best practices developed by the
            American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile
            and Family Court Judges.
      --An estimate of the number of cases for which the deadline for
            disposition or transfer to the Family Court cannot be met and
            the reasons why such deadline cannot be met.
      --The chief judge's determination of the number of individuals
            serving as judges of the Superior Court who meet the
            qualifications for judges of the Family Court and are willing
            and able to serve on the Family Court. If the chief judge
            determines that the number of individuals described in the act
            is less than 15, the plan is to include a request that the
            Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president
            nominate additional individuals to serve on the Superior Court
            who meet the qualifications for judges of the Family Court, as
            may be required to enable the chief judge to make the required
            number of assignments.
        The Family Court Act states that the number of judges serving on
    the Family Court of the Superior Court cannot exceed 15. These judges
    must meet certain qualifications, such as having training or expertise
    in family law, certifying to the chief judge of the Superior Court that
    he or she intends to serve the full term of service and that he or she
    will participate in the ongoing training programs conducted for judges
    of the Family Court. The act also allows the court to hire and use
    magistrates to hear family court cases. Magistrates must also meet
    certain qualifications, such as holding U.S. citizenship, being an
    active member of the D.C. Bar, and having not fewer than 3 years of
    training or experience in the practice of family law as a lawyer or
    judicial officer. The act further states that the chief judge shall
    appoint individuals to serve as magistrates not later than 60 days
    after the date of enactment of the act. The magistrates hired under
    this expedited appointment process are to assist in implementing the
    transition plan, and in particular, assist with the transition or
    disposal of child abuse and neglect proceedings not currently assigned
    to judges in the Family Court.
        The Superior Court submitted its transition plan on April 5, 2002.
    The plan consists of three volumes. Volume I contains information on
    how the court will address case management issues, including
    organizational and human capital requirements. Volume II contains
    information on the development of IJIS and its planned applications.
    Volume III addresses the physical space the court needs to house and
    operate the Family Court. Courts interact with various organizations
    and operate in the context of many different programmatic requirements.
    In the District of Columbia, the Family Court frequently interacts with
    the child welfare agency--the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA)--
    a key organization responsible for helping children obtain permanent
    homes. CFSA must comply with Federal laws and other requirements,
    including the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which placed new
    responsibilities on child welfare agencies nationwide.\5\ ASFA
    introduced new time periods for moving children who have been removed
    from their homes to permanent home arrangements and penalties for
    noncompliance. For example, the act requires States to hold a
    permanency planning hearing not later than 12 months after the child is
    considered to have entered foster care. Permanent placements include
    the child's return home and the child's adoption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ For additional details on the challenges facing the District of
    Columbia's child welfare system and the implementation of ASFA, see
    U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child Welfare:
    Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children's Well-Being, GAO-01-191,
    (Washington, D.C.: 2000) and Foster Care: States' Early Experiences
    Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act, GAO/HEHS-00-1,
    (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     transition plan contains most, but not all, required elements of the
                                family court act
        The Family Court transition plan provides information on most, but
    not all, of the elements required by the Family Court Act. For example,
    the plan describes the Family Court's method for transferring child
    abuse and neglect cases to the Family Court, its one family/one judge
    case management principle,\6\ and the number and roles of judges and
    magistrates.\7\ However, the plan does not (1) indicate if the 12
    judges who volunteered for the Family Court meet all of the
    qualifications outlined in the act, (2) include a request for judicial
    nomination, and (3) state how the number of magistrates to hire under
    the expedited process was determined. In addition, the court could
    consider taking additional actions, such as using a full range of
    measures by which the court can evaluate its progress in ensuring
    better outcomes for children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The Family Court Act requires the Family Court, to the greatest
    extent practicable, feasible, and lawful, to assign one judge to handle
    a case from initial filing to final disposition, as well as to handle
    related family cases that are subsequently filed.
        \7\ In the Family Court, two Family Court judges--the presiding and
    deputy presiding judges--will primarily handle the administrative
    functions of the court. Family Court judges are judges of the Superior
    Court who have received training or have expertise in family law. These
    judges will hear a variety of cases in the court. Family Court
    magistrates are qualified individuals with expertise and training in
    family law. These magistrates will also hear various Family Court
    cases.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Transition Plan Includes a Description of the Court's Plan for
            Transferring Abuse and Neglect Cases to the Family Court
        The transition plan establishes criteria for transferring cases to
    the Family Court and states that the Family Court intends to have all
    child abuse and neglect cases pending before judges serving in other
    divisions of the Superior Court closed or transferred into the Family
    Court by June 2003. According to the plan, the court has asked each
    Superior Court judge to review his or her caseload to identify those
    cases that meet the criteria established by the court for transferring
    or not transferring cases. Cases identified for transfer include those
    in which (1) the child is 18 years of age and older, the case is being
    monitored primarily for the delivery of services, and no recent
    allegations of abuse or neglect exist; and (2) the child is committed
    to the child welfare agency and is placed with a relative in a kinship
    care program. Cases that the court believes may not be candidates for
    transfer by June 2002 include those with respect to which the judge
    believes transferring the case would delay permanency. The court
    expects that older cases will first be reviewed for possible closure
    and expects to transfer the entire abuse and neglect caseloads of
    several judges serving in other divisions of the Superior Court to the
    Family Court. Using the established criteria to review cases, the court
    estimates that 1,500 cases could be candidates for immediate transfer.
        The act also requires the court to estimate the number of cases
    that cannot be transferred into the Family Court in the timeframes
    specified. The plan provides no estimate because the court's proposed
    transfer process assumes all cases will be closed or transferred, based
    on the outlined criteria. However, the plan states that the full
    transfer of all cases is partially contingent on hiring three new
    judges.
    The Transition Plan Describes The Family Court's Approach to Managing
            Its Cases, But The Court Could Consider Additional Approaches
            to Assessing Implementation
        The transition plan identifies the way in which the Family Court
    will implement the one family/one judge approach and improve its case
    management practices; however, the evaluation measures developed to
    assess the court's progress in reforming its operations could include
    additional measures that reflect outcomes for children. The plan
    indicates that the Family Court will implement the one family/one judge
    approach by assigning all cases involving the same family to one
    judicial team--comprised of a Family Court judge and a magistrate. This
    assignment will begin with the initial hearing by the magistrate on the
    team and continue throughout the life of the case. Juvenile and family
    court experts indicated that this team approach is realistic and a good
    model of judicial collaboration. One expert said that such an approach
    provides for continuity if either team member is absent. Another expert
    said that, given the volume of cases that must be heard, the team
    approach can ease the burden on judicial resources by permitting the
    magistrate to make recommendations and decisions, thereby allowing the
    Family Court judge time to schedule and hear trials and other
    proceedings more quickly. Court experts also praised the proposed
    staggered terms for judicial officials--newly-hired judges,
    magistrates, and judges who are already serving on the Superior Court
    will be appointed to the Family Court for varying numbers of years--
    which can provide continuity while recognizing the need to rotate among
    divisions in the Superior Court.
        In addition, the plan identifies actions the court plans to take to
    improve case management. First, the Family Court plans to centralize
    intake. According to the plan, a central office will encompass all the
    functions that various clerks' offices--such as juvenile, domestic
    relations, paternity and support, and mental health--in the Family
    Court currently carry out. As part of centralized intake, case
    coordinators \8\ will identify any related cases that may exist in the
    Family Court. To do this, the coordinator will ensure that a new
    ``Intake/Cross Reference Form'' will be completed by various parties to
    a case and also check the 18 current computer systems serving the
    Family Court. Second, the court plans to use alternative dispute
    resolution to resolve cases more quickly and expand initial hearings to
    address many of the issues that the court previously handled later in
    the life of the case. Last, the plan states that the Family Court will
    provide all affected parties speedy notice of court proceedings and
    implement strict policies for the handling of cases--such as those for
    granting continuances--\9\although it does not indicate who is
    responsible for developing the policies or the status of their
    development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Coordinators will provide day-to-day liaison between judges and
    magistrates, legal counsel, litigants, court clerks, and the child
    welfare agency. They will also be responsible for monitoring the cases
    for ASFA compliance.
        \9\ When a continuance is granted by the judge, the case is
    rescheduled for another day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The plan states that the court will conduct evaluations to assess
    whether components of the Family Court were implemented as planned and
    whether modifications are necessary; the court could consider using
    additional measures to focus on outcomes for children. For example,
    evaluation measures listed in the plan are oriented more toward the
    court's processes, such as whether hearings are held on time, than on
    outcomes. According to a court expert, measures must also account for
    outcomes the court achieves for children. Measures could include the
    number of finalized adoptions that did not disrupt, reunifications that
    do not fail, children who remain safe and are not abused again while
    under court jurisdiction or in foster care, and the proportion of
    children who successfully achieve permanency. In addition, the court
    will need to determine how it will gather the data necessary to measure
    each team's progress in ensuring such outcomes or in meeting the
    requirements of ASFA, and the court has not yet established a baseline
    from which to judge its performance.
    The Transition Plan Addresses the Number and Roles of Judicial
            Officers, But Other Human Capital Issues Remain Unclear
        The transition plan states that the court has determined that 15
    judges are needed to carry out the duties of the court and that 12
    judges have volunteered to serve on the court, but does not address
    recruitment and the nomination of the three additional judges. Court
    experts said that the court's analysis to identify the appropriate
    number of judges is based on best practices identified by highly
    credible national organizations and is, therefore, pragmatic and
    realistic. The plan, however, does not include a request that the
    Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president nominate the
    additional three individuals to serve on the Superior Court, as
    required by the Family Court Act.
        The Superior Court does not provide in the plan its determination
    of the number of nonjudicial staff needed. The court acknowledges that
    while it budgeted for a certain number of nonjudicial personnel based
    on current operating practices, determining the number of different
    types of personnel needed to operate the Family Court effectively is
    pending completion of a staffing study.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ D.C. Courts has hired Booz-Allen & Hamilton to conduct a
    workforce planning analysis over a 6 month period. The analysis and the
    development of a customized automated tool for ongoing workforce
    planning and analysis is scheduled to be complete by May 15, 2002. The
    courts contracted for this project in response to our report, D.C.
    Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous, GAO/GGD-
    99-162, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, the plan does not address the qualifications of the 12
    judges who volunteered for the court. Although the plan states that
    these judges have agreed to serve full terms of service, according to
    the act, the chief judge of the Superior Court may not assign an
    individual to serve on the Family Court unless the individual also has
    training or expertise in family law and certifies that he or she will
    participate in the ongoing training programs conducted for judges of
    the Family Court.
        The transition plan describes the duties of judges assigned to the
    Family Court, as required by the act. Specifically, the plan describes
    the roles of the designated presiding judge, the deputy presiding
    judge, and the magistrates. The plan states that the presiding and
    deputy presiding judges will handle the administrative functions of the
    Family Court, ensure the implementation of the alternative dispute
    resolution projects, oversee grant-funded projects, and serve as back-
    up judges to all Family Court judges. These judges will also have a
    post-disposition \11\ abuse and neglect caseload of more than 80 cases
    and will continue to consult and coordinate with other organizations
    (such as the child welfare agency), primarily by serving on 19
    committees.\12\ One court expert has observed that the list of
    committees to which the judges are assigned seems overwhelming and
    added that strong leadership by the judges could result in the
    consolidation of some of the committees' efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ At the disposition hearing, a decision is made regarding who
    will have custody and control of the child, and a review is conducted
    of the reasonable efforts made to prevent removal of the child from the
    home.
        \12\ These committees include the Child Welfare Leadership Team,
    the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the
    Mayor's Advisory Committee on Permanent Families for Children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The plan also describes the duties of the magistrates, but does not
    provide all the information required by the act. Magistrates will be
    responsible for initial hearings in new child abuse and neglect cases,
    and the resolution of cases assigned to them by the Family Court judge
    to whose team they are assigned. They will also be assigned initial
    hearings in juvenile cases, noncomplex abuse and neglect trials, and
    the subsequent review and permanency hearings,\13\ as well as a variety
    of other matters related to domestic violence, paternity and support,
    mental competency, and other domestic relations cases. As noted
    previously, one court expert said that the proposed use of the
    magistrates would ease the burden on judicial resources by permitting
    these magistrates to make recommendations and decisions. However,
    although specifically required by the act, the transition plan does not
    state how the court determined the number of magistrates to be hired
    under the expedited process. In addition, while the act outlines the
    required qualifications of magistrates, it does not specifically
    require a discussion of qualifications of the newly hired magistrates
    in the transition plan. As a result, none was provided and whether
    these magistrates meet the qualifications outlined in the act is
    unknown.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Review hearings are held to review case progress to ensure
    children spend the least possible time in temporary placement and to
    modify the family's case plan, as necessary. Permanency hearings decide
    the permanent placement of the child, such as returning home or being
    placed for adoption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A discussion of how the court will provide initial and ongoing
    training for its judicial and nonjudicial staff is also not required by
    the act, although the court does include relevant information about
    training. For example, the plan states that the Family Court will
    develop and implement a quarterly training program for Family Court
    judges, magistrates, and staff covering a variety of topics and that it
    will promote and encourage participation in cross-training.\14\ In
    addition, the plan states new judges and magistrates will participate
    in a 2 to 3 week intensive training program, although it does not
    provide details on the content of such training for the five
    magistrates hired under the expedited process, even though they were
    scheduled to begin working at the court on April 8, 2002. One court
    expert said that a standard curriculum for all court-related staff and
    judicial officers should be developed and that judges should have
    manuals available outlining procedures for all categories of cases. In
    a September 2000 report on human capital, we said that an explicit link
    between the organization's training offerings and curricula and the
    competencies identified by the organization for mission accomplishment
    is essential.\15\ Likewise, organizations should make fact-based
    determinations of the impact of its training and development programs
    to provide feedback for continuous improvement and ensure that these
    programs improve performance and help achieve organizational results.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Cross-training refers to the practice of bringing together
    various participants in the child welfare system to learn each other's
    roles and responsibilities. The act requires the court to use the
    resources of lawyers and legal professionals, social workers, and
    experts in the field of child development and other related fields in
    developing its cross-training program.
        \15\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Self-
    Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G, (Washington,
    D.C.: Sept. 2000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    challenges in obtaining the necessary physical space and in developing
       a new information system could impede family court implementation
        Two factors are critical to fully transitioning to the Family Court
    in a timely and effective manner: obtaining and renovating appropriate
    space for all new Family Court personnel and the development and
    installation of a new automated information system, currently planned
    as part of the D.C. Courts IJIS system. The court acknowledges that its
    implementation plans may be slowed if appropriate space cannot be
    obtained in a timely manner. For example, the plan addresses how the
    abuse and neglect cases currently being heard by judges in other
    divisions of the Superior Court will be transferred to the Family
    Court, but states that the complete transfer of cases hinges on the
    court's ability to hire, train, and provide appropriate space for
    additional judges and magistrates. In addition, the Family Court's
    current reliance on nonintegrated automated information systems that do
    not fully support planned court operations, such as the one family/one
    judge approach to case management, constrains its transition to a
    Family Court.
    The Plan for Obtaining the Necessary Space and Facilities Carries a
            Number of Project Risks
        The transition plan states that the interim space plan \16\ carries
    a number of project risks. These include a very aggressive
    implementation schedule and a design that makes each part of the plan
    interdependent with other parts of the plan. The transition plan
    further states that the desired results cannot be reached if each plan
    increment does not take place in a timely fashion. For example,
    obtaining and renovating the almost 30,000 occupiable square feet of
    new court space needed requires a complex series of interrelated
    steps--from moving current tenants in some buildings to temporary
    space, to renovating the John Marshall level of the H. Carl Moultrie
    Courthouse by July 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ The interim space plan addresses facility needs of the Family
    Court in response to the act. D.C. Courts is also developing a
    comprehensive master plan to address the needs of the courts through
    2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Family Court of the Superior Court is currently housed in the
    H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, and interim plans call for expanding and
    renovating additional space in this courthouse to accommodate the
    additional judges, magistrates, and staff who will help implement the
    D.C. Family Court Act. The court estimates that accommodating these
    judges, magistrates, and staff requires an additional 29,700 occupiable
    square feet, plus an undetermined amount for security and other
    amenities. Obtaining this space will require nonrelated D.C. Courts
    entities to vacate space to allow renovations, as well as require
    tenants in other buildings to move to house the staff who have been
    displaced.
         The plan calls for renovations under tight deadlines and all
    required space may not be available, as currently planned, to support
    the additional judges the Family Court needs to perform its work in
    accordance with the act, making it uncertain as to when the court can
    fully complete its transition. For example, D.C. Courts recommends that
    a portion of the John Marshall level of the H. Carl Moultrie
    Courthouse, currently occupied by civil court functions, be vacated and
    redesigned for the new courtrooms and court-related support facilities.
    Although some space is available on the fourth floor of the courthouse
    for the four magistrates to be hired by December 2002, renovations to
    the John Marshall level are tentatively scheduled for completion in
    July 2003--2 months after the court anticipates having three additional
    Family Court judges on board. Another D.C. Courts building--Building
    B--would be partially vacated by non-court tenants and altered for use
    by displaced civil courts functions and other units temporarily
    displaced in future renovations. Renovations to Building B are
    scheduled to be complete by August 2002. Space for 30 additional Family
    Court-related staff, approximately 3,300 occupiable square feet, would
    be created in the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse in an as yet undetermined
    location.
    Reducing Risks in Developing the New Information System Critical to
            Meeting Family Court Goals
        The Family Court act calls for an integrated information technology
    system to support the goals it outlines, but a number of factors
    significantly increase the risks associated with this effort, as we
    reported in February 2002.\17\ For example:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ U.S. General Accounting Office, DC Courts: Disciplined
    Processes Critical to Successful System Acquisition, GAO-02-316,
    (Washington, D.C.: February 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The D.C. Courts had not yet implemented the disciplined processes
            necessary to reduce the risks associated with acquiring and
            managing IJIS to acceptable levels. A disciplined software
            development and acquisition effort maximizes the likelihood of
            achieving the intended results (performance) on schedule using
            available resources (costs).
      --The requirements \18\ contained in a draft Request for Proposal
            (RFP) lacked the necessary specificity to ensure that any
            defects in these requirements had been reduced to acceptable
            levels \19\ and that the system would meet its users' needs.
            Studies have shown that problems associated with requirements
            definition are key factors in software projects that do not
            meet their cost, schedule, and performance goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Requirements represent the blueprint that system developers
    and program managers use to design, develop, and acquire a system.
    Requirements should be consistent with one another, verifiable, and
    directly traceable to higher-level business or functional requirements.
        \19\ Although all projects of this size can be expected to have
    some requirements-related defects, the goal is to reduce the number of
    such defects so that they do not significantly affect cost, schedule,
    or performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The requirements contained in the D.C. Courts' draft RFP did not
            directly relate to industry standards. As a result, inadequate
            information was available for prospective vendors and others to
            readily map systems built upon these standards to the needs of
            the D.C. Courts.
        Prior to issuing our February 2002 report, we discussed our
    findings with D.C. Courts officials, who generally concurred with our
    findings and stated their commitment to only go forward with the
    project when the necessary actions had been taken to reduce the risks
    to acceptable levels. In that report, we made several recommendations
    designed to reduce the risks associated with this effort to acceptable
    levels. In April 2002, we met with D.C. Courts officials to discuss the
    actions taken on our recommendations and found that significant actions
    have been initiated that, if properly implemented, will help reduce the
    risks associated with this effort. For example, D.C. Courts is:
      --beginning the work to provide the needed specificity for its system
            requirements. This includes soliciting requirements from the
            users and ensuring that the requirements are properly sourced
            (e.g., traced back to their origin). According to D.C. Courts
            officials, this work has identified significant deficiencies in
            the original requirements that we discussed in our February
            2002 report.
      --issuing a Request for Information to obtain additional information
            on commercial products that should be considered by the D.C.
            Courts during its acquisition efforts. This helps the
            requirements management process by identifying requirements
            that are not supported by commercial products so that the
            courts can reevaluate whether it needs to (1) keep the
            requirement or revise it to be in greater conformance with
            industry practices or (2) undertake a development effort to
            achieve the needed capability.
      --developing a systems engineering life-cycle process for managing
            the D.C. Courts information technology efforts. This will help
            define the processes and events that should be performed from
            the time that a system is conceived until the system is no
            longer needed. Examples of processes used include requirements
            development, testing, and implementation.
      --developing policies and procedures that will help ensure that the
            courts' information technology investments are consistent with
            the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law
            104-106); \20\ and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ D.C. Courts has decided to apply this act to its investments
    even though it is not required to do so. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires
    Federal executive agencies to establish a process to maximize the value
    and assess and manage the risks of information technology investments.
    This process is to provide for, among other things, identifying for a
    proposed investment quantifiable measurements for determining the net
    benefits and risks of the investment, and minimum criteria for
    undertaking a particular investment, including specific quantitative
    and qualitative criteria for comparing and prioritizing alternative
    systems investment projects. Only by comparing the costs, benefits, and
    risks of a full range of technical options can agencies ensure that the
    best approaches are selected.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --developing the processes that will enable the D.C. Courts to
            achieve a level 2 rating--this means basic project management
            processes are established to track performance, cost, and
            schedule--on the Software Engineering Institute's \21\
            Capability Maturity Model.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ The Software Engineering Institute is recognized for its
    experience in software development and acquisition processes. It has
    also developed methods and models that can be used to define
    disciplined processes and determine whether an organization has
    implemented them.
        \22\ Capability Maturity ModelSM (a service mark of Carnegie Mellon
    University, and CMM? is registered in the U. S. Patent and Trademark
    Office) provides a logical and widely accepted framework for baselining
    an organization's current process capabilities (i.e., strengths and
    weaknesses) and assessing whether an organization has the necessary
    process discipline in place to repeat earlier successes on similar
    projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, D.C. Courts officials told us that they are developing
    a separate transition plan that will allow them to use the existing
    (legacy) systems should the IJIS project experience delays. We will
    review the plan once it is made available to us. Although they
    recognize that maintaining two systems concurrently is expensive and
    causes additional resource needs, such as additional staff and training
    for them, these officials believe that they are needed to mitigate the
    risk associated with any delays in system implementation.
        Although these are positive steps forward, D.C. Courts still faces
    many challenges in its efforts to develop an IJIS system that will meet
    its needs and fulfill the goals established by the act. Examples of
    these include:
        Ensuring that the systems interfacing with IJIS do not become the
    weak link.--The act calls for effectively interfacing information
    technology systems operated by the District government with IJIS.
    According to D.C. Courts officials, at least 14 District systems will
    need to interface with IJIS. However, several of our reviews have noted
    problems in the District's ability to develop, acquire, and implement
    new systems.\23\ The District's difficulties in effectively managing
    its information technology investments could lead to adverse impacts on
    the IJIS system. For example, the interface systems may not be able to
    provide the quality of data necessary to fully utilize IJIS's
    capabilities or provide the necessary data to support IJIS's needs. The
    D.C. Courts will need to ensure that adequate controls and processes
    have been implemented to mitigate the potential impacts associated with
    these risks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, District of
    Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System Implementation,
    GAO-01-489, (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001); District of Columbia:
    The District Has Not Adequately Planned for and Managed Its New
    Personnel and Payroll System, GAO/AIMD-00-19, (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
    17, 1999); and District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for
    A New Financial Management System, GAO/AIMD-98-88, (Washington, D.C.:
    April 30, 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Effectively implementing the disciplined processes necessary to
    reduce the risks associated with IJIS to acceptable levels.--The key to
    having a disciplined effort is to have disciplined processes in
    multiple areas. This is a complex task and will require the D.C. Courts
    to maintain its management commitment to implementing the necessary
    processes. In our February 2002 report, we highlighted several
    processes, such as requirements management, risk management, and
    testing that appeared critical to the IJIS effort.
        Ensuring that the requirements used to acquire IJIS contain the
    necessary specificity to reduce requirement related defects to
    acceptable levels.--Although D.C. Courts officials have said that they
    are adopting a requirements management process that will address the
    concerns expressed in our February 2002 report, maintaining such a
    process will require management commitment and discipline.
        Court experts report that effective technological support is
    critical to effective family court case management. One expert said
    that minimal system functionality should include the identification of
    parties and their relationships; the tracking of case processing events
    through on-line inquiry; the generation of orders, forms, summons, and
    notices; and statistical reports. The State Justice Institute's report
    on how courts are coordinating family cases \24\ states that automated
    information systems, programmed to inform a court system of a family's
    prior cases, are a vital ingredient of case coordination efforts. The
    National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges echoes these
    findings by stating that effective management systems (1) have standard
    procedures for collecting data; (2) collect data about individual
    cases, aggregate caseload by judge, and the systemwide caseload; (3)
    assign an individual the responsibility of monitoring case processing;
    and (4) are user-friendly.\25\ While anticipating technological
    enhancements through IJIS, Superior Court officials stated that the
    current information systems do not have the functionality required to
    implement the Family Court's one family/one judge case management
    principle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Flango, Carol R., Flango, Victor E., and Rubin, H. Ted, ``How
    are Courts Coordinating Family Cases?'' State Justice Institute,
    National Center for State Courts (Alexandria, VA: 1999).
        \25\ National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
    Information Management: A Critical Component of Good Practice in Child
    Abuse and Neglect Cases, Technical Assistance Bulletin, Vol. II, No. 8
    (Reno, NV: Dec. 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ensuring that users receive adequate training.--As with any new
    system, adequately training the users is critical to its success. As we
    reported in April 2001, \26\ one problem that hindered the
    implementation of the District's financial management system was its
    difficulty in adequately training the users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
    Weaknesses in Financial Management System Implementation, GAO-01-489,
    (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Avoiding a schedule-driven effort.--According to D.C. Courts
    officials, the act establishes ambitious timeframes to convert to a
    family court. Although schedules are important, it is critical that the
    D.C. Courts follows an event-driven acquisition and development program
    rather than adopting a schedule-driven approach. Organizations that are
    schedule-driven tend to cut out or inadequately complete activities
    such as business process reengineering and requirements analysis. These
    tasks are frequently not considered ``important'' since many people
    view ``getting the application in the hands of the user'' as one of the
    more productive activities. However, the results of this approach are
    very predictable. Projects that do not perform planning and
    requirements functions well typically have to redo that work later.
    However, the costs associated with delaying the critical planning and
    requirements activities is anywhere from 10 to 100 times the cost of
    doing it correctly in the first place.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Bruce
    McConnell, (Microsoft Press).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            concluding observations
        On the whole, even though some important issues are not discussed,
    the Superior Court's transition plan represents a good effort at
    outlining the steps it will take to implement a family court. However,
    the court still faces key challenges in ensuring that its
    implementation will occur in a timely and efficient manner. The court
    recognizes that its plan for obtaining and renovating needed physical
    space warrants close attention to reduce the risk of project delays. In
    addition, the court has taken important steps that begin to address
    many of the shortcomings we identified in our February 2002 report on
    its proposed information system. The court's actions reflect their
    recognition that developing an automated information system for the
    Family Court will play a pivotal role in the court's ability to
    implement its improved case management framework. Our final report on
    the transition plan may discuss some additional actions the court might
    take to further enhance its ability to implement the Family Court Act
    as required.
        Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
    happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
    subcommittee may have.
                        gao contact and acknowledgments
        For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia
    M. Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to
    this testimony included Diana Pietrowiak, Mark Ward, Nila Garces-
    Osorio, Steven J. Berke, Patrick DiBattista, William Doherty, John C.
    Martin, Susan Ragland, and Norma Samuel.
    Related GAO Products
        DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System
    Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: 2002.
        District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System
    Implementation. Washington, D.C.: 2001.
        District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to
    Ensuring Children's Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: 2000.
        Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia's Child Welfare
    System Reform Efforts. Washington, D.C.: 2000.
        Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption
    and Safe Families Act. Washington, D.C.: 2000.
        Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders.
    Washington, D.C.: 2000.
        D.C. Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous.
    Washington, D.C.: 1999.
        District of Columbia: The District Has Not Adequately Planned for
    and Managed Its New Personnel and Payroll System. Washington, D.C.:
    1999.
        Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Efforts.
    Washington, D.C.: 1999.
        District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New
    Financial Management System. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much for that excellent
    summary. Now is the time basically for the questions to the
    judges to respond to that report. I have prepared some and
    Senator DeWine has some, but let me just give you my general
    comments from the report that I have now read and reviewed and
    now heard.
        I want to try to remain encouraged about the progress and
    the challenges that are before us. And the reason I want to try
    to remain encouraged is because I continue to remember and
    think and remind myself of the over 200 children who have died
    in care of this system over the last 7 years We have lost over
    200 children. So, there is an imperative for us to get this
    right, get it right as quickly as possible, and to be very
    clear.
        I am encouraged by the fact that a plan has been presented,
    and I am encouraged because we have stepped onto the road and
    are hopefully moving, at least, in a direction. And I am
    encouraged because there seems to be some unity among all the
    factors about really wanting to see the change.
        But let me tell you what I heard in terms of weaknesses of
    the system, which greatly concern me. One was the summary by
    Ms. Ashby, that we are very clear on process but very short on
    outcomes. The other weakness that I heard, that concerns me a
    great deal, is there doesn't seem to be any clear baseline so
    that we can tell the progress if we are making some or not.
        I am also concerned about the lack of clarity, about the
    certification of the judges who have volunteered. I am
    particularly concerned, and I share this concern with other
    members, particularly I will say for the record Senator Durbin,
    who has spoken to me on numerous occasions about his concern of
    a lack of focus on court assistance, particularly from social
    workers recognizing that a team approach, including a judge, a
    magistrate, and other administrative personnel is very
    important.
        We hear a lot about the judges. We hear some things about
    magistrates, and we hear virtually nothing about the other
    personnel necessary to handle these kinds of very complicated
    cases in the new time requirements set by Congress, which are
    now mandates.
        I am concerned about, the building plans seem very
    complicated to me and I am not clear that it is going to
    facilitate or lend itself to smooth operations, while some of
    these moves are going on in a system that is already very
    fragile. I am not sure how it could sustain any more stress to
    it in terms of renovations and moving, et cetera. That is not
    clear to me.
        And finally, a weakness is still this computer and
    information system that I have no confidence at this point and
    have not been given enough evidence that it is going to work.
    And its working means life or death for children, so I am going
    to be very, very tough about this tracking system working.
        So, those are some of the weaknesses that I have heard. I
    have tried also to give you some of the strengths.
        Senator DeWine may have some comments or questions at this
    point and then I will have some questions to the judges.
        Senator DeWine. No, Madam Chairman, I am going to wait.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Senator DeWine. And I will just hear the rest of the
    witnesses, and then I do have questions.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. If you all would submit, Chief
    Judge King and Judge Satterfield, your statements for the
    record. But why do I not begin by asking you all to comment on
    some of the weaknesses and strengths that I have outlined, and
    also either take that chart that is up there, which came from
    your plan, which is the new plan, and walk us through, if you
    wanted to bring that up, take us through one case, give us an
    example of one case.
        And if my staff could give me a little version of it, so I
    could see it more clearly. Yes, I have got it right here.
        First, I want you to comment on the strengths and
    weaknesses that you have heard, and then, Judge Satterfield,
    since you are the presiding judge, I would like you to start
    with a petition filed and just sort of make up a case in your
    head about how this system would work within the 18-month time
    frame that is now required by law.
        Once a child hits the system and becomes identified by the
    system, we have, in every district now in the nation, a law
    that says you have 18 months to either have that child back
    with the family which they were taken from, or they have to be
    with an adoptive family, or they have to have permanency in
    guardianship.
        The days of long-term foster care are thankfully coming to
    a halt in this nation. They are going to be slowly phased out.
    We are not going to have long-term foster care in the country.
    We are going to either have permanency and reunification or
    adoption with a new family or permanent guardianship. And that
    is a new law that Congress initiated; and the District will
    abide by that law, as will every other district in the country.
        So why do you not start, Judge, and give me your comments
    about the strengths and weaknesses and then walk us through a
    specific case and the time lines.

    STATEMENT OF JUDGE LEE SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE,
                FAMILY COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ACCOMPANIED BY RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Judge Satterfield. All right. Thank you. And let me thank
    you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to talk about the
    transition plan today; and you too, Senator DeWine for that
    opportunity. And I will go right to some of the weaknesses that
    we cited, or some of the problems that were cited by the GAO in
    terms of our transition plan.
        Let me say that first it is a transition plan. It is a plan
    that is----
        Senator Landrieu. Pull the mike a little closer.
        Judge Satterfield. I am sorry.
        It is a plan that is not final, because this is an ongoing
    process that we have undertaken under the Family Court Act and
    it is going to take some time to get to the point where we are
    satisfied with everything that is being implemented in the act.
        In terms of the sum of the outcomes, a comment was that the
    report is sort of process-driven and not outcome-driven, with
    respect to the children that we serve in those cases.
        We feel that the processes that are put in place are
    designed for good outcomes for children. I think that in terms
    of having a baseline, we are currently working on having a
    baseline, because we understand that we have to have a baseline
    in order to evaluate what those outcomes are for the children.
    And so we are in the process of establishing that baseline.
        Senator Landrieu. Could I ask you just some comments about
    what in your mind a baseline would look like? I mean, what
    would you have in a baseline, so we could tell if we were
    making progress?
        Judge Satterfield. We want to know how long the children
    are staying in the court system for one. We want to know what
    that average is because I think some of the positive results
    that we expect to see is that that time will go down if we are
    successful in implementing some of the reforms of the Family
    Court Act.
        We want to know whether or not we are meeting all of the
    time lines, not just through the Federal ASFA, but also through
    the D.C. ASFA, because those time lines are designed so that
    the case of a child can move forward to permanency quicker.
        But we also want to make sure that we are also providing
    quality to the case itself, because these are children and even
    though there are time lines, we have to make sure and ensure
    that these children are safe and that we are achieving
    permanency.
        But the time lines are there so that we can expedite
    permanency for the children. So we want to make sure that we
    are doing that. So we want to establish a baseline of where we
    are on those time lines.
        Senator DeWine. Judge----
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. Madam Chairman, if I could just interrupt?
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, I think what I am saying--I do not
    know whether the Chairman is saying this--is why is that not in
    the plan? You are telling us today what you want to do, and
    those are all very good things and we appreciate that.
        Why is that not a part of a plan that is in writing that
    you can get your hands on, and then you can measure it?
        Judge Satterfield. Because we do not have the baseline.
    Now, that is correct; that is why we are establishing that. If
    we had the baseline, we would have included that part of it in
    the plan so that we can show where we are starting from.
        We recognize that we do not have the baseline. We are
    starting to develop that so that we are able to show to you
    what the baseline is, so we can report to you what our progress
    is.
        Senator DeWine. I wonder if the GAO has got a response to
    that?
        Ms. Ashby. Well, more of a question than a response. Given
    that we are now implementing the Family Court, how do you at
    this point develop a baseline if you do not already have it?
    You know, the baseline would have been what happened last year
    or what happened over the last 2 or 3 years.
        Once you start implementing the new system, it is kind of
    late, I think, to establish a baseline.
        Senator DeWine. So, see, you already have the statistics.
        Judge King. May I? If I may?
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead, Chief Judge King.
        Judge King. One of the key elements of the transition plan
    is the development of an effective Integrated Justice
    Information System (IJIS). We do not have an effective IJIS. We
    have to pull all that data together so, of course, we are doing
    that.
        We are pulling together data by hand in some cases and by
    very arduous, slightly automated, processes in others, to
    establish a baseline. We are taking an historical look but we
    just do not have it done yet.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes, okay.
        Judge King. In the plan, we will get to a point where if
    you asked us today what our baseline was in 1999, we could go
    back and have it to you by noon. But we are just not there yet.
        Senator DeWine. But does the plan say what specifically
    should be measured and how it is going to be measured?
        Ms. Ashby. No, it----
        Judge King. Yes, we have some criteria.
        Senator DeWine. Well, I am getting a no and I am getting a
    yes.
        Senator Landrieu. She says no and you are saying----
        Senator DeWine. And that is why we are having the hearing.
        Judge King. Okay. It does not elaborate and I think we need
    to establish--and frankly, the comments of GAO have been
    helpful and instructive for us. We will develop criteria, which
    by consensus, with the consensus of GAO and with agreement of
    the Bar and other participants in our process, are a good way
    of measuring ``Are we doing better for children?''
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me ask this, and if I could
    just--because this is a very important starting point, I think,
    and would be worth some time to discuss in some detail with
    everyone's input. It seems to me that we could go one of two
    ways, and let me just clarify the facts for the record.
        Is it true or can somebody tell me how many cases are in
    this universe? Are we talking about 4,500, 4,200, or 3,800? Do
    we have an official number of cases that we have identified as
    belonging to this new Family Court?
        Judge Satterfield. We have an official number. We cited
    these statistics----
        Senator Landrieu. What is that number?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, I have to turn to what we cited as
    of the end of this year, which is in one of the appendices. I
    cannot give it to you off the top of my head, but we----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Does anybody in the audience know
    what the number is?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, I have it here.
        Senator Landrieu. Does GAO know?
        Ms. Ashby. I believe in the appendix it is 5,000-and-some
    cases.
        Judge Satterfield. Well, you are talking about the child
    welfare cases, but----
        Senator Landrieu. I am talking about the cases that have
    now been identified----
        Judge Satterfield. Right, right.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. As having to be dealt with
    that we are trying to get our hands around.
        Judge Satterfield. So you are talking about the cases of
    children, the child welfare cases----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. That are the ones that are
    either coming back into----
        Senator Landrieu. That are going to be in the new Family
    Court.
        Judge Satterfield. Right. That number of----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. I have here in the exhibit, just
    for the record: pending divorce cases, 6,663; paternity and
    support, 8,497; juvenile delinquency, 825; mental health and
    retardation, 2,436; child abuse and neglect, 5,145; adoption,
    807; for a total of 24,000. However, I am going to assume that
    some of these cases are double-counted; is that a good
    assumption?
        Judge Satterfield. No, they are not double-counted.
        Senator Landrieu. And so, they are all individual cases?
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. These are all individual children, all
    for the families.
        Judge Satterfield. Well, all of the child abuse and neglect
    cases are all individual children. Actually, the only--some of
    the--let me backtrack on that. The double counting, if there is
    some, would be in some of the child abuse and neglect cases are
    pending adoption, so there would be some double counting there;
    not anywhere else.
        Senator Landrieu. And it would not overlap with mental
    health and retardation?
        Judge Satterfield. No.
        Senator Landrieu. So, none of your child abuse and neglect
    cases would involve a child that had mental illness or mental
    retardation?
        Judge Satterfield. It would not involve a mental health or
    mental retardation cases. We have those types of issues in our
    child abuse cases. We just do not have a separate case jacket
    for that child.
        We deal with that in the child welfare case, so that would
    not mean any double numbers there.
        Senator Landrieu. Maybe GAO can help me, because what I am
    trying to get a handle on, which is a very important starting
    place, is how many cases we are talking about. Because if it is
    24,000 as opposed to 5,000, then the plan is going to look a
    lot different, I suggest. I mean, that is a big difference in
    number.
        Judge Satterfield. No. There are 5,000 cases, or 5,100
    cases as of the end of last year, of children in our abuse and
    neglect system.
        Senator Landrieu. And those are the only cases that are
    going to go to this new Family Court?
        Judge Satterfield. No. All of these cases are in the Family
    Court. All of these cases, but specifically for the ones of
    children, we are looking at the child abuse and neglect and the
    juvenile delinquency cases and the adoption cases. And of those
    cases, we have identified the numbers, and each number
    represents one child.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Your plan in broad terms is to take
    these 24,000 cases and divide them among the 15 judges and--17
    magistrates?
        Ms. Ashby. Ultimately.
        Senator Landrieu. Ultimately.
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. So, you are going to take 24,000 and
    divide these cases all to these judges?
        Judge Satterfield. They will not be divided evenly because
    some of the cases are weighted differently, meaning that some
    of them take longer to process. And we have to--we look at
    which ones and what they are processed for. A juvenile trial
    can take up to 5 days in some respects. A divorce or custody
    trial can take longer. And so they will not be divided evenly,
    but----
        Senator Landrieu. That is okay. They do not have to be
    divided evenly, but they will be identified to a particular
    judge, because the founding principle of this act is one-judge/
    one-family.
        And so the most important mandate in this act is for these
    cases to be distributed however you all see fit. But once the
    case is given to the judge and to that court, it is going to
    stay there until it is handled from beginning to end, and not
    moved from judge to judge, or magistrate to magistrate, or
    lawyer to lawyer. So the families get a real quality service.
        Judge Satterfield. We propose and I agree that that is the
    overarching principle of the act, is the one-judge/one-family,
    and we propose to implement that in phases as we set forth in
    the transition plan, starting with the child welfare cases. Of
    the child welfare cases, in that 5,100 number, we are talking
    about approximately 3,500 of those cases that are not assigned
    to judges in Family Court. Those are the cases that we are
    bringing back home to Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. Senator DeWine and I would be very
    interested to see written clearly on paper, the time lines for
    assigning these cases and to what judges they are going to go
    to of the 5,145, and how quickly either you or GAO think that
    you can clearly identify what cases are staying with what
    judges. And I understand that none of this is automated.
        Judge Satterfield. True----
        Senator Landrieu. I understand that these are all in
    jackets, in files that have to be sorted by hand. I am clear
    about that. There is no computer system that will help us to
    sort, but this is my point, we have a decision to make
    together.
        We can either spend the next couple of years automating the
    system and then do the sort, which puts some more months and
    years with these children in limbo, or we can do a hand sort,
    get the cases moving, and then develop the automated system.
        Judge Satterfield. Well, we completely agree with you.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge Satterfield. We are moving those cases now. In fact,
    up to 1,500 of those cases are going to go throughout the month
    of May, to the new magistrate judges that are finishing their
    training this week and will start sitting on cases next week.
    So we totally agree. We are not waiting for automation to do
    that.
        Senator Landrieu. That's good. Okay.
        Judge Satterfield. And I can go to some of the major
    milestones in terms of the transition, if you would like. We
    expect to get in 1,500 to start, and that is of the 3,500 cases
    that are outside of the Family Court. The remaining of that
    1,500 are already in and being served by judges now.
        Senator Landrieu. It would be helpful if you could simply
    submit, maybe within 60 days, Judge, a specific written time
    frame about what cases are moving to what courts, in what time
    frame and how long it will take?
        Judge Satterfield. I can----
        Senator Landrieu. If you do not have that now--
        Judge Satterfield. I can tell you now what we expect to
    happen with respect to the transition of all those cases that
    are outside the Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, why do you not tell us now and then
    submit it in writing?
        Judge Satterfield. Because we truly believe that we will
    get them in before the transition period is over, if we can
    work out some of the challenges we have with respect to space,
    because right now we are having to put in a stop order, because
    of the lack of the money coming forth, so that we can start
    building out the space. And we are getting very close to doing
    that.
        But we truly believe if that resolves itself, which we hope
    that it will, that we will get these cases in. We expect the
    first 1,500 to come in during the months of May and June. Then
    when we bring on four additional magistrate judges later in the
    year, we expect to bring another 1,200 kids back into Family
    Court.
        Senator Landrieu. Later in the year would be what month?
        Judge Satterfield. What we are looking in terms of getting
    the space built out, we are looking at the earliest as
    December. In the interim, though, we expect that when
    children's cases close, of the first 1,500 cases that go in,
    some of those cases we hope--because we are targeting it for
    certain reasons--will close. As they close, we will continue to
    give those new magistrate judges that are already on board
    additional cases from judges who are outside of Family Court.
        We told them your case load, you will not be able to
    measure your success by whether you get your numbers down. You
    will measure your success by the outcome you achieve with a
    child. And each time you achieve a good outcome for a child, we
    are going to bring you another child in from outside the Family
    Court, so that you could do the same thing there.
        So even in the interim, we have two goals and two dates in
    which we are going to have a larger number of children's cases
    coming in. But in the interim, in that period in between, as
    they close these cases, we bring in additional cases to them.
        Senator Landrieu. Would GAO like to comment on that?
        Ms. Ashby. Well, the numbers, the 1,500 and the 1,200 later
    this year and early next year are in the plan. The difficulty
    we had in accounting for total numbers were, number one, we
    were not sure that the 5,000 listed here, how that connected
    with the numbers in the narrative of the plan. But just looking
    at the numbers, there were gaps. And it was not clear in some
    cases whether--it sounded from the narrative as if some cases
    would not transfer back into the Family Court, because they
    would be closed before that would happen.
        But we were not clear in terms of numbers. The 3,500 seemed
    to be brought forward in the narrative as coming back into the
    court. But as I said, there was a discussion about some cases
    being closed outside of the Family Court, so there was some
    confusion.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. I would like to try to unravel this
    confusion; because I think as a starting point it is very
    important and I am not sure what to suggest. I do not want to
    take too much time on this one point, but perhaps you all could
    meet with GAO and see if you could resolve that, and submit to
    this committee, in writing, specifically, the cases that are
    going to be resolved by the current system, which I think we
    allowed in the law.
        We did not say all the cases would have to move
    immediately, because we did not want to cause even yet another
    disruption for some of these cases. So some of the judges who
    are not Family Court judges are going to resolve the cases that
    were in their court. They are going to transfer only a portion
    of the 5,000 cases to the new judges, and then----
        Judge Satterfield. Of the 3,500 cases. I am sorry.
        Senator Landrieu. Of the 3,500 cases, a portion----
        Judge Satterfield. Coming back in.
        Senator Landrieu. Oh, there are 3,500 coming back in and
    about 1,500----
        Judge Satterfield. Right.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Staying with the----
        Judge Satterfield. That they are already being handled by--
    --
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. The Family Court
    jurisdiction officers.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. So, are there any cases remaining
    with judges who are part of the court, but not Family Court
    judges?
        Judge Satterfield. That is the 3,500 cases that you are
    talking about. They are the ones that are with the judges
    outside of Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. Are not some of those judges keeping some
    of their cases?
        Judge Satterfield. They will not. We have asked them to
    identify if the case has a child reaching majority before the
    end of the year, that case will be closed before the end of the
    year.
        We have asked them to keep a case where they know that the
    adoption will go through before the end of the year, because
    that case does not need the services and intense scrutiny of
    the magistrate judges that are coming on board.
        We have asked them that if in June, when we want this
    particular case to come in, you are dealing with a major crisis
    with your child, and you want some continuity to resolve that
    crisis, resolve that crisis; and then that case that has been
    identified to come back in, we will bring that case back in,
    after you have done that.
        So, we have only asked and given them very limited
    exceptions as to what types of cases would stay out. And we
    only--and, of course, there has to be some of that, because of
    the capacity that we have, but----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That is fine. Let me ask you what
    we would like for our records. We would like GAO to help us
    identify what cases have been held by what judges and what
    specific cases have moved to the new court and identify each
    court and each magistrate and their basic caseload as the
    baseline.
        You have to have a starting point.
        Judge Satterfield. Well, we have that, and we can give you
    that, because we have identified the cases. The only reason
    that we have not attached them to the magistrate judge yet is
    because we are trying to work out something with Child and
    Family Services, where we would have these cases that are
    coming back in assigned to magistrate judges based on who the
    social workers are, so that a number of social workers would
    only have to appear in front of one judge, which would free up
    their time to do other things in court.
        So we are working on that with Child and Family Services.
    We have the cases, that are coming back in, identified.
        Senator Landrieu. So let us talk about that for a minute.
    GAO can step in any time, but your plan is having some
    difficulty assigning these cases, because you want to put the
    same social workers together with the magistrate?
        Judge Satterfield. It is not difficulty. We have offered
    Child and Family Services that, if they can identify for us
    clusters of social workers, we were willing to assign those
    cases according to who the social worker is.
        That is not our difficulty. We can assign them right now by
    just----
        Senator Landrieu. But you are waiting for them?
        Judge Satterfield. We are just waiting for them, and they
    have given me an answer yesterday, that they think we are going
    to be able to do that. And part of the problem is, as you
    identified already, our computer systems do not talk, so a lot
    of things have to happen; it is labor-intensive to get that
    process going.
        We can assign these cases right now. We have identified
    them. We have identified the categories. We have 1,500.
        We can give them to the magistrate judges right now. We
    expect to start doing that next week in any event, because they
    will have stopped their training at the end of this week. But
    we have been trying to work out a system where we can also
    accomplish the scheduling goal of trying to free up additional
    time, because Child and Family Services says they would like
    additional time obviously to do what they need to do, because
    they are so overloaded with their cases and the lack of social
    workers. So, we are trying to do that with them to accomplish
    that goal, as well.
        Senator Landrieu. That is a very good goal and I want to
    encourage you. This cooperation between these agencies is so
    important. Maybe our committee could help by sending a letter
    to the city urging them to try to get back to you as quickly as
    possible with their cluster groups of social workers. When you
    assign these cases, you are keeping social workers that have
    been working on the cases together with these new magistrates.
        We know it is not going to be perfect. But that is how we
    develop a baseline: how many cases, what the teams look like,
    and how long it has taken us to adjudicate these cases in the
    past.
        As you build the Family Court over the next couple of
    years, we hope to see that the process has become more
    efficient, outcomes have improved, the quality of service has
    improved, et cetera, et cetera. You are going in the right
    direction.
        Otherwise, we can spend a lot of time talking and not a lot
    of improvement.
        Ms. Ashby. Yes. I just wanted to add that--actually, that
    is reasonable given that ultimately the team would go beyond
    the judge and the magistrate--and as I understand it from the
    plan--would include perhaps a person from child welfare, a
    worker and attorneys and----
        Senator Landrieu. Let us talk about that now for the
    record. Judge Satterfield--how do you envision structuring your
    Family Court teams? Who is on a team?
        Judge Satterfield. We expect to have the judge--associate
    judge and magistrate judge, and I am an associate judge, and
    new magistrate judges on a team, along with--and that is how
    this team will begin. Because we can group them together now,
    and because that is something that the court has control over.
        Then we have asked the other stakeholders that are involved
    in this process, like the city's attorney, that we would like
    to see them assigning their assistant corporation counsel
    attorneys to particular teams. And they have to do a number of
    things to do that, as well. And so we have asked them to do
    that.
        Then we are looking for adding some of the other attorneys,
    the private attorneys that represent the children as guardians
    ad litem, and the parents' attorneys to participate and appear
    in front of a certain team set of judges, a magistrate judge
    and associate judge on the child welfare cases of the children.
        And then we are asking that the--we do that through social
    workers as well. That takes some time only because you have to
    coordinate with the other agencies to get this accomplished;
    and I can give you an example.
        When we start to bring these cases together and there are
    many cases where the city's attorney is involved in the case,
    if I have an abuse and neglect case, I have one city attorney.
    If I bring in the juvenile case, there is another city attorney
    that handles the juvenile case. If I bring in the related
    domestic violence case, there is another city attorney that may
    handle that.
        They have to work on, as well, the cross-training, so that
    you do not have 10 lawyers in front of you, not accomplishing
    anything but hearing a lot of noise. You have to work on the
    cross-training there as well. And then we have to work on
    bringing the social worker in, and bringing that team in.
        And the social workers change sometimes, depending upon
    where the child is through the process. And so, those are some
    of the things that we have to coordinate to accomplish this
    team approach. And that is why we say by the end of June, 2003,
    we hope to have this whole team together.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me ask you this, to facilitate
    that, have we established either by law or by administrative
    directive a task force that is responsible for carrying out
    this interagency coordination?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, we have--we, by law----
        Senator Landrieu. Not within the court--not within the
    court.
        Judge Satterfield. But you----
        Senator Landrieu. The--something that sits that can sort of
    help the court----
        Judge Satterfield. But we have been----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And the social welfare, and
    the prosecutors basically----
        Judge Satterfield. Sure.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. To do this.
        Judge Satterfield. We have been working with the child
    welfare team, which is a team that is facilitated by the
    court--Council for Court Excellence for some time. That team
    has been in place prior to the enactment of the Family Court
    Act. And all the players that I am talking about are members of
    that team.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge Satterfield. And so we have had these discussions. I
    am not saying we are not--we are working together on it, Dr.
    Golden and the others. And everybody recognizes it, but it is
    just those types of obstacles and challenges that we have to
    take on to move this thing along, and we are moving it along.
    It just takes some time for others to reorganize, to complement
    what we are trying to do in Family Court.
        Judge King. If I may just add, one of the first things,
    when the bill came into effect, is that I issued two
    administrative orders establishing an internal oversight team
    and an external working group, which is overseeing this.
        So we have our own group, which does include people from
    the outside agencies as an oversight group, working on this.
        Judge King. Because we obviously have to work step----
        Senator Landrieu. I realize that which is why I said one of
    the strengths that I see is that everybody is really trying to
    work in a unified manner, and I think that is very, very good.
        I think the unity is a tremendous strength. What concerns
    me is that any time you are trying to do a fairly complicated
    task there has to be significant coordination. If all groups do
    not do what they are supposed to do on time, submit their
    plans, do their work, it holds everybody else up.
        So my question is: which agency is forcing everybody to
    meet their deadlines, have their teams organized so that
    everybody can work together? Because if that is this committee,
    I need to know about that.
        If it is somebody else, then I can help them to get the
    resources they need to do that, so that we have all very
    positive outcomes and we meet our time lines, which are tight.
    These time lines are tight.
        Judge King. But we--I mean we are leading in this, because
    this is the plan that we put together in collaboration with the
    other groups.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. So you will tell me if there is a
    team or group that are not doing what they are supposed to do,
    or the child welfare agency is not doing it, you will come and
    tell this committee.
        Judge King. We are happy to do that.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Because we are going to hold you
    all accountable.
        Judge King. I know. So we are happy to do that.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. All right. So we will hold you
    all accountable. You will tell us and we are clear about--you
    know, so I do not want to hear ``We could not do it because so-
    and-so did not do what they were supposed to do,'' because we
    will--okay?
        Judge King. I think that is the clear--I think from the
    very beginning of the discussions----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge King [continuing]. And the Act, it was clear that the
    court is the ultimate arbiter--ultimately, we are the ones who
    are responsible for making the thing go.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge King. And I believe we have put in place the proper
    team to carry out that vision.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Would you walk me through, and then
    Senator DeWine probably has a comment or a question--will you
    walk me through that flow chart, and show us and go through a
    specific, you know, just a made-up case of how the petition is
    filed, because there are no time lines? What I noticed on here
    is not only is it----
        Judge Satterfield. We have added them on there--because we
    noticed that, too.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Would you go----
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. Because we noticed that,
    too.
        Senator Landrieu. Would you write the time lines up there,
    or have somebody write them up there?
        Judge Satterfield. They are up there. They are up there
    now. They are not in the one that is in the transition plan.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. In the book.
        Judge Satterfield. But we understand that was a concern.
    You wanted to see those, so we have added them to the one that
    is on here.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Could I have a new copy then with
    time lines?
        Judge King. This one is current.
        Senator Landrieu. And Senator DeWine would like one, too.
        So the first one, we did not have time lines, which is very
    important; and the second one we now have time lines.
        Judge Satterfield. That is right.
        Senator Landrieu. Because we have 18 months from the time
    this petition is filed until down here and I--just for my
    purposes, I would like to say, ``Child go home,'' or ``Child
    adopted'' would be the two--you know, either--either home,
    guardianship, or adoption are the three outcomes that are on
    the bottom of this sheet.
        We have 18 months from the time the petition is filed to
    get to those three outcomes; so Judge Satterfield, why do you
    not walk us through this, if you would?
        Judge Satterfield. So if a child case comes into our court,
    it is going to come in on a petition filed by the attorney from
    the city. Within 24 hours of the child being removed, we are
    going to have what we call the initial hearing, and that is to
    determine the legal basis for the removal of the child.
        After the initial hearing, within 30 days of that initial
    hearing, one of two things will occur. We have a child
    protection mediation program, that is ongoing, that has been
    grant-funded through the Council for Court Excellence, and
    being evaluated by the National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges.
        We are sending 50 percent of our cases involving children,
    our new cases as of January through that. By the end of the
    year, we will know, because it is being evaluated; all
    appropriate cases that should go through that, and we will
    increase that number with all appropriate cases once that
    evaluation is completed.
        Senator Landrieu. And let me be clear, because Senator
    DeWine and I, I think, are big supporters of this. But this is
    an opportunity, within 30 days of a child being removed to have
    a counseling session with the extended family?
        Judge Satterfield. No. I am sorry. This is not family
    counseling, which is something that the agency is trying to do.
    This is a child--this is a mediation with all of the lawyers
    present, the guardian ad litem, the parents' attorneys, in a
    hope to resolving the child's case in terms of an adjudication,
    so that there would not need to be a trial, and so that we can
    get ahead of all the time lines, because there will not be a
    need for a trial.
        So, they are trying to mediate the resolution, because we
    need an admission of neglect for us to gain the jurisdiction to
    move forward with the other aspects of----
        Senator Landrieu. Let me just tell you my comments about
    this. And Senator DeWine is truly an expert, because he was a
    prosecutor.
        But what I have tried to figure out about this is that,
    some time after a child is removed from a home, there should
    be, and there might not be in our law, but we could create it--
    it may not be legal, I am not sure--but in my mind, I think
    that there should be a time where the lawyers or the court
    personnel bring together some opportunity for the extended
    family to make a family decision about what should happen to
    this child--people who know the child and know the family.
        Now, while it is important to have lawyers involved because
    lawyers know a lot about the law, sometimes the lawyers do not
    know about the children. They do not know about the family.
    They are not familiar enough.
        So I am not suggesting that we not do this. I am just
    suggesting that let us just, really, search for the very best
    system. And in my mind, and I have heard about other systems
    doing this, there is a time for input from the grandmother, the
    aunt, the next-door neighbor, the principal, the second-grade
    teacher, who know this child and who know the situation.
        They do not need to investigate. They know. They come
    together and it is a facilitated discussion about, ``You all
    who know this child the best, what do you think would be the
    best?''
        If those things work successfully, you could reduce your
    caseload substantially, because a lot of times a resolution
    will come out right then, within 30 days and that group will
    say, ``We know this child. We have watched this child suffer
    for 4 years. We know and we are strongly recommending that this
    child be adopted by the aunt or the sister or the grandmother''
    or ``We are strongly recommending a guardianship of the
    neighbor, who has been raising this child basically since it
    was born.'' Or, you know, the teacher says, ``I really have a
    solution.''
        And I want to press you all to that kind of system. And if
    you need laws changed or you need us to do anything, you know,
    we can help you facilitate it.
        And then the idea is to keep a third--maybe 40, maybe 50
    percent of these cases from ever getting to the court system
    itself where it is adversarial, the way is not clear, there is
    not a consensus. And then you really have no alternative but to
    go to some court system where people have to take sides; and
    then it takes longer.
        Judge Satterfield. Can I comment on that, though, because I
    think----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. Some of what you said
    occurs before it comes to our court system, or needs to occur
    before it comes to our court system.
        The other part of it is we try to do things at the initial
    hearing to identify relatives. We ask the social workers,
    ``Start identifying the relatives,'' so that in 30 days for the
    mediation, while they may not be in the mediation room as a
    party to the case, they are available.
        We expect that they have talked to the social workers, so
    that we can do just what you are saying, resolve these cases in
    an expedited way, which results in some future permanency for
    the child and safety for the child, by using relatives. And
    some of that can be accomplished through the child protection
    mediation in 30 days.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me recognize Senator DeWine, and I
    will be right back.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Judge King. Yes. I would like to finish that answer or
    finish up his answer----
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. Go ahead. Go ahead, Judge.
        Judge King. You mentioned something in your example of
    maybe--a neighbor could be a guardian. And it is a subject near
    and dear to my heart.
        Our guardianship law would not allow us to do that. And one
    of the things I have spoken informally on with the City
    Council, perhaps a letter of encouragement or support might
    help.
        Senator DeWine. It is your D.C. law?
        Judge King. We need to change the law in order to allow us
    to have that option, because I agree; I believe that that would
    be a very big help in closing cases, a group of cases, not all
    of them. But there is a group of cases that could be closed by
    that legal provision, if we had it available.
        Senator DeWine. Let me get back to the issue of fundamental
    policy, and how it pertains to this time line, and how it
    pertains to the plan that you have submitted.
        As you know, under the Federal law, the ASFA law, there are
    certain instances where reasonable efforts are not required to
    reunite the family--a child with a family; the parent who has
    murdered another child would be an extreme horrible example.
        On your time line, when will the determination be made as
    to whether or not reasonable efforts are required at all? You
    know, if reasonable efforts are not appropriate, the Federal
    law requires a permanency hearing within 30 days. Does that
    time line cover that?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, if it is a case where ``reasonable
    efforts'' is not required, we would have to get it to trial
    within a certain period of time in order to have it
    adjudicated, that the child has been neglected, to give us the
    jurisdiction to move forward with some other permanency goal of
    adoption or guardianship or whatever it would be.
        Senator DeWine. But you are going to have to make a
    determination, an initial determination. I mean, you know,
    obviously, someone in the system has to make that initial
    determination, at least in your mind; then you move forward.
        I mean, just where does it show--just show me up there,
    walk up there and just show me where it fits in.
        Judge Satterfield. There are two--there are two areas where
    it can be initially--in the initial hearing when we are looking
    at the type of case it is in terms of--and under the law it is
    usually made at the disposition hearing, which is under the
    adjudication block where we indicate that no reasonable efforts
    were necessary, or in the permanency hearing where we indicate
    that no reasonable efforts were necessary because of the nature
    of the crime, as you said for one that involves sort of abuse-
    type crimes.
        Senator DeWine. So, we are covered?
        Judge Satterfield. I think we are covered, yes.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Judge King. I would also point out----
        Senator DeWine. Sure, Judge.
        Judge King [continuing]. That it depends on the nature of
    the circumstance. Obviously, in a case where a sibling has been
    murdered, you do not need 30 days to figure that out. That gets
    done at the initial hearing, in terms of where that case is
    ultimately going to go. But this covers all of the instances
    where we would ultimately determine that there are not----
        Senator DeWine. Speaking of the initial hearing, tell me,
    the initial hearing, who hears that?
        Judge Satterfield. We have a magistrate judge hearing and
    our proposal in the plan by January is to have the magistrate
    member of the judicial team to rotate through there when they
    pick up cases of children during the week that they pick up
    cases of children, and they conduct the initial hearing.
        Senator DeWine. So the assignment--but the case assignment
    goes before that hearing? In other words----
        Judge Satterfield. No. The case is assigned----
        Senator DeWine. Am I going to have--my question is, just to
    make it real simple----
        Judge Satterfield. Sure.
        Senator DeWine. Am I am going to have, from a simplistic
    point of view, am I going to have one magistrate at the initial
    hearing and then a determination is going to be made where we
    are going or--and then we go to somebody else?
        Judge Satterfield. We are doing that now. And that is how
    we have done it in the past.
        Senator DeWine. Yes, I know.
        Judge Satterfield. But we are moving from that to have the
    magistrate judge----
        Senator DeWine. Okay. So we immediately then have the
    continuity?
        Judge Satterfield. Right. We are going to----
        Senator DeWine. The second hearing is going to be with the
    first--the same person that had it----
        Judge Satterfield. The second hearing will be either with
    the magistrate judge assigned to the team that will conduct the
    initial hearing or----
        Senator DeWine. Yes.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. That judicial officer
    assigned to that same judicial team. And that is what we are
    moving toward, and we propose implementing that in January of
    next year.
        Senator DeWine. We have discussed, I believe, in the past
    this issue, but I want to revisit again. It is my understanding
    that the court will not terminate parental rights for a child
    unless an adoptive parent has already been identified. Is that
    true?
        Judge Satterfield. No. I mean, I think there is some case
    law that we have with the Court of Appeals that talks about
    that being one factor that we should look at, but we do not
    have a statute such as they have in California, which is
    inconsistent with the Federal ASFA, where they will not----
        Senator DeWine. So that is not your--that is not your
    policy?
        Judge Satterfield. No. No. We do not have a policy in any
    way close to that.
        Senator DeWine. Well, what is the policy?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, the policy is to look at it on the
    merits of the case and see whether or not the standard has been
    met in order to terminate the rights. But the fact that there
    is no adoptive parent involved, or parents involved, at the
    time is not a factor that could--that would preclude the
    termination of parental rights in the case.
        We typically have done the termination through our adoption
    case in order to expedite it, because the appeal process with
    respect to adoption was different and the outcome for the child
    with respect to adoption was different than if we did it
    through the termination of parental rights petition.
        So a lot of our cases--because you will see that our
    termination of parental right numbers are down in terms of
    cases, because most of that is done through the adoption case,
    without a petition to terminate it being filed.
        I understand that in order to meet ASFA in the spring or
    summer, or at least summer, that we expect a substantial influx
    of motions to terminate parental rights being filed by the
    agency through their counsel, because they have to comply with
    that requirement that, you know, 15 out of the 22 months the
    child is in foster care.
        But we have never had the position or a law that says we do
    not terminate unless there is an adoptive family that is
    involved. We obviously want one involved, because otherwise the
    child does not have anywhere to go once the rights are
    terminated, if we have not identified an adoptive family.
        Senator DeWine. You--well, yes, we want one, but do we not
    also have the situation that parents--people--prospective
    parents are not willing to come forward if they do not have
    some assurance, I mean, that you are going to have that child--
    that that child is going to be able to be adopted?
        Judge King. If I can----
        Senator DeWine. That is what experts tell me across the
    country when I talk to them.
        Judge King. If I can jump in, the emphasis here is that
    there has to be a merits determination for a particular child.
    So, for example, and I do not mean these are--none of this is
    hard law; it is all decisional law in our Court of Appeals.
        But if you have, for example, an infant--a healthy infant,
    well that would certainly point generally in the direction of
    ``go ahead and terminate rights,'' because the likelihood of
    rather easily finding a good permanent solution is up there.
        Senator DeWine. It is pretty easy, yes.
        Judge King. If you have, on the other hand, a troubled 13-
    year-old who has got a number of medical issues and maybe
    already some substance abuse issues, and they have a long
    relationship, however troubled, with their parents, then you
    have to look at that when you make a decision.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge King. So it is a merits determination. And those are
    the kinds of things that might come into it.
        Judge Satterfield. And our 14-year-olds, under the law,
    have the right to object to going forward with adoption. So, if
    they were in foster care for that time period, and we
    terminated the rights of their parents, which under that time
    period we are required to do, they may not be adopted either.
    So that is what I mean when I say----
        Senator DeWine. Yes. Okay.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. That we hope to have an
    adoptive family.
        Senator Landrieu. But let me pursue this for a moment,
    because we are all learning about the--this whole new world of
    adoption. Sometimes a child thinks that terminating parent--
    parental rights is the same thing as terminating their ability
    to ever see the parent again. And it is two completely
    different things.
        And sometimes we do not tell children the truth about that.
    And the facts are we could create a system where you would
    terminate the rights of a parent who has proven, time after
    time after time after time, to be unable or unwilling, or a
    combination of both, to be the kind of support and nurturing
    that that child needs.
        And so the court has to make a decision even if the child
    is 13 and troubled and in difficulty, or 10, or 14, or 15, that
    this child needs a functioning parent; this child needs a
    functioning guardian.
        And so that has to be the determination that the only thing
    in the court's mind is the fact that children cannot raise
    themselves. That is not why they were created; they have to be
    raised by someone. And so, you could then terminate the rights
    of that parent but allow for a visitation, allow for rigorous,
    you know, interaction between the parent, you know, the
    parents, or put them under sort of what I think is allowed in
    your law, a legal guardianship, which even gives, I think,
    greater rights to--well, not greater rights, but greater
    opportunity for the parents to stay involved, the biological
    parents to stay involved with the child's life over a long
    period of time. So the----
        Judge Satterfield. We will set those goals, no question
    about that; that is our mandate. We will do that, but we need
    the agency, we need the community, we need them to bring us the
    guardian. We do not make the guardian. They need to bring them
    to us, so that once we set that goal, we have a place for that
    child to go.
        Senator Landrieu. That is why I get back to my point,
    within 30 days of removing that child--and I heard that it is
    not legal right now in the system--that one good thing to do is
    to bring an extended family, or people who know the child well,
    together. Your chances of identifying a guardian, a permanent
    guardian or a potential adoptive family, are highly increased
    by just that exchange, and that interchange.
        So I do not want to take too much time on this particular
    point, because we have others to go forward, but can I assume
    that this chart with the, now, time lines fits the 18-month new
    requirement by law without going through each----
        Judge Satterfield. Yes. And there are even stricter time
    lines, because D.C. has to have stricter time lines for the----
        Senator Landrieu. What are those time lines?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, for us to get the case to
    adjudication, it is written on here we have to do it within 45
    days of the petition being filed if the child is not removed,
    within 105 days if the child is removed. And then the other
    time lines are pretty much consistent with Federal ASFA, so,
    yes, I think you can see--we have identified that for you.
        [The statements follow:]

    Prepared Statement of Rufus King, III Chief Judge Superior Court of the
                              District of Columbia

        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, members of the Subcommittee: I am
    Rufus G. King, III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District
    of Columbia. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
    Judge Lee Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the Family Court of the
    Superior Court, joins me today in testifying about our Family Court
    Transition Plan. We are pleased to have this opportunity to update you
    on the progress we have made so far and the plans we have for the
    future.
        To begin with, Madam Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, I would like to
    thank you both for drafting, negotiating and shepherding the Family
    Court Act of 2001 through to passage. It involved tremendous effort on
    your parts and on the part of your able staff, and we are most
    appreciative.
        Judge Satterfield, along with the Deputy Presiding Judge of the
    Family Court, Anita Josey-Herring, led a team that created the case
    management plan for the Family Court--a plan that will dramatically
    enhance our ability to serve the abused and neglected children of the
    District of Columbia. I want to thank them for their hard work and
    commend them for their leadership in a truly collaborative planning
    effort that included input from and discussion with all stakeholders.
    The kind of cooperation displayed during preparation of the plan will
    substantially improve the ability of all to deliver services to
    children and families.
                                   background
        The President signed the Family Court Act of 2001 into law on
    January 8, 2002 with the support of the Court, the bar and most of the
    stakeholders in the child advocacy community. We shared a goal of
    improving the provision of services to the abused and neglected
    children of the District and expediting permanency for them. The bill
    is a major step toward that goal. And now that the bill is law, the
    Court is preparing to implement all of its provisions as effectively
    and expeditiously as possible.
                                progress to date
        To that end, we submitted the plan--3 days before its due date--and
    appointed the five magistrate judges for the Family Court within 2
    months, as the bill required. The magistrate judges are finishing their
    month-long training this week and will begin hearing cases next week.
    We have already begun implementing the ``one family/one judge'' concept
    by keeping all cases within the Family Court for review once
    disposition had been reached, as opposed to the previous practice of
    referring many of them to judges outside the Family Division. In
    addition, when each new child comes into the system, we check whether
    there are Family Court cases involving any member of the child's
    family. If so, we assign the child's case to the same judge.
        I have asked Judge Satterfield to present testimony on the case
    management part of the Family Court plan and I will provide you with an
    overview of the space and facilities part of the plan, as well as the
    information technology needs.
                              space and facilities
        In September 2001, the Courts initiated a master space plan study
    to provide a blueprint for Court capital projects and space utilization
    for the next 10 years and to identify the optimal location for the
    Family Court. The General Services Administration (GSA) is conducting
    the study and has developed the Interim Facilities Plan for Family
    Court Transition, which is contained in Volume III of the Family Court
    Plan. With GSA's assistance, we have completed Step 1 to provide space
    for the five new magistrate judges, at a cost of approximately
    $600,000. We reconfigured the existing magistrate judges' office suite,
    expanding it by shifting other operations within the Courts'
    facilities. To provide hearing rooms for these magistrate judges when
    they begin hearing cases next week, we have recommissioned three
    hearing rooms in the main courthouse and modified assignments for
    others.
        Step 2 of the interim plan accommodates the space needs of the four
    additional magistrate judges and three additional associate judges that
    the Family Court will require. The plan is to renovate the JM level of
    the main courthouse and construct 3 new courtrooms, 4 new hearing
    rooms, and a Family Services Center. This will be the office from which
    court and District social services will be coordinated. The 12 existing
    hearing and courtrooms on that level will be used by the Family Court,
    and the whole area will be modified to impart a separate identity for
    the Family Court. GSA estimates the cost of Step 2 of the interim plan,
    including providing space for the courtrooms that currently occupy the
    JM level, at $11.4 million, and we plan to have this work completed by
    deadline--18 months after submission of the Transition Plan, or early
    October, 2003.
        Ultimately, we plan to co-locate the entire Family Court and
    supporting mediation and Court Social Services space on the JM and 1st
    level and provide a separate entrance. The existing clerks' offices for
    the different branches of the Family Court would also be consolidated
    to provide a central location for filing all cases within the Family
    Court, from Mental Health and Domestic Relations to Juvenile and Abuse
    & Neglect. The architects have done some preliminary feasibility
    studies and report that by modifying the C street side and the Indiana
    Avenue entrance of the Moultrie Building there will be enough space to
    accommodate all of these functions in contiguous space on the JM and
    first floor levels of the courthouse.
        As I mentioned at our hearing last month, a pressing concern for
    the Court is the need to obligate funds in order to comply with the Act
    prior to the funds becoming available under applicable appropriations
    law. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002 provides that
    the Family Court appropriation becomes available only after a 30 day
    GAO review followed by a Congressional review of 30 legislative days,
    which we estimate will be completed by mid or late June. In the
    interim, we expect to obligate approximately $1 million for the new
    magistrate judges for personnel costs and the construction I mentioned
    above. To date, we have utilized funds from the Courts' fiscal year
    2002 operating and capital budgets. These obligations will not pose a
    problem if funds appropriated for the Family Court can be used as
    reimbursement. However, the GAO has informed us that this reimbursement
    would constitute a transfer, for which statutory authority is required.
        Of even greater concern, to keep the architectural and construction
    work on schedule for completing the transition, we estimate that most
    of the Interim Plan funds (up to $11.4 million) must be obligated
    during this review period. If the Courts were authorized to obligate a
    part of the Family Court funds in advance, the work in the Interim Plan
    could proceed without delay. The lack of this authority could
    potentially place the Courts in the untenable position of requiring us
    to choose between compromising fundamental health and safety needs of
    the public using the courthouse, and delaying time-sensitive
    construction contracts to keep the Family Court on schedule.
        This subcommittee has been very generous in securing sufficient
    funding for the Family Court effort. We hope that the Subcommittee will
    continue its support with these timing issues as it has in providing
    funds to implement the Family Court Act.
                             information technology
        The Courts were already in the planning stages of an integrated
    information system when the Family Court Act was proposed. The first
    phase of this system will be built in the Family Court. This system is
    a key element of meeting the Act's requirements for serving children
    and families and for tracking and reporting on our progress.
        The Courts' Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) is a 3-
    year project, estimated to cost approximately $7 million, to replace
    the aging computer infrastructure of the Superior Court and link it
    with the Court of Appeals by creating an integrated case information
    system that will eliminate the current fragmented system, consisting of
    over 18 separate databases. IJIS began as part of a District-wide
    effort to improve information technology within and among the
    District's criminal justice agencies, and this information sharing
    focus will help the Court coordinate with District agencies that serve
    children and families.
        The initial planning phase of IJIS was completed in December 2000
    and resulted in the production of a written requirements analysis by an
    independent contractor, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). In
    its analysis, the NCSC proposed that the Courts acquire a commercially
    available off-the-shelf software package, as well as integrated modules
    to handle specific divisions and/or case categories and to implement
    these modules by segments, including training, during the next three
    fiscal years. Following the submission of the detailed plan for IJIS to
    Congress in May 2001, the Comptroller General (GAO) reviewed the
    project. GAO's constructive recommendations, which we are implementing,
    will strengthen the project, helping to ensure that IJIS serves the
    Court most effectively.
        IJIS is critical to the success of Family Court implementation.
    IJIS will automate identification of cases involving the same family so
    we can assign them to the same judicial officer and implement ``One
    Family/One Judge'' more effectively and efficiently. Unlike many
    existing systems, IJIS will not merely facilitate scheduling, but will
    provide performance data to permit us to track our progress and to
    compile the reports required by the Act.
        Overall, IJIS will improve Court operations and services in many
    ways:
      --Improve the identification of related cases (not only in the Family
            Court) thereby enhancing the information available to judges
            responsible for case resolution;
      --Facilitate scheduling/calendar management, thereby reducing waiting
            time in court for police, attorneys, litigants and the public;
      --Reduce the flow of paper across and within operating divisions and
            the statistical reporting unit of the Court;
      --Eliminate redundant data entry at the Courts and throughout the
            District's child welfare and criminal justice agencies;
      --Improve management reports and provide enhanced decision support
            for court managers, including the ability to effectively
            monitor operations, identify needed improvements and develop
            budgets; and
      --Enhance public access to court information and services.
                                   conclusion
        Judge Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the Family Court, will
    provide you with details about the case management aspects of our
    Family Court Transition Plan. We would both be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Judge Lee F. Satterfield
        Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, members of the Subcommittee, I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to provide
    you with a summary of the Family Court Transition Plan's case
    management approach. I hope to be able to answer any questions you have
    about it, address any concerns, and listen if you have some suggestions
    on how we could improve it.
                                  introduction
        As Chief Judge King said in his testimony, the Family Court Act of
    2001 was the result of hours of work, discussion, deliberation, and
    sometimes even vigorous persuasion. But in the end we have a law that
    all of us agree will improve the operations of what is now the Family
    Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The time for
    debate is over and the time for action is at hand. To that end, as
    Chief Judge King mentioned, Judge Josey-Herring and I have been devoted
    to developing a plan that will implement both the spirit and the letter
    of the law, and will allow all interested parties to best address the
    needs of children and families in the District.
                                   background
        As the subcommittee well knows, the District saw a dramatic surge
    in abuse and neglect filings in the late 1980's and, while the most
    recent increases do not seem to be as significant, they have not yet
    leveled off. Each year, more than 1,500 children are alleged to be
    neglected or abused by their parents. The Child and Family Services
    Agency is completing its transition out of receivership and is striving
    to strengthen its ability to deliver services to children and families.
        The Court is beginning the transition under which cases of
    neglected and abused children being reviewed by judges outside the
    Family Court will be transferred to judges within the Family Court. In
    addition, since January, all new abuse and neglect cases have been
    retained in the Family Court.
                              the family court act
        The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 fundamentally
    changed the way the Superior Court serves children and families. The
    Act elevated the Family Division, creating. a Family Court within the
    Superior Court, set out principles for processing children's cases, and
    established judges' terms and the position of Magistrate Judge. The Act
    emphasized that the guiding principle behind all decisions, procedures,
    and policies must be to make the safety, permanency, and well being of
    the child of paramount importance.
        As required by the Act, we submitted to Congress a report on how we
    will implement the provisions of the Act. Chief Judge Rufus G. King III
    designated me, along with Deputy Presiding Judge Anita Josey-Herring to
    develop the processes, protocols, calendars, and staffing plan that
    would enable the Family Court to meet the legislative mandates. The
    plan follows the ``one-family/one judge'' principle, ensures greater
    resources will be devoted to expeditious resolution of family cases,
    and is a blueprint for how we will improve the family law and child
    development skills of all those who handle Family Court cases.
                        the family court transition plan
        The Family Court Transition Plan provides a phased-in transition by
    which all cases outside of the Family Court will be returned to judges
    within it and the one family/one judge approach will be fully
    implemented. The plan proposes teams each composed of one associate
    judge and one magistrate judge, so that one member of the team hears
    most aspects of each child's case, but the other keeps apprised of all
    cases assigned to the team, to provide back-up and to cover during
    transitions at the end of a judge's term. The team approach will ensure
    that each family's dynamics are well known to a judge and builds in
    redundancy so that the additional team member knows the children and
    their families and can make very well-informed decisions at any stage
    of the case, if needed.
        We have already begun to implement the one family/one judge
    approach by ending the practice of referring cases to judges outside
    the Family Court for the review stage, the continuing review of the
    child's case after a judicial determination that abuse or neglect
    occurred. In addition, we plan to transfer 1,500 of these review cases
    to the Family Court by June of this year, as the five new magistrate
    judges begin hearing the older cases.
        There are several other aspects of the family court plan that are
    essential to its success. First, we look forward to the implementation
    of the Integrated Justice Information System, IJIS, which will enable
    us to better track and monitor the progress of cases. Most importantly,
    IJIS will allow us to determine, when a child comes into the abuse and
    neglect system, whether other family members or household members have
    cases before the Family Court, so we can assign their case to the same
    judicial team, the team already familiar with that family's dynamics.
        The plan also suggests centralizing intake for all of the branches
    of the Family Court--mental health and retardation, domestic relations,
    paternity and child support, juvenile delinquency and abuse & neglect--
    in a single location. This would be easier for those filing cases and
    enhance the Court's ability to accomplish the one family/one judge
    mandate.
        Further, we plan to establish a Family Services Center within the
    Family Court, to provide a centralized location with referral to
    services that the District and the Court offers. For many parents, it
    is crucial to have available treatment, or at least a referral or
    appointment, when they are in the courthouse. Follow-up is less likely
    when the parents have to make the calls and locate available services
    themselves. The Act's provision requiring that District agencies
    provide on-site representatives provides a wonderful addition to the
    services already available to children and families through the Court's
    Social Services Division.
        Enhanced training is another crucial element of the statute and the
    plan. The Court has already begun to increase training. We held a
    three-week training course for all magistrate judges entering Family
    Court for the first time and plan periodic training sessions for
    judges, as well as staff in the Family Court and Social Services
    Division. In addition, we will provide mandatory quarterly
    interdisciplinary training (``crosstraining'') for Family Court judges,
    case-coordinators, attorney advisors and other staff. Lastly, we plan
    to hold periodic cross-training programs for stakeholders responsible
    for child welfare and related family issues, and hope to secure
    sponsorship of an annual training conference held here in the District
    for judges, court personnel, attorneys, social workers and other
    stakeholders.
        We are also pleased with the expanded role that ADR--alternative
    dispute resolution--or mediation will play in the new Family Court. We
    have already begun, through a grant from the Council for Court
    Excellence, to refer half of all cases to our mediation program, the
    Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Office. Our goal is to determine, at the
    end of one year, which cases are most assisted by mediation and then to
    use that experience to speed resolution of cases in the future by
    utilizing mediation in those cases where it promises to be most
    effective.
        Perhaps most important is continuous, close coordination between
    the Family Court, Child & Family Services Agency (CFSA), and the Office
    of Corporation Counsel (OCC). We are working with those two agencies so
    that the team approach involves not just judges and children, but also
    social workers and attorneys. We are working together to determine the
    best method of assigning cases to judicial teams so as to allow their
    staff to work in the team approach as well.
        This is an ambitious plan. However, as you well know, Madam
    Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, these changes are important. They worth
    any effort if they can bring children into permanent, safe, and loving
    homes sooner. We at the Court are excited about the new Family Court
    and implementing the plan. I was gratified to find that ten of my
    colleagues--excellent, enthusiastic judges with a wealth of family law
    experience--chose to join Judge Josey-Herring and myself as the first
    twelve Family Court judges. I was also very impressed with the caliber
    of applicants for the five new magistrate judges positions. The five
    who were chosen and have already been installed--Carol Dalton, Pam
    Gray, Noel Johnson, Alec Haniford Deull and Juliet McKenna--are truly
    top-notch family law practitioners with a level of commitment to family
    cases and dedication to children that I find inspiring.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, please let me thank you, Chairwoman Landrieu and
    Senator DeWine, for all you have done to establish and support the
    Family Court. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss
    the Family Court Transition Plan and tell you about changes already
    underway. I am happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Landrieu. Yes. Okay.
        Let me ask some of the other panelists here, and I know
    that you have got statements for the record, but would you all
    like to comment on some of the practices or best practices that
    you have heard about in other places that could be helpful to
    this discussion?
        Matt Fraidin, we will start with you.
        Mr. Fraidin. Well, thank you.
    STATEMENT OF MATTHEW FRAIDIN, LEGAL DIRECTOR, THE
                CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER
        Mr. Fraidin. Thank you, Chairperson Landrieu and Senator
    DeWine. My name is Matt Fraidin, I am the legal director of the
    Children's Law Center here in D.C.
        And we help at-risk children find safe, permanent homes,
    and the education, health, and social services they need to
    flourish, by providing comprehensive legal services to
    children, their families, and foster and kinship caregivers.
        All of that means that I have plenty of opportunity to
    appear in front of these judges, almost on a daily basis. And
    as I have said in written statement, I spend plenty of time
    arguing with them and disagreeing with them.
        And so I feel sort of specially qualified to say that I am
    very cheered by the plan as I see it, and feel a sort of
    distinct level of energy and commitment that comes from the
    court and comes from the plan that I think bodes very well for
    the future.
        There are a few things that I think could be taken from
    other jurisdictions, and one very specific thing that we have
    mentioned in our written statement is--applies to training. I
    mean, it--I apologize that it is not specifically on the
    subjects that you have been addressing, but I think that as the
    Court moves toward reforming all of its processes and toward
    achieving better results for children, that training both of
    judges and of the lawyers who practice before the court is
    going to be just a very important part of making sure everybody
    is on the same page, that everybody has the knowledge base and
    the skills base that is required to push these cases through
    and to get the good outcome for children.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Matthew I. Fraidin

                                  introduction
        Good morning, Chairperson Landrieu and members of the Committee. My
    name is Matthew Fraidin, and I am the Legal Director of The Children's
    Law Center here in Washington, D.C. The Children's Law Center helps at-
    risk children in the District of Columbia find safe, permanent homes
    and the education, health and social services they need to flourish by
    providing comprehensive legal services to children, their families and
    foster and kinship caregivers.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
    Family Court Transition Plan and its impact on children and families in
    the District of Columbia, a subject of great concern to us all.
        I would like to preface my remarks with an observation borne of my
    experience appearing almost daily in front of District of Columbia
    Superior Court judges. Although I have argued strenuously, and
    frequently disagreed, with judges in individual cases, there can be no
    doubt that the judges in Superior Court care deeply about children. It
    is my hope that the Family Court Act of 2001 and the Transition Plan
    that implements it will give these judges the structure, tools, and
    support they need to ensure that their decisions improve the lives of
    the abused and neglected children whose interests they protect.
        Having reviewed the Family Court Act of 2001 and the Transition
    Plan, it is my opinion that the Transition Plan appropriately addresses
    the core components of the Act. I believe that the Act challenged the
    Court to engage in careful scrutiny of its own strengths and
    weaknesses, and that the Transition Plan reflects a sober assessment of
    those and an aggressive attempt to capitalize on the opportunity for
    change.
        I would like in the following minutes to outline several very
    positive aspects of the Transition Plan, and comment on a few areas
    that could benefit from additional consideration. I will do this by
    addressing the Plan's approach to problem-solving with respect to three
    important actors in the child welfare system: the Court itself; the
    attorneys who represent children, parents and caregivers; and the
    District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency.
        The message I hope to convey is that the Court is devoted to
    improving the welfare of children, and the Transition Plan represents a
    tremendous commitment to step up to the plate. But I also hope the
    Committee and the Court will hear another message: The Court must go
    one step further. We know from experience that judges cannot protect
    children unless lawyers and the Child and Family Services Agency
    provide them with accurate information. Judges must use their authority
    to ensure that lawyers and CFSA do their job. Judges need the help of
    attorneys and CFSA, and can make sure--by convening hearings, issuing
    orders and demanding adequate performance--that the others contribute
    to the process the information and representation required to protect
    children.
                       the transition plan and the court
        First and foremost, the Plan comprehensively focuses on routinizing
    and professionalizing the Court's own structures and procedures. The
    Plan sets forth a methodical approach to consolidating abuse and
    neglect cases within the Family Court. The Plan also describes steps
    that are being taken to ensure that families benefit from the
    consistency and knowledge provided by a ``one family-one judge''
    approach. I note in this regard that the one family-one judge approach
    already is standard practice in the Court's Domestic Violence Unit and
    is the subject of one of the Unit's governing rules of practice. In
    addition, it is our recent experience that judges throughout the Family
    Court have embraced this approach and have been applying it already as
    they become aware of multiple proceedings involving the same family.
        We applaud the Plan's emphasis on collaboration and training.
    Innovations such as the Family Services Center and the centralized
    filing and intake center will make information more readily accessible
    and facilitate planning and implementation of services. Comprehensive,
    accurate information that is available in a centralized, user-friendly
    location will help avoid the delays and uncertainties that can plague
    planning. I am a member of the Court's new committee on judicial
    training, and believe that the committee represents a valuable cross-
    section of knowledgeable practitioners from varied fields whose
    insights will provide substantial benefits.
        I note that the performance measures listed in the Plan all relate
    to dates, timelines, and other easily measurable numerical goals. We
    recognize that Federal statutes require substantial attention to
    achievement of specified timelines and other quantifiable objectives.
    In addition, we recognize that it is difficult to measure and evaluate
    the quality of outcomes. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that
    implementation of efficient systems and achievement of quantitative
    targets must not overshadow judges' duty to look at the specific needs
    of each individual child, and to achieve the right result for every
    child in every case. Focusing on systemic improvements creates the risk
    that children will be seen as ``cases,'' docket numbers, statistics,
    generalizations. Any Plan, and any Family Court, for that matter, must
    allow judges to see children as people, with distinct lives and needs
    and strengths. As the court looks to streamline its processes, it must
    do so in the service of children, not at their expense.
        I note that the Plan does not mention the role of foster parents--
    who represent the backbone of the abuse and neglect system. They are
    the bridge from a child's past to her future, the glue that holds
    together the badly-strained present. Foster parents are entitled by
    existing law to notice of court hearings and an opportunity to be heard
    on the subject of the children in their care. In fact, foster parents
    receive notice of hearings only sporadically, and then only informally
    from the social worker assigned to monitor the child. The Children's
    Law Center urges the Court to recognize the invaluable service provided
    by foster parents, and the valuable information they can provide to the
    Court, by taking responsibility for providing notice to foster parents
    as it does to other parties in the case.
                       the transition plan and attorneys
        The Children's Law Center fully supports the Court's efforts to
    impose and enforce practice standards and training requirements on
    attorneys. We also suggest that the Court consider strategies to
    provide additional supports to abuse and neglect attorneys.
        With respect to training, the Court should consider following the
    practice of other jurisdictions, such as Chicago, where the court
    actually closes one afternoon each month to permit attorneys to attend
    regular in-service training sessions.
        In addition, the Court should consider the special needs of solo
    practitioners, who make up the vast majority of abuse and neglect
    attorneys. Solo practitioners often do not have access to the latest
    technologies, or the means to maintain legal research tools and
    resource data. The Children's Law Center is attempting to step into the
    breach by providing information and resources on our website, by
    hosting the Probono.net website, and by providing materials and
    technical support to practitioners and service providers. But the Court
    should enhance the efforts of the dedicated abuse and neglect attorneys
    by ensuring that attorneys have the support they need. At the same
    time, the Court should continue to advocate for improved compensation
    for abuse and neglect attorneys.
        Finally, the child welfare system depends on the active, high-
    quality efforts of abuse and neglect attorneys who represent children
    and parents. Judges cannot step down off the bench and visit children
    and families in their homes. They rely on the information brought to
    them by the attorneys. If, as is sometimes the case, an attorney for a
    child has had insufficient contact with the child to ascertain the
    child's needs and identify services and service providers to address
    those needs, judges cannot reasonably be expected to know what is
    required to meet the needs of the child and to ensure that it is
    provided. When parents' attorneys fail to maintain contact with their
    clients between hearings, and fail to advocate for the services that
    might help the parents remedy the deficiencies that caused the child to
    be removed from the family's home, judges legitimately cannot reunify
    children with their biological families.
        It is thus in the Court's interest and in the interest of children
    that the attorney practice standards promised in the Transition Plan be
    promulgated and enforced. The Court must satisfy its commitment to
    improve the service provided by attorneys in abuse and neglect cases.
          the transition plan and the child and family services agency
        The Plan recognizes the Child and Family Services Agency's unique
    position and statutory duty to assist judges in identifying and
    implementing strategies that will serve children's best interests. The
    Plan also implicitly acknowledges that the Agency often fails in its
    mission. Judges, whether individually or collectively, cannot reform
    the Child and Family Services Agency. This task falls to the Mayor and
    the people of the District of Columbia. Judges can and must, however,
    use their authority to require the Agency to act properly on behalf of
    individual children.
        The Transition Plan reflects new and creative ways in which the
    Court is holding the Child and Family Services Agency accountable. An
    important element of the Plan is its promise to continue implementing
    the Court's philosophy of expediting abuse and neglect cases by setting
    a tone of aggressive, creative, and thorough problem-solving from the
    outset of the case. The Plan mentions several ways in which the Court
    has begun considering issues at the initial hearing stage that
    previously were ignored until later in the life-cycle of neglect cases.
    These include resolution of issues such as paternity, notice, and
    establishing deadlines for filing motions. The Court should consider
    expanding that list further, by, for example, requiring in every
    appropriate case that the Child and Family Services Agency create a
    family tree and investigate all possible relative placements within 21
    days.
        It is worth noting that these strategies--like the performance
    measures mentioned earlier--relate to the speedy and effective
    processing of cases. We urge the Court to consider measures more
    directly related to the children themselves. For example, the Court
    could consider establishing as a matter of policy a presumption that
    all initial hearing orders include a requirement that the Agency
    coordinate within 48 hours a visit between a removed child and his or
    her brothers and sisters, and that the Agency ensure within 48 hours
    that a removed child has been enrolled in school, if the child has been
    placed in a new school district. Imposition of specific requirements
    would help hold the Agency accountable for promptly addressing the
    traumatic impact on children of being uprooted from home. The Agency is
    not taking these actions on behalf of children, and only the Court can
    make sure that it happens.
        The Court also should require compliance by CFSA with statutorily-
    imposed duties such as providing case reports to the court and all
    counsel 10 days prior to hearings. Finally, the Court should never
    accept as part of the ordinary course of business the non-appearance at
    a hearing of a social worker.
                                   conclusion
        The Transition Plan is an excellent beginning and reflects what we
    perceive at The Children's Law Center as the Court's genuine commitment
    to providing the best possible protections for the children in its
    care. The Court must follow through by implementing the Plan
    expeditiously. And the Court must do what already is within its power:
    ensure that the lawyers and the Child and Family Services Agency help
    the Court do its work.
        The child welfare system is like a three-legged stool--the court,
    the lawyers and social services are the three legs. No matter how
    strong we make the court leg, the stool will fall down if the other two
    legs are broken. Without good lawyers and an effective Child and Family
    Services Agency, the court cannot do its job.
        The changes occasioned by the Family Court Act are enormous;
    implementation of the Act's mandates will require ongoing support by
    all stakeholders and policymakers here on Capitol Hill. I urge this
    Committee to provide the court with the resources it needs to implement
    the Act and to give our most vulnerable citizens a chance to be raised
    in healthy, loving families and to become productive members of our
    community.
        We must all be vigilant in ensuring that our ultimate focus remains
    the best interests of each individual child. New organizational charts
    and creative redistribution of responsibility are not enough; we need
    new practices and renewed energy to safely, humanely, and responsively
    provide every child with the benefits of a permanent home.

        Senator Landrieu. Do you have specific suggestions about
    training that is being conducted somewhere in the country that
    would be helpful, or should we establish our own training
    program?
        Mr. Fraidin. Well, one example that I am aware of is that
    in Chicago, the court closes down one afternoon every month and
    specifically--it is specifically devoted to allow lawyers to be
    trained.
        I know that the plan itself calls for regular, I believe,
    quarterly training of the judges.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Mr. Fraidin. And I am very supportive of that. And the
    magistrate judges are all getting 3 weeks of intensive training
    before they start. So we think that they have--that the court
    has paid appropriate attention to that issue. But as you have
    said, best practices from around the country certainly can be
    helpful.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I would like to--we just had a vote
    called. I am going to ask Senator DeWine----
        Senator DeWine. I will go first.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. If he can go vote and then
    come back, so we can keep the hearing going. And when he comes
    back, then I will go and vote. And we will try to keep this
    hearing going until 11:30--okay.
        Well, I would like the courts to take that suggestion under
    consideration actually, you know, a monthly, at least within
    the first year to kind of, you know, mandatory training, sort
    of built-in service time, the same way that teachers in a
    school will go into an in-service training day as an
    opportunity. I think that is a very good suggestion.
        And it leads me to my second question to the judge about
    the plan. There was a requirement of the new magistrates for 3
    weeks of training. There is a certification for the new judges,
    but of the 12 judges that volunteered, there does not seem to
    be, and GAO raised this, any certification of training. Are we
    just assuming, because they volunteered they want to do it and
    they are qualified, or what assumptions have we made?
        Judge Satterfield. No. Maybe we should not have assumed,
    because we did not put it in our plan, but the assumption, I
    guess, we made is that we are judges and we follow your law. We
    would not have put them in the court if they were not, in our
    view, qualified--or willing to serve, because that is what the
    law says. Every one of those judges that have volunteered----
        Senator Landrieu. The current judges will meet the
    qualifications?
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. Meet the qualifications and
    have come forward because they wanted to be a part of this
    process and knew the process of reform that we are going
    through with the court.
        So they are very willing. They meet the qualifications
    either through training or experience or both, and they are
    continuing to receive the training as we go through the course
    of this year.
        So they meet the qualifications. We did not include that in
    there. They have indicated their willingness to stay the
    required term or more and do ongoing training.
        Senator Landrieu. Deborah Luxenberg, let me ask you and
    then Jacqueline Dolan, we will come back to some of the other
    panelists, but any comments about the organization, the time
    frame, the universe, the training, the staffing that you would
    just briefly like to make on what you have heard or what you
    could suggest?
    STATEMENT OF DEBORAH LUXENBERG, CHAIR, CHILDREN IN THE
                COURTS COMMITTEE, COUNCIL ON COURT
                EXCELLENCE
        Ms. Luxenberg. Thank you, Chairwoman Landrieu. First of
    all, before making comments about some of those issues----
        Senator Landrieu. Speak into the mike, if you would.
        Ms. Luxenberg [continuing]. I do have to--now, I really
    spoke into the mike. I really do want to commend the court
    under the leadership of Chief Judge King. I think they have
    done a really thoughtful job, a really admirable job. And one
    thing that we have all been incredibly heartened and encouraged
    by is the nature of the collaborative effort; that the court
    has involved not only other agencies that they need to work
    with, but the whole legal community and universe of this
    community, that are concerned about children and families.
        Now, there is one issue that the court acknowledged itself
    in the plan, in volume one of the plan, which is what we
    primarily been focusing on that they are still working on, and
    that is the issue of staffing. And it--and the GAO has also
    mentioned that the particular numbers of personnel that are
    needed have not been identified.
        Now, the staffing is critical, not only to the time lines
    that we are talking about here, but to the whole process. And
    the staffing issue is one that is critical; but everybody knows
    that. And the court staff have been doing an excellent job
    within the constraints that they have had.
        Alone in the domestic relations division of the court, the
    clerk, Paul Trudeau, is just a fabulous person, very energetic,
    and doing the best job he can possibly do. He has 11 people
    down from 20. And this is under the old organization of the
    court.
        We all feel that it is really critical to have the same new
    energetic look at the clerk's office and the staffing office so
    that that can be given the same new look and new view. And we
    would really recommend and--``request,'' I guess, is the better
    word--that the Congress consider appropriating additional funds
    to the court so that they can really undertake a systematic
    approach in looking and doing a creative look at the clerk's
    office; because that clerk's office across the board is the
    backbone of this system.
        And if the judges all are doing the great job that they are
    going to be doing with the teams and the cases, if the court
    notices do not go out on time, the court orders and the files
    disappear because people are increasingly faced with more
    complex situations when they are trying to coordinate all of
    these cases in a way so that we really do get to the one-judge/
    one-family concept, they need the support of a really good
    clerk's office. And I think they need the assistance to be able
    to complete that.
        They have recognized it. They have identified that is
    something that they are working on. And I know that the court
    feels very strongly about that as well.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Deborah Luxenberg

        Good morning, Chairwoman Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and other
    members of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District
    of Columbia. Thank you for inviting the Council for Court Excellence to
    provide testimony at today's hearing on the subject of review of the
    Transition Plan of the District of Columbia Family Court. My name is
    Deborah Luxenberg, and I serve as Chair of the Council for Court
    Excellence's Children in the Courts Committee. I have been a family law
    practitioner in the DC Superior Court for more than 25 years.
        I am honored to present the views of the Council for Court
    Excellence to this Committee. Our organization has been engaged over
    the past 2 years in facilitating the joint work by the city's public
    officials to reform the child welfare system, and specifically to meet
    the challenge of implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
    1997. We believe that work and our familiarity with the legislative
    history of the Family Court Act of 2001 give us a good perspective on
    the issues before this Committee.
        For the record, let me summarize the mission of the Council for
    Court Excellence. The Council for Court Excellence is a District of
    Columbia-based non-partisan, non-profit civic organization that works
    to improve the administration of justice in the local and federal
    courts and related agencies in the Washington, D.C. area. Since 1982,
    the Council for Court Excellence has been a unique resource for our
    community, bringing together members of the civic, legal, business, and
    judicial communities to work jointly to improve the administration of
    justice. We have worked closely with Senate and House DC Subcommittees
    in the past on such issues as the DC Jury System Act of 1986 (setting
    the One Day/One Trial term of jury service), the DC Criminal Justice
    Coordinating Council and, throughout the past year, the development of
    the DC Family Court Act of 2001.
        No judicial member of the Council for Court Excellence participated
    in or contributed to the formulation of our testimony here today.
        Today's hearing focuses on the DC Superior Court's Family Court
    Transition Plan, submitted for Congressional review on April 5, 2002,
    as required by section 3 of the Family Court Act. My testimony refers
    only to Volume I of that Plan, on Case Management. The Council for
    Court Excellence has not yet seen Volumes II and III, on information
    technology and space and facilities, and thus we cannot comment on them
    at this time.
        In summary and with the qualification just noted, we believe that
    the DC Superior Court has done an excellent job preparing this case
    management plan, and that the plan provides a clear initial blueprint
    for implementation of the new Family Court. We commend the Court both
    for the inclusive, collaborative process they followed in developing
    the plan and for the quality of the resulting document. The case
    management plan, in our opinion, fully embraces both the letter and the
    spirit of the Family Court Act of 2001. Once fully implemented, this
    plan should yield better, more consistent, and more expeditious service
    to everyone who has business before the Family Court, especially the
    city's abused and neglected children. We support the prompt approval of
    this case management plan and authorization to start its
    implementation.
        The DC Family Court Act of 2001 called for dramatic changes in
    structure and policy in the DC Superior Court's Family Court, with a
    special emphasis on the handling of child abuse and neglect cases. In
    particular, four key policy cornerstones were specified, all drawn from
    tested ``best practices'' in various family courts around the country.
    First, only judges who volunteered for substantial terms of service in
    the Family Court could serve. Second, all judicial officers serving in
    the Family Court must have prior experience in family law and must
    receive regular training during their service. Third, all family law
    cases must be handled from start to finish by judicial officers
    assigned to the Family Court. Fourth, the Family Court must assign and
    manage cases by the one judge/one family approach, in which one
    judicial officer hears all types of family law matters relating to any
    member of the same family. The Act provides an 18-month phase-in period
    after submission of the plan under review today to complete the
    implementation of these many changes.
        In our opinion, both the Superior Court's actions to date in
    assigning judges and selecting magistrate judges for the Family Court,
    and the Court's case management and training plans laid out in the
    document under review today match the Act's policy requirements.
    Furthermore, the Court proposes to complete the phase-in of all case
    management changes several months before the October 2003 18-month
    implementation deadline. For all of this, we applaud the Court, and
    especially Chief Judge Rufus King, Family Court Presiding Judge Lee
    Satterfield, and Family Court Deputy Presiding Judge Anita Josey-
    Herring, for their strong leadership and commitment to the success of
    this planning process.
        The Court has made an excellent start and is building momentum,
    which we believe should be supported by the Congress. But it is
    important to realize that many details remain to be worked out and
    there is a long way to go to capitalize on the promise of the changes
    already specified. Three areas are of particular interest to the
    Council for Court Excellence, based on our work over the past 2 years.
    First, calendaring practices of the judicial officers. Second, support
    staffing and business process re-engineering. Third, training and
    cross-training programs.
        When we study the Court's transition plan, we and others want to
    know more detail about how the Family Court plans to manage the
    judicial officers' mixed-caseload calendars. While Congress is
    primarily interested in child abuse and neglect cases, those cases
    represent only 22 percent of the Family Court caseload, according to
    the Court's transition plan, and thus many court users are focused on
    other portions of the Family Court's overall caseload. The detail of
    the Family Court's calendaring, or case scheduling, practices will
    determine whether service improves or declines for the 78 percent of
    the Family Court caseload which is not child abuse and neglect.
        As to the child abuse and neglect system, the court's calendaring
    practices will also determine how frequently Child and Family Services
    Agency (CFSA) social workers and Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC)
    attorneys will need to be in each of the 25 courtrooms (15 judges and
    10 magistrate judges) handling child abuse and neglect cases. The way
    the Court organizes for Family Court judicial hearings has a great
    impact on the resource needs and management practices of CFSA and OCC,
    and on how much time CFSA social workers will have available for their
    primary responsibility: to provide direct services to our city's
    children and families.
        Make no mistake, Madame Chair, the DC child welfare system will not
    improve unless the plans and reforms of the Court, CFSA, and OCC are
    fully synchronized, and unless the performance of all participants in
    the DC child welfare system improves. Over the past year, we at the
    Council for Court Excellence have been eyewitnesses to a new positive
    spirit of genuinely shared responsibility among the leaders of the
    Family Court and DC executive branch agencies. This makes us quite
    hopeful that, over the next 14 months, the remaining important details
    of calendaring DC Family Courtrooms, reducing the number of courtrooms
    hearing abuse and neglect cases from 60 to less than 25, and matching
    judicial teams with social worker and attorney teams will be worked out
    in a manner and on a timetable which meets each agency's needs and
    results in improved productivity and service to city residents. We urge
    the Congress and this Committee to review progress on this matter
    periodically over the next 18 months of implementation, and we pledge
    that, to the best of our ability, the Council for Court Excellence will
    do likewise.
        Our second area of remaining concern is Family Court support
    staffing and business process re-engineering. The Court's transition
    plan emphasizes the organization and assignment of the caseload among
    the judicial officers, with little description of the Family Court
    support staffing infrastructure and case management processes. This
    initial focus is understandable, given both the 90-day deadline and the
    plan topics mandated in the statute. Yet lawyers, other court users,
    and concerned civic groups like the Council for Court Excellence have a
    strong interest in the staffing and processing topics, and we read the
    plan to understand how it will work ``on the ground'' on a daily basis.
        The ``quality of life'' for DC Family Court users (and presumably
    for judicial officers as well) is affected as much by what happens
    outside the courtroom as by what happens within it. The plan (at page
    35) simply lists the various job titles within the Family Court, with
    brief descriptions of general functions, and notes: ``The Court is
    preparing an estimate of the number of different types of personnel,
    pending the completion of a staffing study now in progress.'' We are
    unaware if that staffing study includes a full examination of the
    business processes followed within the Family Court. If it does not, we
    would urge the Court and Congress to seek such an examination to
    determine if re-engineering those ``back-office'' Family Court Clerk's
    Office processes could yield efficiencies, economies of scale, improved
    morale and job satisfaction, and better service to the public and court
    users alike. We offer any appropriate assistance from the Council for
    Court Excellence to ensure that such a management study can take place
    promptly. And we urge that the Court offer a timetable for completing
    the back-office planning process.
        Our third and final topic of concern is training and cross-
    training. We commend the Court for laying out in its transition plan an
    ambitious agenda of training topics and training initiatives. The Court
    plans quarterly in-house training for Family Court judicial officers
    and staff. Court-appointed attorneys who practice in the Family Court
    will also be required to participate in periodic training. In addition,
    cross-training will be planned and presented for Court and stakeholder
    personnel. Many details and logistics must be worked out to maximize
    the efficiency and the effectiveness of all of this training, including
    how it will all be jointly scheduled well in advance to accommodate all
    participants' planning. We suggest this as a further topic for Congress
    and this Committee to review periodically over the next 18 months of
    implementation. The Council for Court Excellence has already offered to
    provide any appropriate help to the Court and other Child Welfare
    Leadership Team stakeholders to plan these training initiatives and to
    carry out the plans.
        We thank this Subcommittee for your policy and fiscal leadership of
    the effort to create a state-of-the-art Family Court in the DC Superior
    Court, we thank the Court for the promising plans it has laid out for
    itself, and we look forward to working with the Court and you over the
    next several years to bring the planned reforms to fruition. I would be
    happy to answer your questions at this time.

        Senator Landrieu. Well, this committee would be very
    inclined to do that if we could see a specific plan from you
    and your organization and the courts in writing about the
    specific recommendations of upgrades, personnel, job
    qualifications, slots, and money associated. And if you all
    have that in the works, get it to us. If it is part of the
    plan, we will receive it today. And if not, you can get it to
    us in the future.
        Judge King. We have made that a----
        Senator Landrieu. A part of the plan?
        Judge King. We are doing a staffing study now, which will
    give us more articulation, but we have made the critical
    shortage in support staff a part of our presentation in the
    fiscal year 2003 budget presentation.
        This is well known to us and--it is an urgent need for the
    court. We need this--we need the staff filled out.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me just ask the staff something.
        Okay. We have in the file, as you can see, a request for a
    $6 million increase, in addition to the $6 million current
    operating costs budget. We need some more details of how that
    would be utilized.
        Judge King. We would be happy to provide that.
        Senator Landrieu. Specifically how many positions, job
    descriptions, you know, responsibilities, and it would be
    helpful if it could come jointly.
        Judge Satterfield. And I think what you are saying is
    that--a number of things that was being said, we are
    implementing a re-engineering process in addition to that work
    study. The things we are trying to do, including the intakes,
    the essential intake center for the clerk's office and the new
    case management, as well as our IJIS computer system, are going
    to require that we have those type of processes in place in
    order to accomplish what we are hearing here today.
        Senator Landrieu. And, Ms. Luxenberg, you had a question
    about the mixed case loads for judges and you said supporting
    staff, business management training and cross-training. Could
    you make just brief comments about that?
        And then, Ms. Dolan, I am going to ask you to comment.
        And then I am going to go vote and come back.
        Ms. Luxenberg. All right. And there is one other thing I am
    going to try to jam in there as well, but the mixed case load,
    the issue of the mixed case load, you actually alluded to in
    the beginning, and that is that we are talking about not just
    abuse and neglect cases, but the divorce and custody and
    support cases, and how all of those things are going to work
    and jell together.
        It is going to be a complicated process and needs to be
    given more look, which I know the court is working on. But we
    want to just reiterate that--that focus needs to be there, that
    we have been focusing a lot on the abuse and neglect situation,
    but there are a lot of other cases.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Is there any court in the country
    that organizes a family's cases around a serious case of child
    abuse and neglect, where the child becomes the focal point of
    the case, so the familys' cases go before the judge on the
    child abuse and neglect case?
        If, in fact, that child is being beaten every night--his
    parents are in the middle of the divorce, and there is also an
    older brother in the family who has problems with drugs and the
    law, is there some way that the system could be that the whole
    family situation goes to the judge that is trying to protect
    that child, so that protecting the child becomes the focus? And
    then the same judge just deals with the divorce. They deal with
    the older child's problem and they save this child from being
    beaten to death. Is that possible?
        Ms. Luxenberg. I believe that the assistant director of the
    Council for Court Excellence is aware of the plan.
        Senator Landrieu. Is that the plan? Judge Satterfield or
    Chief Judge, is that the plan?
        Judge Satterfield. It is child-focused. And that is why we
    start out with the one-judge/one-family in the child welfare
    cases.
        Senator Landrieu. And that is how it will work?
        Judge Satterfield. Except for the criminal cases that are
    outside of Family Court; they will not come in. But when you
    are talking about the abuse case, if another case comes in
    Family Court that is related, such as the custody or the
    divorce of the parents or something to that effect, we are
    focusing on the child's case and bringing that family's case
    in, if it is going to help us resolve the child's case,
    expedite permanency, not delay permanency, and keep the child
    safe.
        So we have a child focus, one-judge/one-family plan that we
    plan to implement.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. But to be very clear, since
    domestic abuse is also a crime and not just child abuse, what
    you just said is the domestic abuse, if it is a crime could be
    before a different judge than the child who is being abused. If
    the mother is also being abused, she is before one judge; the
    child is before another judge. And yet again, the older teenage
    boy who is having problems, legal problems, is yet before
    another judge. Is that possible under the plan?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, if it is a teenage boy, that boy--
    child's case can come, because it would be a juvenile case
    within our jurisdiction. If it is an adult----
        Senator Landrieu. To the same judge----
        Judge Satterfield. To the same judge.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. That the younger child is
    with?
        Judge Satterfield. Yes. If there is an adult case, it is
    criminal charges, and that is not within the Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. I realize that.
        Judge Satterfield. That is what I am saying. That is not
    within the Family Court jurisdiction, but--and so that case,
    although we are aware of it and we can consult and find out
    where it is.
        Senator Landrieu. That is fine. But under the juvenile--you
    could pull in the mother who is being abused to that judge----
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. The child, the other
    juvenile that is having problems----
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And the little child that is
    getting beaten up?
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. All before one judge?
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That is good. All right.
        Okay. I would like to turn to Ms. Dolan for comments.
    STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE DOLAN, CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
                FOR CHILDREN
        Ms. Dolan. You know, I would just like to address the issue
    that you were talking about, the family conferencing.
    California has been doing----
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. Has been doing some of that family
    conferencing models. It was taken from the New Zealand model. I
    do not know if you are familiar with that, but Judge Edwards
    and I gave Judge King that, his information, has been doing the
    family conferencing in Santa Clara County.
        We are doing it in part of our county. And we are
    struggling to--because it is difficult for us to get the family
    together in----
        Senator Landrieu. So, tell me a little about this. How long
    have you been doing family conferences? How many sort of
    families? Just give us a little flavor for the process.
        Ms. Dolan. We are on the fringes.
        Senator Landrieu. Fringes of it, okay.
        Ms. Dolan. We are--if you talk to some people, they will
    say it is implemented.
        Senator Landrieu. Right.
        Ms. Dolan. You know, the person you can get some
    information from is The Annie Casey Foundation in Seattle----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. Because they are----
        Senator Landrieu. Promoting it?
        Ms. Dolan. They are funding a number of the startups.
        Senator Landrieu. Because I would be willing----
        Ms. Dolan. And they are also studying the outcomes from it.
        Senator Landrieu. I would be willing to help fund for you
    all sort of a traditional mediation model and the sort of non-
    traditional pushing-the-envelope mediation model, and to test
    for you, you know, which one----
        Ms. Dolan. I think----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Would work the best; or
    maybe you could use both of them, or maybe you will decide
    after trying for a year that, you know, one is too complicated
    and we would just as soon stick with kind of the regular
    mediation.
        So if you all want to discuss that and present that in your
    budget, I would be happy to, because I think it is very
    important.
        Ms. Dolan. I would be real interested to see what--we have
    family preservation services, and I would be really interested
    to see how family preservation and family conferencing could
    mold itself together.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Jacqueline Dolan

                             child sensitive courts
        My name is Jacqueline Dolan and I live in Pasadena, California. I
    am an advocate for children who have been neglected and/or abused by
    the adults who are either unable or unwilling to care for them. I
    currently work with the California Partnership for Children based in
    Sacramento, California.. I welcome this invitation to speak before you
    about the issue of Child Sensitive Courts.
        For a moment, that for you will go away, I would like you to
    imagine that you are a child whose parents having been drinking or
    using drugs and fighting all night. A neighbor who has heard this many
    times before becomes fearful for you and your four siblings. She calls
    the authorities and soon there after, the police are at your home and
    you are taken away. Now you know that police take only the ``bad guys''
    away. In the dark of night, with the feeling that you have done
    something very wrong, you are placed in the home of a stranger. There
    is room in that home for just you and you have no idea where your four
    siblings have gone. Within 72 hours you will be picked up by a
    transportation worker, another stranger from the Children's Services
    Office, and escorted to the court where decisions will be made that
    will change your life forever.
        Just picture yourself in a foreboding Court building and now a
    court room filled with many more strangers who will speak in legalese--
    the minor this, and the minor that--hereinafter referred to as--
    according to W&I Section . . .. You will meet your Social Worker and if
    she has time, she might explain what has happened as you are returned
    to the emergency shelter home. You are no longer in the same school,
    you have no family and no friends, and you have no idea how your
    brother and sisters are faring.
        Now imagine the difference, instead of a foreboding building, you
    are taken to a Children's Courthouse that is clean and freshly painted.
    In the entry way there are drawings done by children, there are seats
    just your size. In the waiting area there are games to play, books to
    read, art projects to take your mind off the unknown. The people who
    work in these nice surroundings are pleasant and caring, they are
    concerned and ask if they can answer any questions you might have.
    Inside the court room the Judges' bench is elevated only slightly, so
    as not to be overpowering to the child but enough to indicate authority
    to the offending adults. The pictures on the walls are of interest to
    and about children, creating a warm and safe feeling. Once the case is
    heard the judge invites the child to choose from an array of stuffed
    animals, one to take home.
        We can stop imaging now! The picture should be very clear how the
    beginning of protecting these children whose cases must come to court,
    get off to a much better start in a child sensitive environment. A
    place where the caring for those children, who have had no one else to
    care for them, begins.
        We advocates in Los Angeles are very proud of our Edelman
    Children's Court, named after a now retired member of the Los Angeles
    County Board of Supervisors, who took the time to listen, and then to
    provide the leadership to see that this children's courthouse was built
    with all the features that provide the children with a sense of safety.
    To see that it also enabled, those who need to process the children's
    cases, with adequate space: The Department of Children and Family
    Services; the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) office, known in
    Los Angeles as The Child Advocates Office; The Los Angeles Unified
    School District; The County Counsel; The Dependency Court Legal
    Services; The Department of Mental Health, Free Arts for Abused
    Children; Info Line (provides referral) and several community based
    organizations.
        In preparation for this testimony, I spoke with the Presiding Judge
    of the Juvenile Court, the Honorable Michael Nash. He stated that the
    recurring theme is to minimize the child's anxiety by providing many
    diversions. Because the surroundings are pleasant and the space is
    adequate the staff function more effectively.
        The Honorable Judge Paul Boland who was the Presiding Judge who
    served on the design committee for the Children's Courthouse and is now
    serving as a California Appellate Court Judge, recently took 50
    research attorney's to view the Dependency Court process. Judge Boland
    reported that these attorneys were in awe of the process they observed.
    The judge stated that a child sensitive court can accomplish what law,
    court rules, and protocols are not able to accomplish by themselves.
    This change in environment for all concerned, changes the culture of
    what courts decide for society's most serious and far reaching cases.
    Judge Boland continued by observing that court personnel are more
    courteous and lawyers less adversarial and children are not as
    intimidated and therefore feel comfortable. Parents are respected and
    offered dignity and are therefore more motivated to follow and
    participate in needed services.
        This exemplary court house came about because many people showed
    deep concerns for the way we were treating the most needy of our
    society. Funding for the building is the result of a unique partnership
    effort that included the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the
    Los Angeles Superior Court, the state of California, the business
    community, local community organizations and the academic world.
        If this can happen in a large, sprawling and diverse community such
    as Los Angles County, it can happen anywhere. All that is needed is the
    will to improve the lives of our children, and the commitment to leave
    no child behind.

        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King. Let me just be very clear.
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Judge King. I think I heard you say you would be willing to
    fund the----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes, I did.
        See, he always hears these things. I mean, really----
        Judge King. I am ready. I am ready to start designing that
    program next week.
        Senator Landrieu. You mean this afternoon.
        Judge King. Get started, yes.
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Judge Satterfield. You know, I have spoken to Judge Edwards
    in San Jose and a number of other judges because we are a part
    of the Model Court Initiative sponsored by the National Council
    of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. So I am familiar with what
    they are trying to do there, in terms of family counseling in
    his jurisdiction.
        Ms. Dolan. I think it is probably more easily done in a
    smaller community than it is in a sprawling area like Los
    Angeles or Chicago or New York.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Fraidin. You know, and I would just say that I am aware
    that the Child and Family Services Agency already is trying to
    do that on some limited scale. Having participated in one such
    conference----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Mr. Fraidin [continuing]. I can say that it was successful
    and it really did get a very large extended family together to
    address issues that I think had been lingering for some time.
    And they were all able to come up with a resolution that was--
    --
        Senator Landrieu. And just for anecdotal purposes, what was
    the outcome of that particular conference that you experienced?
        Mr. Fraidin. The outcome of that family case conference was
    reunification, with----
        Senator Landrieu. With the biological----
        Mr. Fraidin. Of the child with the biological mother.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Mother. Okay.
        Mr. Fraidin. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. I am going to have to leave to
    go vote in a minute. I am waiting for Senator DeWine.
        But I would like to move a line of questioning about the
    physical renovations of this court. And I, unfortunately, have
    not toured the site, but I have been given this diagram of
    several court buildings. And the idea that the Family Court
    would be in this, is it the Moultrie Building?
        Judge King. Moultrie.
        Judge Satterfield. Moultrie.
        Senator Landrieu. Moultrie Building.
        Judge Satterfield. The building you attended during the
    adoption ceremony.
        Senator Landrieu. Oh, good. Okay. Well, I have been there--
    --
        Judge Satterfield. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. To that atrium-type----
        Judge King. There is a small diagram, but if I might stand
    and kind of walk you through that a little bit?
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Oh, we're holding--all right,
    Judge. You know, what, Judge? I am going to have to go vote----
        Judge King. All right.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Because they are holding the
    vote, we will have to take a 2-minute break.
        As soon as Senator DeWine comes back, he can resume
    questions.
        Judge King. At your pleasure, I would be happy to walk you
    through this.
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Senator DeWine. She will be right back.
        I just have several additional questions and if it works
    out right, I will be done with my questions by the time Senator
    Landrieu gets back.
        Let me direct the questions to the judges. The plan is
    really--seems to me based on a number of things. Well, three of
    the things it is based on is a computer system, the three
    additional judges, and having the facility that Senator
    Landrieu was starting to ask you about a moment ago.
        And I guess I would like to go through and ask how
    realistic it is that each one of these will be on line when you
    believe they will be, because it seems to me the plan is pretty
    much based on that. And let me start by asking GAO what your
    assessment is of the computer system, the plan, where we--where
    they are going in. Enlighten us please.
        Ms. Ashby. Well, I do not know how much I can enlighten
    you, because there are still a number of unknowns. As I said in
    my short statement and as we elaborate on in our official
    statement for the record, we did review the system and the IJIS
    is really a D.C. Courts' system of which part of it will serve
    the purposes of the Family Court, the first phase of the
    system.
        In our initial review--in our review that culminated in our
    report last February--we found basically a lack of discipline
    in terms of determining requirements, making sure that user
    needs are actually going to be accommodated, that life cycle
    management, which is so important to any systems development
    project, actually is used.
        It is time consuming, but the time is put up front as
    opposed to later when you try to implement the system and see
    that it does not work or does not meet needs.
        The courts agreed with our recommendations and agreed to
    implement them, and we believe we are in the process of
    implementing them. Part of that implementation is to come up
    with a new statement of requirements. And they are in the
    process of doing that. So we, of course, have not seen the
    result.
        So we would hope that there would be more specificity, more
    concern about users needs, more inclusion of users needs, more
    discipline, the life-cycle management steps will be adhered to,
    but we have not seen the result of that. So not having seen
    that, we cannot really comment on the scheduling.
        Senator DeWine. Judge Satterfield, Judge King.
        Judge King. We have worked closely with GAO from the
    referral end. I think it was originally referred in May of last
    year. And then in November, we came up with a set of
    requirements that GAO felt we needed to address. We have been
    working as closely and as vigorously as we can with GAO.
        Mr. Ken Foor, our IT director, is present in the room with
    us, today. We have tried to meet their----
        Senator DeWine. Who is present? I am sorry.
        Judge King. Our information technology director, who is
    responsible for the effort.
        Senator DeWine. He is welcome--you are welcome to bring him
    up here, if you want to do that.
        Judge King. I am happy to. I am not----
        Mr. Foor. Good morning.
        Senator DeWine. Good morning. You are welcome to join us.
    We--it looks like we have plenty of room still left.
        Judge King. Right. All right. Join the fun.
        Senator DeWine. And for the record, would you state your
    name?
        Mr. Foor. Yes. My name is Kenneth Foor. I am the
    information technology director for the court.
        Senator DeWine. And, again, I--I guess rephrase or restate
    the question. You have had the--you were in the room and you
    had the opportunity to hear the comments that were made by the
    representative of GAO; is that correct?
        Mr. Foor. Yes, sir. That is correct.
        Senator DeWine. And you--now, you all can respond however
    you wish.
        Judge King. All right. Well, I wanted to say is simply
    that----
        Senator DeWine. Right, sure.
        Judge King [continuing]. At all times from two-and-a-half
    years ago, we have tried to work with consultants. We had one
    disappointing situation with a consultant that did not give us
    the product we had hoped for.
        We have surmounted that. We have gone around it now. We are
    moving forward. And I am going to let Mr. Foor paint in some of
    the details of our effort to prosecute that conversion
    expeditiously, but at the same time staying in step with GAO,
    so that we--and I think GAO made the very apt comment, in this
    area more than any of the other areas you can do it right the
    first time or you can do it faster and maybe not get it right
    and then you go into many multiples of the cost of doing it as
    opposed to doing it right the first time.
        But I am going to let Mr. Foor paint in some of the
    details.
        Mr. Foor. Some of the issues were identified as the
    specificity of our requirements. What we have done is we have
    brought in a team of subject matter experts and actually sat
    down and identified all the stakeholders, not only within the
    court, but externally as well.
        And we have conducted extensive interviews. And they will
    be completed by the end of this week.
        The documentation for those interviews will actually be
    placed into some software tools, which actually relate the
    requirements, the legalities back with the specifications
    themselves. That is the--that product will produce our request
    for proposals for a computerized system.
        GAO also recommended that we do a request for information
    from existing vendors. Because we personally believe that there
    is a commercial off-the-shelf system out there that will meet
    our needs, especially in the core requirements area.
        This is especially important, because along with the
    commercial off-the-shelf system, it minimizes the amount of
    modifications or customization that will be required. It is
    already existing and running in other court systems.
        Additionally, in our budget, we plan for approximately
    $800,000 worth of training. Training is a very critical
    component dealing with any kind of computer system or a change
    in culture.
        Right now, we are very manually driven by paper, by case
    jackets with some automation in terms of being able to generate
    calendars, schedules, notices, and reports.
        Our transition.--We actually have, in addition to the IJIS
    system, we have developed transitional software to do the ASFA
    reporting and the other types of monitoring that will be
    required until the IJIS system is actually available.
        Senator DeWine. Well, given all that, when do you feel the
    system will be operable?
        Mr. Foor. Making the assumptions that we put into our plan,
    we are looking at September of 2003 to be fully operational.
        Now, part of the plan also tasks, or looks at the
    possibility of implementing abuse and neglect. Part of the
    issue that we have and difficulty--one of our challenges is
    running multiple systems at a time. That is why we are really
    planning a transitional system, and then a cut-over to the
    integrated system.
        Senator DeWine. Ms. Ashby, do you want to comment at all on
    that on the response that you just heard? I do not know that--I
    do not know that you do. I just want to give you the
    opportunity if you do. We are just trying to be enlightened and
    sometimes I find the best way to be enlightened is to go back
    and forth.
        Ms. Ashby. I will just reiterate what we said in our
    statement and what I said in my opening remarks, running a dual
    system is expensive. And we do not know very much about the
    software that you want to use as your second system.
        We really were not clear whether that was really some type
    of new system that should run parallel to IJIS, or whether it
    was simply combining the manual checking of the 18 legacy
    systems that are currently there.
        We were not clear. The plan was not clear.
        Senator DeWine. Is it clear now?
        Ms. Ashby. It sounds like you have actually come up with
    something in addition to what is in the plan, that there is
    some software that you think you can use along with IJIS.
        Senator DeWine. Sure, go ahead.
        Judge King. If I can just jump in with the--where we want
    to end up is one unified system that runs the entire court
    system.
        Senator DeWine. Sure. Sure.
        Judge King. We have already taken the steps of, for
    example, locking in the Oracle platform, which is the almost
    universal standard. It is also the standard that the rest of
    the city is using.
        So we are already doing what we can to make sure that what
    we build out for the court, first of all, fully serves the
    court's needs, but also leaves us in a position to facilitate,
    to the maximum degree possible, connecting up with other city
    users and city agencies. That is the charter that Mr. Foor has.
        Senator DeWine. Anything to add?
        Mr. Foor. Yes. We are not actually dealing here with 18
    systems. Predominantly we are dealing with three systems. And
    we are, in fact, modifying the three existing systems so that
    they support our transition program.
        And it is from that modification of the existing transition
    program that will migrate into the final system, that will
    integrate fully with the other court operations; criminal,
    civil and so forth.
        Senator DeWine. Well, you know, the reason we are spending
    some time talking about this, obviously this is a crucial issue
    and it is an integral part of--a very important part of your
    plan. You know, one of the things, just to take an example, one
    of the things that--to follow the theory of the one child in
    one right--with one judge idea, is the ability to identify the
    siblings of a child.
        Now do you have the ability to identify the siblings of a
    child? Now do you have the ability to--you cannot do that now?
        Mr. Foor. That is correct, we cannot do it now.
        Senator DeWine. And is----
        Mr. Foor. We are in the process of working to identify
    common identifiers and possibly cross-referencing so that, in
    fact, that can happen.
        Senator DeWine. And you think you can do that by 2003,
    September, is that----
        Mr. Foor. That is correct.
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. That is the idea? Judge.
        Judge King. That is through the technology, though. We are
    working on doing it with labor manually to----
        Senator DeWine. Right. Right.
        Judge King. Because that is so important. So we are moving
    forward, even though the technology that is going to help us do
    it better is not there yet.
        Senator DeWine. Let me turn, if I could, to the second
    component of the--the piece. The first one was the computer
    system that I questioned and candidly, you know, I hope you are
    right. The GAO report is troubling about where we are on that.
        But let me turn to the----
        Judge King. May I just add----
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge King [continuing]. Add one thing?
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge King. There is one thing no matter how accountable we
    want to be and intend to be, we cannot avoid some risk in the
    procurement process. If we do not get the right responses, or
    that process takes a little more time, it is so imperative that
    that be done right and that we do it carefully that we have now
    planned to accomplish that within the 18 months.
        But are there any guarantees in life? No. That is going to
    depend. We will do the best we can to pursue it vigorously, but
    we cannot guarantee that there will not be glitches in
    procurement.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, let me follow up on that, before
    Senator DeWine gets onto another subject. We have got to wrap
    this up in the next 10 or 15 minutes at the latest.
        But I want to just go over just a couple of things to be
    clear that we are trying to design this IJIS system that is a
    district-wide, city-wide, technology-based system, that all
    city agencies--all agencies including the court at every level
    try to interface. Is that the general thrust?
        Judge King. If I can----
        Senator Landrieu. No or yes?
        Judge King. Can I clarify that?
        Senator Landrieu. I mean, I hear yes from here and no from
    the audience. So----
        Judge King. Can I clarify that?
        Senator DeWine. It is more than no from the audience. There
    is groaning out there.
        Senator Landrieu. Groaning, yes.
        Judge Satterfield. They want us to get it right.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. What is it?
        Judge King. Can I clarify that? We obviously do not--we
    truly do not have responsibility for the other city computer
    systems. We just do not have that authority.
        Senator Landrieu. Correct.
        Judge King. What we are doing is we are designing first a
    system which will fully support what the court needs and
    particularly, initially, the Family Court. That has to be our
    priority that we are responsible for.
        It needs to identify children. It needs to tell us where
    they are. It needs to tell us what related cases there are. It
    needs to be instantly and easily accessible by people who are
    non-computer sophisticated. That is what we are going to start
    with.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King. The rest of the city is working on various
    pieces of their system of information. So what we can do to
    make sure--the piece that we can control is that we will design
    our system so that it is as close to a universal connector as
    we can get, so that when corporation counsel is ready, we are
    ready to go.
        Senator Landrieu. I am greatly relieved.
        Judge King. When CFSA is along, we are ready to connect up,
    and they will not have a large amount of difficulty.
        Senator Landrieu. I am greatly relieved to hear that.
        Judge King. We cannot--if we design--if we wait until the
    entire city has designed a system, we are going to be having
    this conversation in 2010.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King. We need to move ahead and design the court
    system and build it out----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge King. But what we will commit to you is that we will
    do that in a fashion which will--to the maximum extent that we
    are capable, it will facilitate the city connecting with us and
    having the right exchange of information.
        Senator Landrieu. That is very good. My final question is:
    have we identified another entity existing in the United States
    of America that has successfully designed such a program, that
    we have looked at, and that we are confident that, if we just
    did what they did, it would work?
        Judge King. We have done it here in--well, there are two
    pieces to that question. There are other computer systems
    that--and I think, I am going to let Ken tell you which----
        Senator Landrieu. Which system--yes.
        Judge King [continuing]. In court--inside the court. But
    then I want to answer the city-wide part.
        Senator Landrieu. But my question was specifically: Have
    you identified one other jurisdiction in the United States of
    America where this computer system is up, running, created,
    working, the judges are happy with it, so that we can just take
    that and make it happen in the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Foor. That is part of our criteria for actually going
    out for proposal. And, yes, we have identified four different
    computer systems----
        Senator Landrieu. And what would those be?
        Mr. Foor [continuing]. That are potentially----
        Senator Landrieu. What would those be if you can say what
    they are?
        Mr. Foor. I can tell you the vendors' names. I cannot tell
    you----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. What are their names?
        Mr. Foor [continuing]. What jurisdiction they are in.
        Senator Landrieu. What are their names?
        Mr. Foor. ACS is one.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Foor. Tyler Technologies is the second.
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Mr. Foor. Maximus is the third. The fourth one does not
    come right off the top of my head.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. But you have four and I would like
    you tell those--you know, get that fourth one to GAO.
        And they are going to identify for us where those systems
    are operating and set up in the country. If they are or not,
    because before we start, I just want to know that. Because it
    is a big difference.
        If there is one already operating and it has already been
    done, it gives us a greater confidence it can be redone and we
    can put you on a shorter time frame.
        If we are starting from scratch and developing it just on
    the basis of what vendors say they can do, then we are in a
    whole other ball game and, you know, I have been doing this for
    25 years, and so has Senator DeWine.
        Mr. Foor. We also do have the jurisdictions those systems
    are running in.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Foor. So I would be happy to share that.
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Senator, go ahead and I have some questions on physical
    facilities. Go ahead.
        Senator DeWine. And I will be brief. The plan calls for
    three additional judges.
        Judge King. Are we--is Mr. Foor finished or do you----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. Well, for now. He can go relax for now.
    Good luck. We will wish him luck.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. That we will do.
        Three judges, how are we coming on that?
        Judge King. As you will notice from this schedule--or it is
    on the board, here.
        Senator DeWine. Right.
        Judge King. The appointment process begins when I make a
    request in September 2002. I make the request for the three
    additional judges.
        The reason for that is that, right now, I already have
    fewer courtrooms than I have judges who need them and no
    chambers facilities. So, until we can----
        Senator DeWine. We cannot--cannot make the request and say,
    ``Here is when we are going to need them''?
        Judge King. Well, I have already done that informally. But
    it--but there is a process that once they kick it in, there are
    some time deadlines they have to comply with. And it is
    typically 6 to 9 months.
        So if I asked for them now, we would have judges at the end
    of the year with no place to go and no place to work.
        Senator DeWine. Do you have--how confident are you that
    that procedure will work if you make that work in the time that
    we need them?
        Judge King. I have good confidence, if we start in
    September, the likelihood of having them by this time of the
    year, or between now and the end of May next year, is very,
    very consistent with past experience.
        Senator DeWine. Do you want them all in court when?
        Judge King. By----
        Judge Satterfield. By June and July when we expect to have
    the partial build-out completed in the Moultrie building----
        Judge King. Right.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. So that we can house them
    and they can start hearing cases.
        Senator DeWine. But the--which brings me to my third
    question, which is the facility.
        Judge King. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. What assurance do we have that this is
    going to be on line? What impediments do you see?
        Judge King. Well----
        Senator DeWine. What are the road blocks?
        Judge King. There are two pieces of it. Obviously, our goal
    is to have a place that really is a substantial departure from
    what we have now. We want a facility that has meeting rooms and
    conference rooms and waiting rooms that are not intimidating to
    children.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge King. We want the service resource center. There is a
    lot that we want to put into this.
        Senator Landrieu. Judge King, can I ask you, if I could
    just have a minute to interrupt at this moment? Because Ms.
    Dolan has come to testify specifically on this point about the
    kinds of child-friendly courtroom spaces and what they look
    like. And I would like to ask her, if she would, just for three
    or four minutes----
        Ms. Dolan. I am going to deter from my written statement--
    --
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That would be fine. And just
    generally----
        Ms. Dolan [continuing] And just address the issues that
    were raised here today.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. So that we can come back and
    then ask questions about what the space requirements are. I
    know we do not have pictures, but kind of describe to us what
    it looks like.
        Ms. Dolan. There actually are some pictures in your--and
    some--you know, I was involved in getting the building
    designed----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. From an advocate and from a child's
    perspective. I am not an architect, nor a designer. But our
    courtrooms are warm and friendly and----
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. Just even approaching the building,
    we have the house effect that--from a child's drawing. And we
    used a consultant from Berkeley, California, who is mentioned
    in there, to add the child focus within our courthouse.
        The seats are children-sized. The bathrooms are designed
    for families, so that there are changing tables, whatnot.
        What you are holding up there is a meeting room where the
    children meet with their attorneys. In California, and
    especially in Los Angeles, all children come to court from 4
    years of age and up, so that they have their opportunity to
    speak to the judge.
        These courtrooms and--those pictures are of empty
    courtrooms when we first designed them. They are now filled
    with teddy bears and pictures of things that interest children.
        And we have a shelter care area where the children wait
    that has games, pool, foosball. All of those were supplied by
    foundation money and monies raised by our Rotary five in Los
    Angeles. Over, oh, almost close to $2 million now has been
    raised to keep the extra activities going.
        The courthouse costs $52 million, almost $53 million to
    build. That was in 1980, 1990--1992, we opened, but----
        Senator Landrieu. But how big is your system? How many
    people does this serve?
        Ms. Dolan. Well, we have----
        Senator Landrieu. Los Angeles is----
        Ms. Dolan. Unfortunately, I hate to say this, we have--when
    the courtroom was--courthouse was designed, we had 52,000
    children under court supervision. We are down to 36,000, which
    is not small.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay, 36,000 cases.
        Ms. Dolan. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And it cost you $52 million in 1980?
        Ms. Dolan. Then, yes.
        Senator Landrieu. We have how many cases?
        Judge Satterfield. Well, in total for Family Court, 24,000,
    a little bit more than----
        Senator Landrieu. Is that apples to apples, or is it--or
    are you--is that child abuse?
        Judge King. No. She is talking about----
        Ms. Dolan. We are just talking child abuse. We have a
    separate Family Court----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. What is the number here--Okay.
    Well, let me just stick with this, 52,000 cases, $52 million.
    How many cases are in the District?
        Judge Satterfield. We have 5,100 cases of children----
        Senator Landrieu. 5,100 cases.
        Judge Satterfield [continuing]. And 3,500 of those cases
    are outside of Family Court.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. But 5,100 cases to--I mean, what is
    it?
        Ms. Dolan. 36,000.
        Senator Landrieu. 36,000, okay. So, somewhere is--you can
    get a reference point of the kind of money that we are going to
    have to----
        Ms. Dolan. You need money----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Have for this facility.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. Because you just need money. You
    really need money.
        Senator Landrieu. But we need money, but we also need
    creativity, will----
        Ms. Dolan. Right, well spent.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Commitment, money well spent
    and a system to get private sector contributions to do the
    extras that the government just cannot, with the other
    obligations that we have to----
        Ms. Dolan. I will tell you that I did not put in my
    testimony, we did--we attempted to build this courthouse with
    private dollars. We did a feasibility study and found that the
    world thought that courthouses were supposed to be built by
    government. And the----
        Senator Landrieu. That is true.
        Ms. Dolan. But by asking these questions--it is funny what
    you do when you go out to the public and you inform them of
    what is happening to children. They said, ``But we would
    fund''----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Dolan [continuing]. ``Making it more pleasant.''
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Dolan. So the extra things have been funded by private.
        Senator Landrieu. And I would like to ask about that in
    general. We can come back now to the questions about what is
    our overall plan to building something similar to the Edelman
    Children's Court, including public/private partnerships. Where
    are we in designing child-friendly space?
        Judge King. Let me just, I hope, slow down one train----
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Judge King [continuing]. Before it gets out of the station.
    The thrust of your comments suggested that, ``Well, if they
    spent $50 million, we are going to be able to do it for $4
    million,'' or something.
        Ms. Dolan. Less than that now, but no. It is 10 years
    later.
        Judge King. We spent to accommodate the five new magistrate
    judges, that is to build-out, take some existing space, move a
    couple of offices, build-out their offices and furnish them, we
    spent approximately $1 million.
        So, we are not going to be able to do this in a way that
    anybody is going to want to acknowledge as their work product.
        Ms. Dolan. Well, I think reconstruction costs more than
    starting from scratch.
        Judge King. It does. And that is--I mean, we are----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. That is why I want to suggest that
    we are clear about where we are going, because I am not sure
    there is a consensus.
        Judge King. Well, I had----
        Senator Landrieu. It is important for Senator DeWine and I
    to be clear. I just want to know what our options are.
        Judge King. All right.
        Senator Landrieu. If we can build a brand new building----
        Judge King. I agree with----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And a brand new space, we
    might get the political will and the private sector
    contributions to do that. If we want to try to do that, we are
    not too far down the line to get that done.
        If the answer is no, we cannot muster that, then we can
    renovate the best building we can. But I want the outcome to be
    a very good outcome. And you will not have a good outcome
    unless you know what you are getting when you get started.
        Judge King. Right.
        Senator Landrieu. And I am just saying we are unclear about
    what we are going to get. And I am hoping to get something as
    close to the Los Angeles Children's Court as possible,
    realizing that we may not get exactly that caliber facility.
        Judge King. Right.
        Senator Landrieu. But I do not want to end up 5 years or 10
    years from now, having spent a lot of money----
        Judge King. And I think----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And not getting anywhere
    near where we want to be.
        Judge Satterfield. And we are familiar with that, because
    we have the same packet that you have. Plus, I have spoken to
    Judge Nash who is the presiding out there, on a number of
    occasions through that project I was telling you about.
        And we are scheduled to see him in May of this year to take
    a walk-through, because that is the one thing we have not done
    with his courtroom, to see how his courtrooms are structured,
    because if you--even if you do it without building another
    building, you want to make the courtrooms and the settings and
    all that appropriate for children. And I think the Chief has
    more on how we are going to----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. So, Chief Judge, go ahead.
        Judge King. There are two--obviously, the implication of
    your question, there are two directions we can go. We have
    worked with GSA and their architects to do the first space
    requirements and the options, a development of options.
        The problem is that to remain anywhere near the justice
    campus, which is what you were looking at before we broke----
        Senator Landrieu. Right, this.
        Judge King [continuing]. You will see the--if I can just do
    corresponding ones here, at the bottom of the diagram, your
    diagram is the Moultrie building. Then all of the buildings in
    this whole kind of center area here are all court buildings
    with the metro and accessible to the court, with the exception
    of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
        To build out any of those buildings, one of my preferences
    would have been to take what we call building B, which is up
    here, and simply start over, double the building in size.
        What we run into are the historical preservation concerns.
    Apparently, there is a huge amount of interest in keeping this
    looking much like it does now. I have had very preliminary
    discussions with the Freedom Forum, which is putting up a
    Newseum across C Street from----
        Senator Landrieu. It is a magnificent building. It is going
    to be beautiful. I have seen a sketch of it.
        Judge King. They have a section of that building, which is
    now slated for residential use, and it occurred to me that--
    that could be our courthouse, because it is right across the
    street. It would be an easy way to do it. Again, we run into
    some local interest in bringing in residential into the area.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. We have 11 minutes to a vote, and
    we are not going to be able to come back.
        Judge King. I will finish in three.
        Senator Landrieu. So finish in three.
        Judge King. I will finish in three.
        Senator Landrieu. And then we are going to have to close
    the hearing.
        Judge King. It is--if we talk, as I am told, I am led to
    believe, and this is coming from the architects----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King [continuing]. I do not--you know, I do not do
    this every day. As soon as we start talking a separate
    building, we are adding a couple of years to our time line. So,
    what they were originally told to do is keep it in the justice
    campus somewhere and do it by--do it in 18 months.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Judge King. They have come up with what they consider to be
    the option, which will meet that deadline, and that is the plan
    that you have heard about, where we are going to take two
    floors.
        And let me just show you--here is a floor plan of the
    principal level of the Moultrie Building. The bottom one of
    that page--the bottom floor plan on that page that I just
    handed to you is the John Marshall level of our courthouse. And
    you will see a large shaded area on the right.
        That is currently occupied by our small claims and
    landlord/tenant courts. They are being moved out to the
    building on the top of the page, which is building B.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. And we do not have to go through
    all the general detail.
        Judge King. We do not need all of that.
        Senator Landrieu. But you are just moving people around and
    trying to end up with a family court space.
        Judge King. We have to move it out, so that we can come up
    with enough space, then down the road, we can finish in 18
    months getting everybody on board and getting the thing
    functioning.
        To get to where Los Angeles is takes one more step. And
    that is putting a sleeve on the C Street side of the Moultrie
    Building, and expanding the space.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. But let me be clear, because we
    only have a few minutes, and we may have to just follow up with
    questions. But when you say within 18 months, I want to know,
    generally, the square footage and the number of courtrooms and
    the number of judges that you have in your plan in 18 months,
    just in that order.
        What is the square footage that you have envisioned
    generally?
        Judge King. Family Court will require ultimately 140,000
    square feet.
        Senator Landrieu. So you think in 18 months under your
    plan, you will have 140,000 square feet. How many courtrooms?
        Judge King. Ultimately, we need 32 courtrooms or hearing
    rooms.
        Senator Landrieu. But will you have that in 18 months?
        Judge King. We already have most of them, so this is adding
    to what we have.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. So you will have, in 18 months, 32
    courtrooms and 140,000 square feet of space for the Family
    Court.
        Judge Satterfield. We will have the courtrooms, but we will
    not have the complete build out, because that takes building
    out on part of the court for all the other service centers.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge Satterfield. But for the judicial officers to hear
    the cases, we will have----
        Judge King. We will be functioning and we will have
    everybody aboard and functioning in courtrooms in 18 months.
        Now, there is a caveat, though. And if I can just very
    quickly--I know I have talked about this and so I do not need
    to be at great length, but we do not now have access to the
    funds to begin the build out process.
        The GSA has said that they will not--they will not be able
    to obligate any funds to begin that construction process until
    they have the money from us.
        We do not have--they are telling us they need $11 million
    in order to get started. So we are now in a period when we
    cannot do anything anyway under the law.
        That period ends on May 5. Beginning May 5 until we have
    access to the money is a delay that will be attributable to the
    money availability.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge King. And I am told by the architects that we are
    already jeopardizing the 18 months. In other words, not
    starting now is already jeopardizing the 18 months.
        So with that caveat, obviously we are going to work as hard
    and as fast as we can, but we cannot control when the funding
    will be available.
        Meanwhile, GAO is going to be asked to go get some
    additional information and fill in some of the blanks of the
    report, and I thank you all. I think it has been a very helpful
    hearing.

                        ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE STATEMENTS

        In addition, I would like to include in the record the
    statements of Mr. Paul Strauss, the Shadow Senator of the
    District of Columbia and Ms. Susan Golstman, a child-friendly
    courthouse architect.
        [The statements follow:]

        Prepared Statement of Paul Strauss, Shadow Senator, District of
                                    Columbia

        Good afternoon, Chairwoman Landrieu and Senator DeWine. I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. My name is
    Paul Strauss and as you know, I am the United States Senator
    representing the District of Columbia. My role as the District's
    elected U.S. Senator is to be an advocate on issues of importance to
    the citizens of the District of Columbia that are before the Senate. It
    is in this role that I provide testimony in support of the District's
    Family Court.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the transition of
    the Family Courts since the passage of the District of Columbia Family
    Court Act of 2001. In addition to my role as a United States Senator, I
    am also currently involved in the Family Court System representing
    abused and neglected children. I value any opportunity made within the
    Family Court that benefits the children it serves. The D.C. Family
    Court Reform legislation reflects the need to correct deficiencies in
    the management of child abuse and neglect cases in the existing system.
    This legislation represents a valuable effort put forth to identify the
    specific deficiencies within the existing Family Court to better serve
    children of the District of Columbia.
        The reform plan established by the District of Columbia has
    outlined many needed changes such as the need for a ``One Judge/One
    Family'' system, training staff working with families in the District,
    and providing family-friendly facilities. In addition, the need for a
    centralized information technology system has been identified to allow
    those working in the Family Courts access to client information to
    better provide services.
        In an effort to correct the problem of children falling through the
    cracks, this legislation introduces the One Judge/One Family program to
    the management of child abuse and neglect cases. This program aims to
    correct the problem of cases being seen by several judges and passed
    around with little coordination amongst the host of actors involved in
    managing the case. Too many children in the District of Columbia have
    faced several judges managing their case and a severe disconnect
    between the results of one court hearing versus the next. This program
    mandates that the same judge follows a family through the life of their
    case. Under this program, the likelihood that a child could fall
    through the cracks is highly improbable, which is an absolutely
    imperative provision of the legislation. Decisions regarding the
    child's welfare are more likely to be consistent and in the true
    interest of the child under the One Judge/One Family program. The
    sharing of knowledge and institutional capacity to support this
    objective must be established very early in the reform process in order
    for this provision to be met with success.
        A second major advancement under this legislation concerns training
    the staff working with families in the District. Progress continues
    toward providing training opportunities for all individuals involved in
    case management to continually update these professionals as to the
    latest developments in child abuse and neglect monitoring as well as
    developments in this area specific to the District. Training services
    are to be provided to judges and staff in the Family Court and Social
    Services Division. Meetings will be held that bring together all of the
    actors in this process to promote ``cross-training'', a process whereby
    case management professionals share their knowledge and expertise
    regarding each case to better coordinate the entire experience and
    ultimate result of the case across the system. The actors involved in
    these training sessions will include, Family Court judges, case-
    coordinators, attorney advisors, staff, and stakeholders. It is
    suggested that funds be sought from all available avenues to promote
    the regular continuation of all aspects of the training program agenda.
    This effort is the crucial link between all actors involved to ensure
    that coordination is smooth and successful leading to the most
    effective and expeditious resolve leading to a better quality of life
    for the children affected.
        Additionally, the enhanced role of alternative dispute resolution
    in, the process of case management is a step forward in giving families
    an avenue to resolve their problems that does not involve a court
    appearance. This method is preferable for many families involving child
    that have already experienced a traumatic situation at home and do not
    desire to be subjected to any further stress involving having to
    testify in front of a judge regarding the trauma they have undergone.
    This process is much friendlier to the children involved and often
    promotes more congenial relations amongst the participants leading to a
    more effective resolve more likely to be in the best interest of all
    involved due to the fact that the involved actors have conferred to
    develop the resolution themselves. I advocate a wider use of this
    process for more families. This process is the least intense for the
    children and often leads to a quicker more successful solution for all
    involved.
        Another key aspect of this legislation promoting improvement
    involves the provision of family-friendly facilities in the case
    management process. The entire process is designed to be more family-
    friendly in every way; however, special attention is given to improving
    the quality of the experience for the children in particular.
    Provisions such as an automatic granted visit with siblings within 48
    hours after placement out of the home, child-friendly environments in
    the institutional spaces where their cases are managed and improved
    morale and job satisfaction for the case management professionals to
    ensure that they are prepared to courteously deliver effective service
    in a caring manner are included in the current legislation. These
    improvements are difficult to quantify. Improvements are not realized
    in achievement of an ultimate goal. The provisions outlined in this
    legislation laid the groundwork for great things to develop to improve,
    the quality of the process for children, families, and professionals
    alike. However, continual assessment of this aspect of the process must
    be a cornerstone to improvement in the future.
        The final aspect of the legislation leading to advancement of the
    Family Court Reform process involves the provision of information
    technology to ease the coordination of the case management process
    across a variety of actors. The provision calls for an integrated
    information system charged with the task of tracking and reporting
    progress in each case in the District. This Integrated Justice
    Information System (IJIS) will be a welcomed replacement of the ailing
    computer infrastructure currently in place. The ability to coordinate
    the process of case management under one judge for each family is
    enhanced by the technological infrastructure to provide the involved
    actors with all of the information regarding the case at hand coupled
    with the ability to continually update this information to provide
    everyone with the most current events and advancements related to the
    case.
        The Family Court Reform Act in this reform plan is totally
    judicially focused. Of course, these are important steps, but many are
    concerned that the efforts to reform the child welfare system and
    family court processes will stop with the judiciary. Even if we have
    the wisest judges in the world presiding in the best facilities, we
    still will not have accomplished anything significant without quality
    attorneys representing children and families and a strong network of
    social services, including social workers with a manageable caseload. I
    know this committee will do what is required to ensure that the
    necessary resources are in place to implement meaningful reform.
        I believe that the current plan that has been set in motion by the
    District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 is beneficial to the
    District and the families that reside within its boundaries. I want to
    take this time to thank Chief Judge Rufus King, III for his work in the
    Family Courts. Again, I want to thank Chairwoman Landrieu and the
    committee for the opportunity to speak before you today regarding the
    Family Courts of the District of Columbia.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Susan Golstman, a Child-Friendly Courthouse
                                   Architect

        edmund d. edelman children's courthouse, county of los angeles,
                                   california
        The Edmund D. Edelman Children's Court is the newest facility in
    the Los Angeles Superior Court System. The first courthouse of its kind
    in the United States, it is specifically designed to handle Juvenile
    Dependency Court cases. The Children's Court provides a dignified, yet
    child-sensitive atmosphere where abused and neglected children and
    their families can begin the all-important process of recovery and
    family reunification.
        The physical environment of such facility could either demonstrate
    sensitivity to the needs of the children and parents, or add
    immeasurably to the trauma of a court experience. While responding to
    children's needs, the design of this facility also had to communicate
    serious messages to abusive parents, as well as provide a comfortable
    and functional workplace. This balancing act was a singular challenge
    to the design team.
    Guiding the Design
        Essential to the facility's success was the establishment and
    implementation of design guidelines for child-and-family-sensitive
    settings. The guidelines were developed at the request of the
    Children's Courthouse Design Committee and Kajima Associates, the
    architects of the facility (Goltsman, et al, 1991). The firm of Moore
    Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. developed the guidelines based on a series of
    interviews and working sessions with children, parents, court staff,
    attorneys, judges, child advocates, Department of Children's Services
    staff, and other involved in the Dependency Court process. The
    guidelines offered recommendations for providing efficient working
    spaces and facilitate Court operations while creating an environment
    sensitive to the needs of the children.
    Defining Conditions
        The user survey and field observation methods used to gather
    information on existing conditions included: open-ended interviews; a
    user questionnaire; focus groups and workshops with judges, children
    and youth in shelter care, social workers, youth in foster care, and
    attorneys; and field observations of both people and spaces, as well as
    a full-scale simulation of the new courtroom arrangements.
    Changing Environments and Programs
        A child-sensitive facility must center on programs, which express
    caring attitudes, policies and actions; the physical design reinforces
    program goals and reminds everyone that the facility is a place for
    children. The setting, mass, scale and a configuration of spaces send
    critical messages about purpose and process. In translating the child
    and family-sensitive concept into physical design, spaces and elements
    were introduced that are distinctly for children, evidenced by the
    creative use of light, color, form, textures and activity areas, which
    protect, nurture and stimulate.
    System Implications
        The court is only one aspect of a complex set of dependency
    services that a child in the social services system is effected by. To
    ``fix'' one part of the system understanding the entire system and how
    all parts interact is problematic. Although the entire system cannot be
    improved by building a new courthouse facility, the facility design
    process, if handled correctly, can be used to raise critical issues
    about the system that are more difficult to address otherwise.
        In the court facility, all the players in the system come together
    for the hearing. This is an opportunity to make the connections
    necessary to improve the life of the child and their family. At the
    hearings, a variety of activities occur that set the system into
    motion. For example, the judge may order the parents to take
    counseling. If the court design included a social service station, it
    could facilitate getting parents help by immediately scheduling the
    court-ordered counseling and arranging transportation to the
    appointment. Ultimately, this helps the goal of reunification of the
    parent(s) with their child. If the designer understands the system,
    design can be used to make the system work better.
    Courthouse Features
        Some examples of amenities in the courthouse are:
        The Entry.--The entry to the lobby is a not monumental as in
    traditional court facilities. The entry is scaled down to have a more
    ``residential'' character. The colors are in soft neutral shades with
    bright accents. The lighting in the lobby is primarily natural with
    accents on the features to draw people through the lobby to the court
    floors.
        Family Visiting Area.--Off the lobby, beside a palm street
    sculpture, is the family visiting area. Here, children who have been
    removed from their homes and are in foster care can visit with their
    parents and sibling(s) if the Court permits. The environment is
    designed as several small, intimate living rooms, with couches, chairs,
    art, non-institutional lighting, and plants. Each room has a large
    picture window with outside shutter details to help create a ``home-
    like'' atmosphere as well as provide for supervision.
        The Waiting Area.--The four court floors encompass 25 courtrooms.
    Each courtroom has its own distinct scaled-down entrance with doors
    that appear home-like and architectural details that make the entry
    familiar. Each courtroom has a small waiting area in front with a
    variety of loose seating and small tables at which children can read or
    color. Each area has video monitors showing programs designed to inform
    viewers about the court process, teach parents skills, and educate or
    entertain children.
        People may have to wait in the areas for up to eight hours a day
    because of the nature of the court scheduling. To provide a less
    confining environment, this area was also designed to have the best
    view to the outside. (In traditional court facilities, judges' chambers
    would have the best view).
        A ``sun'' sculpture on the pillars is part of a signage system
    throughout the building. Each floor is represented by a different
    symbol, which appears in the lobby directory, at each elevator and in
    each elevator lobby. Symbols, instead of words, were used to covey
    location for easier understanding by children as well as non-English
    language speakers.
        The Courtroom.--The courtroom is downsized and the judge's bench is
    lowered. Extensive research was conducted to determine the furniture
    configuration, seating adjacencies and a simpler symbology in the
    courtroom. Each courtroom is staffed by a judge, court reporter, two
    clerks, a bailiff, two social workers, and five to eight attorneys. A
    case remains with the same court staff for its duration, up to 18
    months.
        The Shelter Care Area.--Children who are in protective custody wait
    in the Shelter Care for up to eight hours a day. It is a 10,000-square-
    foot interior play space and an 8,000 sq. ft. outdoor facility. No one
    can enter this space except children, caregivers, social workers, child
    advocates, and the child's attorney. The area is divided into attorney
    interview rooms, a play area for children 4-11 year old, a play area,
    eating area, and administrative offices.
        The area for the younger children has a games area with Velcro
    walls for throwing, a dramatic play area with child-size house, a quiet
    area, a science/computer area, a dress area, a blocks and construction
    area, arts and crafts area, a theater, personal storage, and restrooms.
    Result
        The result of this design process is a facility that was conceived
    from the needs and perspective of children to fulfill the difficult
    role of creating a positive environment, for a child in the legal
    system while providing a good work place for the business of the court.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, let me just say, this has
    been an excellent hearing. We have gotten a lot of good things
    on the record. We have some challenges ahead. There is a lot of
    unity, but there are some additional pieces that have to be put
    into place.
        I thank all of you very much. We will continue to work. And
    because of this constraint of funding and reform based on
    space, we are going to either call another hearing or at least
    another meeting to kind of hammer out the physical facility and
    plan.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. While we are not opposed to the designation of a Deputy
    Presiding Judge, the Family Court Act does not specifically call for
    one. We would appreciate further clarification on how the Presiding
    Judge and the Deputy Presiding Judge will interact? Which of the duties
    outlined in the Family Court Act will remain as the Presiding Judge's
    responsibility? Which duties will be delegated to the Deputy Presiding
    Judge? What plans are there for coordination between these two officers
    of the Court?
        Answer. Consistent with long standing practice in Superior Court of
    appointing both a presiding and deputy presiding judge for each of the
    Court's divisions, the chief judge appointed Judge Anita Josey-Herring
    as the Deputy Presiding Judge of the Family Court to serve with
    Presiding Judge Lee F. Satterfield. As indicated on page 24 of the
    transition plan, the Deputy Presiding Judge will assist the Presiding
    Judge in carrying out his duties to serve children and families.
        The Deputy Presiding Judge will assist in implementing the Family
    Court Transition Plan and overseeing the goals and objectives of the
    Family Court. She will assist the Presiding Judge in coordinating
    training for Family Court judicial officers and cross training with
    stakeholders, and in ensuring development and implementation of
    attorney practice standards. In addition, the Deputy Presiding Judge
    will assist the Presiding Judge in carrying out other duties and
    responsibilities that are not specified in the Family Court Act, many
    of which are set forth in the Court's Transition Plan, such as: serving
    on the Mayor's committees related to children and families, leading the
    Court's Family Treatment Court initiative, and overseeing grant funded
    projects in the Family Court.
        In carrying out these functions, the Presiding and Deputy Presiding
    Judges will work very closely together, meeting on an as needed basis
    to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the Family Court to
    best serve the District's children and families.
        Question. On page 48 of the plan, you indicate the intake office
    will be responsible for assigning a case before a judge or magistrate
    judge. While the plan does indicate that preference will be given to
    the judicial officer who has the most experience, it is not clear from
    the plan whether the Court intends to give preference to judges when a
    case requires the attention of a more experienced judicial officer.
    More specifically, does the court intend to place the more difficult
    cases, (i.e. cases where there is an allegation of homicide, criminal
    child abuse and neglect, or severe mental illness) with a family court
    judge?
        Answer. As indicated in the Plan, case coordinators will screen all
    new cases filed in the Family Court to determine whether there is a
    related case(s). If so, the intake office will assign the new case to
    the judicial team already hearing the related case, and consequently,
    most familiar with the dynamics of the particular family. Beginning
    January 2003, the magistrate judge assigned to the team will conduct
    the initial hearing for all abused and neglected children assigned to
    that team, and using criteria developed for the assignment of cases
    between team members, will distribute the new cases between the judge
    and the magistrate judge. In general, the magistrate judge will take
    abuse and neglect cases alleging neglect while cases alleging either
    physical or sexual abuse will be assigned to the team Family Court
    judge. Please note that if there is a criminal case related to an abuse
    and neglect case, for example, a case involving allegations of homicide
    or criminal child abuse, the criminal case would be heard in the
    Superior Court's Criminal Division. In those instances, the Family
    Court judge hearing the abuse and neglect case would coordinate with
    the Superior Court judge handling the criminal case.
        Question. On April 8, 2002, the Court hired five magistrate judges
    through the expedited appointment process. The Court indicated that
    these magistrates went through three weeks of intensive training. What
    was the process the court used for designing this training? In
    addition, we would like to have details of the training they received,
    including: who provided the training; where the training took place;
    and whether magistrates received a training manual for their ongoing
    review.
        Answer. Training for magistrate judges hired under the expedited
    process was designed by the Presiding and Deputy Presiding Judges of
    the Family Court in conjunction with the Court's Judicial Education
    Committee, which conducts training for all judicial officers on a
    regular basis. At the conclusion of the training, conducted at Superior
    Court, the magistrate judges received manuals covering the subjects
    under Family Court jurisdiction as well as other materials prepared by
    program facilitators.
        The content of the training provided to the magistrate judges hired
    under the expedited process is listed below in three categories: (1)
    issues involving children and families (2) guidance on how to conduct
    court hearings in cases of children and families and (3) general and
    administrative matters.
                                  category one
        The magistrate judges received training on the following topics:
      --Child development
      --Substance abuse
      --Mental health
      --Public benefits
      --School enrollment and special education
      --Abuse and neglect law
      --Domestic relations law
      --Guardianship law
      --Adoption law
      --Juvenile law
      --Child support law
      --Domestic violence law
      --Contempt Powers
      --Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
      --Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC)
      --Probate issues in abuse and neglect cases
      --Role of community collaboratives
      --Role of social workers
      --Services provided through Child and Family Services Agency
      --Services provided through Superior Court Social Services Division
      --Issues related to children with both abuse and neglect cases and
            juvenile cases
      --Child mediation programs
                                  category two
        The magistrate judges received training on how to conduct the
    following types of hearings:
      --Initial hearings in abuse and neglect cases
      --Pretrial conferences in abuse and neglect cases
      --Trials in abuse and neglect cases
      --Disposition hearings in abuse and neglect cases
      --Review hearings in abuse and neglect cases
      --Permanency hearings in abuse and neglect cases
      --Hearings on guardianship petitions arising out of abuse and neglect
            cases
                                 category three
        The general and administrative topics included:
      --Court personal security
      --Court interpreter services and special needs
      --Relations with the press
      --Court technology
      --Relations with courtroom clerk
      --Judicial ethics
      --Relations with the Court of Appeals
        The training took place at Superior Court. The magistrate judges
    also observed experienced Family Court judges in court hearings. They
    attended and continue to attend Family Court weekly meetings at which
    they are able to discuss issues with their judicial team members and
    other Family Court judges. They toured facilities such as group homes
    for children and the St. Ann's Infant Home.
        The training faculty consisted of Family Court judicial officers
    with expertise in family law and issues relating to children and
    families; representatives from the Georgetown University Child
    Development Center; social workers and managers from the Child and
    Family Services Agency (CFSA); members of the community collaboratives;
    representatives from the American Public Human Services Association,
    including ICPC administrators from the State of Maryland, the
    Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia; and attorneys
    from the Legal Aid Society, the Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC) and
    the Georgetown University Law Center Legal Clinic.
        Question. The Family Court Act specifically states that upon the
    date of enactment (January 2002), all new cases filed with the court
    would be subject to its protections. Yet, it doesn't appear from the
    court's transition plan that new cases (i.e. cases opened after January
    8, 2002) are receiving all of the services outlined in the Family Court
    Act of 2001. We are particularly concerned with new cases not being
    afforded the full protections of the principle of One-Judge/One-Family
    until June of 2003. To help us better understand the distinction
    between the case flow plan for new and pending cases, we would
    appreciate it if you would explain, in detail, how each of the
    following hypothetical cases would be managed if they were filed in the
    court today?
        Case A.--A baby is abandoned at birth at a local hospital. Neither
    the biological parents nor any family members can be located.
    Permanency goal recommended by CFSA: Adoption.
        Case B.--A family with three children, ages 3, 7, and 11, loses
    their housing and is living on the District's streets. The parents
    voluntarily place their children in foster care until such time as they
    can provide their children with a suitable home. While in foster care
    the 11-year-old is caught shoplifting candy from a convenience store.
    Permanency goal recommended by CFSA: Reunification.
        Case C.--A single mother with a severe drug problem is charged with
    neglect for leaving her 13-month-old and four-year-old child at home
    unattended. The mother pleads guilty to the neglect charge and requests
    assistance from the court for her drug problem. The mother is
    inconsistent in attending her supervised visits and although in
    treatment, continues to test positive for drug use. Eighteen months
    have passed since CFSA removed the children. They have been with the
    same foster parents, yet the foster parents are not interested in
    adopting them. Recommended goal of CFSA: Reunification.
        Answer. Given the volume and broad range of cases filed in the
    Family Court, the Court determined, in consultation with OCC and CFSA,
    that the gradual implementation of the one family one judge concept
    would be the most feasible and practicable in this jurisdiction (see
    page 10 of the Transition Plan). The Transition Plan, as designed,
    progressively consolidates the cases related to a child before a single
    judicial team.
        Effective June 2002, each judicial team is responsible for all case
    management in their new abuse and neglect cases following the child's
    initial hearing. This includes any subsequent actions arising out of
    the child's abuse and neglect case such as guardianship, termination of
    parental rights, custody, adoption, or civil domestic violence, as well
    as the coordination of all cases involving brothers and sisters.
        In January 2003, we will begin consolidating other cases related to
    children, such as child support and post-disposition juvenile cases,
    with the same judicial team responsible for the original abuse and
    neglect case, provided that the consolidation is likely to contribute
    to the child's safety or well-being and does not delay permanency for
    the child.
        In March 2003, related Family Court cases not arising from the
    abuse and neglect case, such as domestic relations or mental health
    cases of immediate family or household members, will be assigned to the
    same judicial team.
        In June 2003, the Family Court will expand the judicial teams
    serving abused and neglected children to include social workers,
    assistant corporation counsel, Guardians Ad Litem (GALs) and parents'
    attorneys who routinely appear before the judicial team on abuse and
    neglect cases.
        Based on our experience, consultations with the Child and Family
    Services Agency and the Office of the Corporation Counsel, and best
    practices, we believe that a gradual approach is the most effective
    method to ensure safety and permanency for children.
        Consistent with the one family one judge provision of the Family
    Court Act and without rendering any advisory rulings on factual
    scenarios that frequently are before the Court, the Family Court would
    manage the hypothetical cases under the following procedures:
        Case A.--At the initial hearing, the baby's case would be assigned
    to either the associate judge or magistrate judge in a judicial team.
    The assigned judicial officer would conduct all hearings consistent
    with the timelines in D.C. and Federal ASFAs. If, during a permanency
    hearing, the goal of adoption were determined to be the appropriate
    permanency plan for the baby, and a subsequent adoption petition were
    filed, the associate judge on the team would preside over the adoption
    matter.
        Case B.--At the initial hearing, these children's cases would be
    assigned to either the associate judge or magistrate judge in a
    judicial team. The assigned judicial officer would conduct all hearings
    consistent with the timelines in D.C. and Federal ASFAs. If, during a
    permanency hearing for the children, the goal of reunification were
    determined to be the appropriate permanency plan, the children's case
    would remain with the assigned judicial officer until the family could
    be reunited. Appropriate services to accomplish that goal would be
    ordered. If a charge of shoplifting were filed against the 11 year old
    child, the juvenile case would be assigned to a different Family Court
    judge for trial only and then returned to the judicial officer handling
    the neglect case for all post-adjudication purposes.
        Case C.--At the initial hearing, these children's cases would be
    assigned to either the associate judge or magistrate judge in a
    judicial team. The assigned judicial officer would conduct all hearings
    for the children consistent with the timelines in D.C. and Federal
    ASFAs. At a permanency hearing, the appropriate goal for the children
    would be determined. If the goal were adoption or custody and a
    subsequent petition for adoption or custody were filed, the children's
    cases would be handled by the associate judge of the team. If the goal
    were reunification or guardianship, then the assigned judicial officer,
    whether an associate judge or magistrate judge, would continue to hear
    the children's cases and the petition for guardianship.
        Question. The Family Court Act of 2001 created a very limited
    criterion for cases not to be transferred or disposed of into the
    Family Court. Section 11-908A (b)(1) (l) requires the court's
    transition plan to estimate the number of cases for which the deadline
    for disposition or transfer to the Family Court cannot be met and the
    reasons why such deadline cannot be met. It does not appear that this
    requirement is complied with in the Court's plan. Can you please
    provide further clarification of this point?
        Answer. As indicated on pages 12-13 of our transition plan, before
    the end of the transition period, the Court intends to transfer into
    Family Court or dispose of all cases assigned to judges outside the
    Family Court. Accordingly, the Court estimates that there will not be
    any Family Court cases remaining outside the Family Court at the end of
    the transition period. To date, more than 1,500 children whose cases
    were assigned to judges outside the Family Court have had their cases
    transferred to Family Court judicial officers.
        Question. The D.C. Superior Court currently assigned 12 judges to
    the Family Court who reportedly have expertise and/or training in
    Family Law. Since the plan does not specify their qualifications in
    full, we are left to assume that the fact that these judges served in
    the Family Division of the Superior Court is what is being used to
    satisfy the expertise and background requirement? How many are
    qualified for reasons other than previous service on the family court?
    Have any of these judges received specialized training in the last six
    months? How many hours of training did they receive? What was the
    curriculum? From whom did they receive this training?
        Answer. The Court considered three factors when assigning judges to
    the Family Court: (1) experience and training; (2) positive interest in
    serving; and (3) willingness to participate in the extended training
    required under the Act. All 12-associate judges who volunteered to
    serve on the Family Court met all three of the selection criteria. They
    have certified that they intend to serve the full term of service and
    to participate in ongoing specialized training programs for Family
    Court judges. Nearly all of these judges served in the Family Division
    at some time prior to the enactment of the District of Columbia Family
    Court Act of 2001. All of these judges are qualified by virtue of
    family law training or experience or both, and all have participated in
    training on family law issues prior to becoming a Family Court judge.
    In addition, judges who began their judicial careers in the Family
    Court or Family Division participated in a two week pre-service
    training program, which focused on family law and issues related to
    children and families.
        In May 2000, judges participated in a training program entitled
    ``Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases,'' which
    included presentations on the dynamics of domestic violence, its effect
    on children who witness domestic violence, decision-making skills in
    domestic violence and the cultural aspects of domestic violence. In May
    2001, judges participated in a training program entitled ``New
    Developments in the Law of Child Abuse and Neglect.'' Topics included
    ASFA, the implications of substance abuse in abuse and neglect cases,
    child development, risk assessments and reunification efforts, special
    education, and mental health intervention in the abuse and neglect
    system. Finally, since the enactment of ASFA, the Court has conducted
    several training programs for judges on the requirements of ASFA,
    including sessions in March 1999, May 2001 and December 2001. Faculty
    members at each program consisted of national and local experts on
    issues affecting children and families. Additionally, in December 2001,
    the judges in the Family Court received 3 full days of training that
    included many of the topics listed in response to Question 3.
        Detailed below are summaries of the family law training and
    experience of the judges who volunteered to serve in Family Court.
        Lee F. Satterfield, Presiding Judge, Family Court.--Judge
    Satterfield was appointed an associate judge in November 1992. He
    joined the Family Division in June 2001 and has served there
    continuously since then. He has handled abuse and neglect cases of
    children for over nine years. He currently presides over abuse and
    neglect, paternity and support and mental health cases. He was
    appointed Presiding Judge of the Family Division in November 2001 and
    designated Presiding Judge of the Family Court after the enactment of
    the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001.
        Judge Satterfield has served in every Division of the court except
    the Probate Division. He served as the Presiding Judge of the Domestic
    Violence Unit for two years from 1998 to 1999. While in that position
    he handled civil, custody and criminal cases involving domestic
    violence and the administrative duties of a presiding judge. He also
    served as a Drug Court judge where he handled numerous cases of adults
    with substance abuse problems. As a judge and a former assistant United
    States attorney, Judge Satterfield has handled numerous criminal cases
    involving children as witnesses and victims.
        Judge Satterfield serves on many court and community committees
    relating to children and families, such as the Mayor's Advisory
    Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect and the Mayor's Advisory Committee
    on Permanent Families. He also serves as the court's lead judge on the
    Model Courts initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges. He serves on the Judicial Education Committee and the
    Superior Court Rules Committee. He is chair of the Family Court
    Implementation Committee, co-chair of the Family Court Organization and
    Management Oversight Team and chair of the Family Court Advisory Rules
    Committee. He formerly chaired the Superior Court Domestic Violence
    Coordinating Council and the Domestic Violence Unit Implementation
    Committee. He also served on a national domestic violence advisory
    committee, which drafted model court criteria for domestic violence
    courts.
        Judge Satterfield has attended, as a participant and faculty
    member, numerous training programs relating to issues involving
    children and families. These programs were sponsored by the National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Humane
    Society, the Family Violence Prevention Fund and various law schools.
    He also has participated in training programs conducted by the Court on
    family law and domestic violence including the May 2000 program on
    domestic violence and the May 2001 program on abuse and neglect. He
    served as program chair of the Court's May 2000, training program
    entitled ``Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases.'' He
    also attended the court training programs on ASFA.
        Anita Josey-Herring, Deputy Presiding Judge, Family Court.--Judge
    Josey-Herring was appointed an associate judge in September 1997 and
    began her judicial career in the Family Division, where she has
    remained since. She was appointed Deputy Presiding Judge of the Family
    Division in September 2000, and designated Deputy Presiding Judge of
    the Family Court after the enactment of the District of Columbia Family
    Court Act of 2001. She has handled a variety of family law cases
    involving abuse and neglect, paternity and support, mental health,
    juvenile delinquency and domestic relations. She currently presides
    over abuse and neglect, juvenile drug court and mental health cases.
        Judge Josey-Herring has chaired and participated in numerous
    committees which deal with issues affecting the welfare of children and
    which seek to improve the court process, such as the Family Drug Court
    Planning Committee, the Mayor's Child Fatality Review Committee, the
    Mayor's Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect and the Mayor's
    Interagency Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment and
    Control. She is a member of the Family Court Implementation Committee
    and is co-chair of the Family Court Organization and Management
    Oversight Team.
        Judge Josey-Herring has attended numerous training programs on
    issues related to children and families and family law. These programs
    were conducted by the Court and local and national organizations such
    as the District of Columbia Children's Trust Fund, the National Council
    of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the American Humane Society.
    She has coordinated court-wide family law training such as training on
    ASFA in December 2001 and has spoken about family law issues at local
    seminars.
        Judge Josey-Herring's prior experience includes serving as the
    Deputy Director of the Public Defender Service for the District of
    Columbia for three years. While in that position, Judge Josey-Herring
    managed and supervised attorneys who handled mental health and juvenile
    delinquency cases. Before becoming the Deputy Director, she handled
    criminal and juvenile delinquency cases in the Superior Court and
    argued appeals in juvenile delinquency cases before the District of
    Columbia Court of Appeals. She also served as a member of the Domestic
    Violence Coordinating Council, which was responsible for planning the
    Superior Court Domestic Violence Unit.
        Nan R. Shuker, Associate Judge.--Judge Shuker was appointed an
    associate judge in December 1983. Since that date she has served in the
    Civil Division, Criminal Division and Family Division. She joined the
    Family Court in January 2000 and currently presides over adoption cases
    and abuse and neglect cases. She began to handle abuse and neglect
    cases in 1987 when she was assigned to the Family Division and has
    presided over juvenile delinquency cases and complex domestic relations
    cases during several years since then. In 1990, she was appointed
    Deputy Presiding Judge of the Civil Division and from 1993 to 1996, she
    served as Presiding Judge of the Civil Division.
        She has chaired or served on numerous Court committees relating to
    issues of families and children, such as the Family Court
    Implementation Committee where she is chair of the subcommittee on
    abuse and neglect and adoptions, the Family Court Advisory Rules
    Committee and the Family Drug Court Planning Committee. She has chaired
    the committees that developed court procedures for the Child Mediation
    Program and that developed court procedures and forms to implement the
    Guardianship law. Judge Shuker has also developed court forms in
    adoption cases and served on a committee chaired by the Deputy
    Presiding Judge that is developing revised forms for abuse and neglect
    cases.
        Judge Shuker has participated in numerous training programs on
    issues involving children and families. She has served as a faculty
    member in most Family Court programs including the court's pre-
    assignment and pre-service training programs and training for the new
    magistrate judges appointed under the Family Court Act. Prior to
    becoming a judge, as an assistant corporation counsel, Judge Shuker
    participated in the training of new Superior Court judges as they
    entered the Family Division for the first time. She also trained police
    and social workers in the investigation of abuse and neglect cases and
    the giving of testimony in such cases.
        Judge Shuker began her legal career at American University in 1969
    where she assisted Dr. Nicholas Kittrie in creating a new program for
    the Center for the Administration of Justice. Many of the new courses
    developed in this program dealt with issues such as domestic violence,
    child abuse and juvenile matters.
        In 1972, Judge Shuker joined the Office of Corporation Counsel as a
    staff attorney in the Juvenile Section. She served as Assistant Chief
    and Chief of the Juvenile Section. While an Assistant Corporation
    Counsel, Judge Shuker developed and obtained first funding for a
    project for the identification of child abuse in the District of
    Columbia from the Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis. This
    included the development of a team approach with social workers,
    Assistant Corporation Counsel, police and the Children Hospital's child
    abuse team. She also developed the first neglect and abuse unit in a
    local prosecutor's office and led it for several years. Judge Shuker
    was Co-Director of the Child Abuse and Child Safety Project. Her
    responsibilities included implementation of a physicians consulting
    service in conjunction with area hospitals, training of physicians and
    other child-care professionals in the detection and reporting of child
    abuse and assisting two other co-directors in the administration of an
    interdisciplinary team approach to child abuse. She was designated by
    the Corporation Counsel to assist City Counsel member Polly Shackleton
    in drafting the 1978 child abuse and neglect law. Finally, Judge Shuker
    served for two years on the National Advisory Committee for the United
    States Department of Health, Education and Welfare on the drafting a
    model law for the reporting and court handling of abuse and neglect
    cases.
        Linda D. Turner, Associate Judge.--Judge Turner was appointed as an
    associate judge in September 1990 and began her judicial career in the
    Family Division. While assigned to the Family Division, Judge Turner
    handled juvenile and neglect and abuse cases. She presided over abuse
    and neglect cases since her appointment as a judge. She also served in
    the Criminal and Civil Divisions. Judge Turner has served as Drug Court
    judge in the Criminal Division. She rejoined the Family Division (now
    Family Court) in January 2002. She currently presides over abuse and
    neglect cases.
        Judge Turner has participated in numerous court training programs
    on issues involving children and families including the pre-service and
    pre-assignment training programs, the programs on ASFA, the May 2001
    program on abuse and neglect cases and the May 2000 program on domestic
    violence cases.
        Judith Bartnoff, Associate Judge.--Judge Bartnoff was appointed an
    associate judge in August 1994. She began her judicial career in the
    Family Division. She has presided over abuse and neglect cases since
    1994. While in her first assignment to the Family Division, she
    presided over domestic relation cases, mental health cases, paternity
    and support cases and civil domestic violence cases. Judge Bartnoff
    served in the Criminal and Civil Divisions and then returned to the
    Family Division in January 2001. She currently presides over abuse and
    neglect cases and complex domestic relation cases.
        Judge Bartnoff is chair of the court's benchbook committee, which
    is responsible for drafting and updating legal manuals that judges rely
    on in handling cases. While a member of the committee, she rewrote and
    updated the benchbook on abuse and neglect.
        Judge Bartnoff has attended a variety of judicial training programs
    on issues relating to children and families, including pre-service and
    pre-assignment training programs, the May 2001 program on abuse and
    neglect, the May 2000 program on domestic violence and the programs on
    ASFA. Judge Bartnoff's assignment to the Criminal Division provided her
    with an opportunity to learn a great deal about substance abuse
    problems and treatment. Her assignment to the Civil Division provided
    invaluable experience in preparing her to handle the complex domestic
    relation cases.
        Judge Bartnoff's prior experience includes working as an Associate
    Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice. Her
    responsibilities in that position included overseeing matters relating
    to the United States Marshals Service, including issues of custody and
    visitation in the Witness Protection Program. She served as an
    assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the United
    States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Judge Bartnoff
    also was in private practice where she handled aspects of custody and
    adoption cases on a pro bono basis.
        Ronna L. Beck, Associate Judge.--Judge Beck was appointed an
    associate judge in June 1995. She began her judicial career in the
    Family Division. She has presided over abuse and neglect cases since
    1995. During her first assignment to the Family Division, she presided
    over domestic relations, mental health, civil domestic violence and
    paternity and support cases. She served in the Criminal and Civil
    Divisions. While in the Criminal Division, she handled criminal cases
    involving drug abuse issues. She returned to the Family Division in
    January 2002. She currently presides over abuse and neglect and
    domestic relations cases.
        Judge Beck is co-chair of the Family Court Panels Committee which
    is responsible for creating panels of qualified attorneys for court
    appointment to children in abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency
    cases, and parents in abuse and neglect cases. She served as a member
    of the Court's Criminal Justice Act Committee, which created panels of
    qualified attorneys who are appointed to represent indigent defendants
    in criminal cases.
        Judge Beck has participated in numerous court training programs on
    family law and issues related to children and families including pre-
    service and pre-assignment programs, the court programs on ASFA, the
    May 2001 program abuse and neglect and the May 2000 program on domestic
    violence. She also participated in an ASFA training session conducted
    at Howard University.
        Judge Beck's prior experience includes working as a psychiatric
    nursing assistant at a mental hospital. She was in private practice
    where she handled custody, divorce and adoption cases. She worked at
    the District of Columbia Public Defender Service where she represented
    juvenile offenders. Judge Beck also took courses in psychology,
    psychopathology and family law while in college and law school. While
    in law school, she audited a yearlong child development course at the
    Baltimore-District of Columbia Psychoanalytic Institute.
        Linda Kay Davis, Associate Judge.--Judge Davis was appointed an
    associate judge in June 1995. She began her judicial career in the
    Family Division and has presided over abuse and neglect cases since
    1995. She served in the Criminal and Civil Divisions and in the
    Domestic Violence Unit. While in the Criminal Division, Judge Davis
    handled criminal cases involving drug abuse issues. While in the
    Domestic Violence Unit for two years, she handled civil, domestic
    relations and criminal cases involving domestic violence. She also
    served as Acting Presiding Judge of the Unit when the Presiding Judge
    was on extended medical leave. She rejoined the Family Division in
    January 2002. She currently handles neglect and abuse cases and
    domestic relations cases.
        Judge Davis has participated in court training programs on family
    law and issues related to children and families including pre-service
    and pre-assignment programs, the court programs on ASFA, the May 2001
    program on abuse and neglect and the May 2000 program on domestic
    violence. In 1996, she attended the National Symposium on Child
    Victimization, a four-day conference that focused on child sexual and
    physical abuse. She also attended a regional conference on family
    violence and child sexual abuse which was hosted by the Fairfax Circuit
    Court and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
        Judge Davis' prior experience includes working at the Public
    Defender Service as a staff attorney where she represented juvenile
    offenders. She also served in the Civil Rights Division of the United
    States Department Justice.
        Robert Morin, Associate Judge.--Judge Morin was appointed an
    associate judge in September 1996. He has presided over abuse and
    neglect cases since 1996. He joined the Family Division in January 2001
    and has presided over mental health, domestic relations, juvenile
    delinquency and paternity and support cases. He currently presides over
    abuse and neglect and domestic relations cases. Judge Morin served in
    the Criminal Division where he handled criminal cases involving drug
    abuse issues.
        Judge Morin serves on the Family Court Implementation Committee and
    is chair of its subcommittee on Domestic Relations and Paternity and
    Support. He also serves on the Family Court Panels Committee.
        Judge Morin has participated in numerous court training programs on
    issues involving children and families including pre-service and pre-
    assignment programs, court programs on ASFA, the May 2001 program on
    abuse and neglect and the May 2000 program on domestic violence.
        Hiram E. Puig-Lugo, Associate Judge.--Judge Puig-Lugo was appointed
    an associate judge in July 1999. He began his judicial career in the
    Family Division and has presided over abuse and neglect cases since
    1999. During his first assignment to the Family Division, he also
    presided over juvenile delinquency cases. He served on the Domestic
    Violence Unit where he handled civil, domestic relations and criminal
    cases involving domestic violence. He returned to the Family Division
    in January 2002.
        Judge Puig-Lugo serves on the Family Court Panels Committee. Judge
    Puig-Lugo has participated in numerous court training programs on
    family law and issues related to children and families, including pre-
    service and pre-assignment programs, court programs on ASFA, the May
    2001 program on abuse and neglect and the May 2000 program on domestic
    violence.
        Judge Puig-Lugo's prior experience includes working at the Civil
    Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice and as a
    staff attorney for the District of Columbia Public Defender Service
    where he represented juvenile offenders.
        John McAdam Mott, Associate Judge.--Judge Mott was appointed as an
    associate judge in July 2000 and began his judicial career in the
    Family Division. He has presided over juvenile delinquency, mental
    health and paternity and support cases. He currently handles abuse and
    neglect and domestic relations cases.
        Judge Mott serves on the Family Court Panels Committee. Judge Mott
    has participated in numerous court training programs on family law and
    issues related to children and families, including pre-service and pre-
    assignment programs, court programs on ASFA, and the May 2001 program
    on abuse and neglect. He also participated in a two-week training
    program at the National Judicial College, which covered a wide variety
    of topics, including family law.
        Judge Mott's prior experience includes working as a staff attorney
    at the District of Columbia Public Defender Service where he
    represented juvenile offenders and in the Civil Rights Division of the
    United States Department of Justice.
        John Ramsey Johnson, Associate Judge.--Judge Johnson was appointed
    an associate judge in November 2000 and began his judicial career in
    the Family Division. He presides over juvenile delinquency and abuse
    and neglect cases.
        Judge Johnson is co-chair of the Family Court Panels Committee. He
    has participated in court training programs that focused on family law
    and on issues related to children and families, including pre-service
    and pre-assignment programs, court programs on ASFA and the May 2001
    program on abuse and neglect.
        Judge Johnson's prior experience included 25 years in the United
    States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. He has served in
    various supervisory capacities including the Interim United States
    Attorney. During his years as an assistant United States attorney,
    Judge Johnson was instrumental in establishing both a drug court and
    domestic violence unit in the Superior Court. Both of those efforts
    required an in depth understanding of the twin evils of drug abuse and
    domestic violence as they affect families and children.
        Odessa F. Vincent, Associate Judge.--Judge Vincent was appointed an
    associate judge in January 2002 and began her judicial career in the
    Family Division. She currently handles juvenile delinquency and abuse
    and neglect cases.
        Judge Vincent has attended court training programs that focused on
    family law and on issues related to children and families including
    pre-service and pre-assignment programs and a court program on ASFA.
    She also attended a session involving presentations from CFSA at the
    pre-service training program for the new magistrate judges appointed in
    April 2002.
        Judge Vincent's prior experience includes working as an assistant
    United States attorney in the Sex Offense Unit. While in that position,
    she participated in training programs on issues of physical, mental and
    sexual abuse of children, resources for children that are victim of
    crimes and how to work with child victims and child witnesses. She
    investigated and prosecuted numerous child abuse and child sex abuse
    cases. She also attended seminars on the following topics: child sex
    abuse and exploitation, domestic violence victims, and child
    maltreatment.
        Question. The Court's transition plan indicated that all judges
    serving on the Family Court certified that they would serve the entire
    three-year term. However, the Court's transition plan does not identify
    which of the 12 volunteers had already been serving in the Family
    Division prior to the Act nor can the minimum remaining term length for
    each volunteer be determined from the plan. We are requesting that the
    Court please provide this information.
        Answer. All of the judges currently assigned to Family Court have
    certified that they will serve at least a term of three consecutive
    years. In the absence of an extension of service pursuant to Sec. 3(a)
    of the Act (codified at D.C. Code sec. 11-908A(c)(3) or (4)), each
    judge will serve for three years from the commencement date shown
    below:
        Commencement of Service on Family Court
      --Judge Satterfield--June 2001
      --Judge Josey-Herring--September 2000
      --Judge Shuker--January 2000
      --Judge Turner--January 2002
      --Judge Bartnoff--January 2001
      --Judge Beck--January 2002
      --Judge Davis--January 2002
      --Judge Morin--January 2001
      --Judge Puig-Lugo--January 2002
      --Judge Mott--July 2000
      --Judge Johnson--January 2001
      --Judge Vincent--January 2002
        Question. In Judge King's letter to Cornelia Ashby at the General
    Accounting Office he indicated that the Court's Remedial project
    examined case processing times in abuse and neglect cases for calendar
    year 2001 (post ASFA). Can you please provide us with a copy of the
    report on the Court's Remedial Project? What are the Court's benchmarks
    for 2001? How long did it take to process abuse and neglect cases from
    initial hearing until the case was closed? How many cases in 2001 were
    out of compliance with the timelines established by ASFA?
        Answer. Attached are the two most recent reports prepared by the
    Council for Court Excellence as part of our remedial project. The
    reports provide information on compliance with statutory guidelines
    established under D.C. and Federal ASFAs for processing abuse and
    neglect cases.
        Data from the most recent report, reviewing cases filed between 2/
    1/01 and 1/31/02, indicate that compliance with the statutory
    requirement to hold an initial hearing within 24 hours was uniformly
    met. The median time from filing to stipulation was 102 days and the
    median time from filing to trial was 148 days. The median time from
    filing to disposition was 205 days. These median times are higher than
    our statutory requirements. A review of cases filed since the project's
    inception that were still open indicated that 60 percent of the cases
    were in compliance with the 14-month permanency hearing requirement
    under ASFA, a significant improvement over the 40 percent compliance
    rate found in October 2001 and the 24 percent compliance rate found in
    July 2001. As indicated in the Transition Plan, the Court plans to hire
    two attorney advisors who will assist the Presiding Judge in monitoring
    all cases for compliance with ASFA.

                                   Memorandum

    To: Child Welfare Leadership Team
    From: Andrea J. Larry, Senior Policy Analyst, Council for Court
        Excellence
    Subject: New Referrals, Compliance with Statutory Deadlines--Quarterly
        Report
    Date: May 2, 2002

        The computer data which serves as the basis for this summary report
    and the attached tables is available upon request.
    Methodology
        This is CCE's first quarterly report for the year 2002. The
    methodology we used is slightly different than what we used in past
    reports. We analyzed the cases filed in each of the three years since
    the implementation of ASFA as three separate groups of individuals or
    ``cohorts,'' We tracked and reported on the occurrence and timeliness
    of case milestones for each of the three groups separately, e.g. Year 1
    Kids, Year 2 Kids, and Year 3 Kids, then compared the groups to
    determine whether progress has been made. The data for each of the
    three groups will likely change over time as cases continue to achieve
    milestones. The results to date are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
    Summary of Results
        The data is consistent with what our earlier reports have shown.
    Although the city is not in compliance with ASFA statutory deadlines,
    we are beginning to see a downward trend in the amount of time it takes
    to reach major case milestones, particularly stipulation, trial, and
    disposition.
    Trials/Stipulations
        It took Year 2 Kids a median of 102 days to reach a stipulation
    compared to 118 days for Year 1 Kids. It took Year 2 Kids significantly
    longer to get to trial, a median of 148 days. However, this is less
    than it took Year 1 Kids to get to trial, a median of 193 days. There
    is insufficient data on Year 3 Kids to draw any conclusions yet--no
    trials and only 40 stipulations have been recorded.
        Data on Year 1, 2, and 3 Kids shows that cases are much more likely
    to stipulate than go to trial. In Year 1 and Year 2 case stipulations
    are approximately three times more common than trials.
    Dispositions
        It took Year 2 Kids a median of 165 days to reach disposition
    compared to 205 days for Year 1 Kids. However, 236 Year 2 Kids are
    still pending disposition and the data from these cases could
    significantly after the Year 2 Kids data. Again, the data on Year 3
    Kids is insufficient to draw any conclusions.
    Review/Permanency Planning
        There appears to be a significant reduction in the amount of time
    it took Year 2 Kids to reach the 1st review or permanency planning
    heating--241 days--as compared to 328 days for Year I Kids.
    Surprisingly, however, more than one-half of the Year 2 Kid's cases
    have not yet had a review or permanency planning hearing. It is very
    likely that the Year 2 Kids figure--241 days--will increase
    significantly over time as fixture review and permanency planning
    hearings take place.
    Permanency Hearings
        The permanency hearing data is consistent with our earlier reports.
    Approximately 60 percent of Year 1 Kids cases are in compliance with
    ASFA's 14 month permanency hearing deadline via a permanency hearing or
    dismissal prior to 14 months. See CCE's March 7, 2002 Report. Few of
    Year 2 and none of Year 3 cases have been pending long enough to reach
    ASFA's 14 month deadline.
        Other Observations:
      --The city consistently complies with the statutory deadline for
            conducting initial hearings.
      --The number of cases dismissed without a trial or stipulation is
            fairly consistent from Year 1 to 2--about 10 to 15 percent of
            the caseload.

            [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   Memorandum

    To: Child Welface Leadership Team
    From: Andrea J. Larry, Senior Policy Analyst, Council for Court
        Excellence
    Subject: New Referrals, Permanency Hearings--Compliance with ASFA--
        Latest Comparison Chart; Tracking Against Care Protocols &
        Statutory Deadlines--Summary Comparison Chart--Year 1 & Year 2.
    Date: March 7, 2002

        The computer data which serves as the basis for this summary report
    and the attached charts is available upon request.
        Permanency Hearings.--Compliance with 14 Month ASFA Permanency
    Hearing Deadline
        The results of CCE's latest permanency hearing analysis are
    displayed in the last column of the attached comparison chart--Chart A.
    The data shows significant improvement over previous analyses. Of the
    860 cases that were filed 14 months ago or earlier, 60 percent are in
    compliance with ASFA's permanency hearing requirement, via permanency
    hearing or dismissal prior to 14 months. This is a tremendous
    improvement over the 40 percent compliance rate of 5 months ago and the
    24 percent compliance rate of eight months ago. The Leadership Team has
    done an excellent job of responding to this issue. Your continued
    attention and diligence will be required, however, to achieve a 100
    percent a compliance rate which is necessary to achieve maximum federal
    reimbursement. CCE will do its part by continuing to provide monthly
    permanency hearing ticklers.
        The proto-typical data tracking system does not provide an adequate
    means of recording the date of a child's removal, i.e., the date from
    which time generally begins to run toward ASFA's 14 month permanency
    hearing deadline. Therefore, we tracked time from the date of the
    petition rather than the date of removal. We realize, however, that not
    all children are removed from home at the petition date or any other
    date. To compensate for this we have tried to eliminate from the total
    population of cases those in which the child has not been removed,
    i.e., is in protective supervision.
        One of the obstacles to full compliance with the permanency hearing
    requirement is the lack of uniformity in the orders used by the various
    judges. There are approximately one-half dozen different orders in use
    and not all of these orders contain the necessary elements of a
    permanency hearing, i.e., (1) a decision as to what the child's
    permanency plan will be; and (2) a time frame for accomplishment of the
    plan. Indeed, one of the most frequent omissions is a time frame for
    accomplishment of the permanency plan--an element specifically required
    by the ASFA statute. The lack of uniformity sometimes makes it
    difficult for CCE's data entry specialists to recognize permanency
    hearings.
    Tracking Against Case Protocols & Statutory Deadlines
        As promised, CCE has completed a year-end analysis of Track II
    cases filed in ``Year 2'' of the New Referrals Project, i.e., between
    February 1, 2001 and January 31, 2002. We then compared the results to
    data obtained from CCE's February 28, 2001 year-end analysis report of
    Track II cases filed in ``Year 1,'' i.e., between February 1, 2000 and
    January 31, 2001. Our intent was to compare performance in the first 12
    months with performance in the second 12 months to determine whether
    progress has been made. Specifically, we measured the number of cases
    that reached critical case milestones and the median and average length
    of time it took to reach those milestones.
        The results, which are displayed in Chart B, show that the District
    of Columbia is not in compliance with protocol or statutory deadlines.
    Indeed, the median and average amount of time it takes to reach certain
    case milestones has increased. On the positive side, the data shows
    that more status/pre-trial hearings; trials/stipulations, dispositions
    and dismissals occurred in Year 2 than occurred in Year 1 in
    approximately the same or slightly longer amount of time. For example,
    609 trials/stipulations were conducted in Year 2 in a median amount of
    time of 103 days from filing of the petition compared to 439 trials in
    Year 1 in a median of 105 days from filing of the petition. Also, 460
    dispositions were conducted in Year 2 in a median of 171 days from
    filing of the petition compared to 270 dispositions in Year 1 in a
    median of 155 days from filing of the petition.
        Interestingly, fewer review and/or permanency planning hearings
    were conducted in Year 2--47 compared to 100 review hearings in Year 1.
    The fact that the Court is conducting comprehensive permanency planning
    hearings rather than perfunctory review hearings may account for this
    difference.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much. We will stand in
    recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., Wednesday, April 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu and Hutchison.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY MARGARET KELLEMS, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Good morning and let me welcome everyone
    to the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the
    District of Columbia.
        We are pleased this morning to have two panels that will be
    testifying on the first local budget for the District of
    Columbia and the local funds budget. The second panel will be
    on the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.
        Let me first welcome our panelists, Mayor Williams,
    Chairperson Linda Cropp, and Dr. Julia Friedman, who is the
    Deputy Chief Financial Officer, testifying on behalf of the
    CFO, Dr. Gandhi, who is unable to be with us this morning.
        Let me begin with just some brief opening remarks, Mr.
    Mayor, and then we will call on you in the order that you all
    were introduced. And I thank you for being a part of this
    hearing this morning.
        But as you all know, our main purpose is to discuss the
    District of Columbia's budget. I am particularly interested in
    how the city plans to build on the progress that we have made
    together so far in improving city services and balancing the
    budget. You have approved a budget, the Mayor and the council,
    of $3.7 billion, an increase of $168 million, a 4.7 percent
    increase above the 2002 fiscal year. All of the money in this
    budget, as you all well know, was raised from local revenue
    sources, income taxes, and sales and business taxes, fees and
    private funds. All cities collect these types of funds from
    their residents and visitors. The District should spend these
    funds in the same manner as any other city through a locally
    generated and approved budget. And that is what we are
    reviewing here this morning.
        I hope that my colleagues both in the Senate and the House
    will take a fair look at legislation that supports treating
    D.C.'s locally generated funds just as our home cities are
    treated.
        The city's elected leadership, including you, Mr. Mayor,
    and the members of the council, deserve congratulations for
    your hard work to create a fiscally responsible budget plan.
    Your noteworthy efforts should be congratulated.
        The fiscal stewardship by local officials is due in part to
    your leadership, as well as the strong partnerships that I
    think you have created here with Members of Congress.
    Washington, D.C., despite the setbacks of September 11, is
    enjoying the challenges ahead a renaissance of a certain sort.
        However, there are great challenges that we know we
    continue to face, and this is not an exhaustive list, but just
    to mention three. The public education system in the District
    of Columbia is still facing many serious challenges and
    obstacles in terms of implementing reforms in the classroom. I
    understand there are only one of three or four districts in the
    whole Nation that have been designated as not complying with
    new Federal standards required, as you know, under our new ESA
    reforms that have been put into place. Also, in that category
    special education costs seem to be expanding and we need to get
    a handle on that particular budget.
        The child welfare system, which you all have worked very
    closely with us on, is another area of concern, and obviously
    the long-term infrastructure and financial issues facing the
    District.
        So, despite these and other challenges, I remain
    optimistic. I want to congratulate you on your efforts.
        Unfortunately, our ranking member, Senator DeWine, will not
    be with us this morning, but Senator Hutchison is here with us,
    and we are hoping the Senator Reed will be able to step in for
    just a few minutes.
        I would like to ask Senator Hutchison now if she has any
    opening statements and we would like to keep those short so
    that we can get on to the panel and hear your presentation of
    the budget.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
        The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to
    this hearing of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.
    This is the second Subcommittee hearing this year to aide us in
    developing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill. On March 21 we
    held a hearing on the budget requests of the two Federal agencies that
    serve the District: the District of Columbia Courts and the Court
    Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). These agencies
    receive 100 percent of their resources in Federal funds. The purpose of
    today's hearing is to examine the budget of the D.C. government, funded
    primarily with locally-generated funds. The local budget supports all
    of the city services that impact the quality of life in the District.
    Our witnesses on the First Panel today are Mayor Anthony Williams, City
    Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and Dr. Julia Friedman, Acting Chief
    Financial Officer. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for
    coming today.
        There will be a second panel at today's hearing to discuss the
    City's plans for the development of the Anacostia River. This is an
    exciting project to turn the City's forgotten river into a valuable
    resource. I had the opportunity to tour the Southeast Federal Center
    site, part of the development plans along the river. The Federal Center
    will bring government offices, shops, and housing to the area right
    next to the Washington Navy Yard. The City is working with the Navy and
    a number of other federal agencies that own property along the
    Anacostia to beautify parks, add walking and biking trails, create
    nature preserves, and bring a host of other improvements to the river.
    I encourage my colleagues to stay for the second panel and learn about
    the revitalization of the waterfront. Our witnesses will be Mayor
    Williams; the City's Director of Planning Andrew Altman; and Jerry
    Johnson, the Director of the District's Water and Sewer Authority.
        Our main purpose for being here this morning is to discuss the
    District of Columbia local budget. And I want to discuss how the city
    plans to build on the progress made so far in balancing city services
    and balancing the budget. The City has approved a balanced budget of
    $3.78 billion to fund its operations and services in fiscal year 2003,
    an increase of $168 million or 4.7 percent above the 2002 fiscal year.
    This budget covers local funding for local programs like public safety,
    education, public works, parks and recreation. All of the money in this
    budget was raised from local revenue sources: income taxes, sales and
    business taxes, fees and private funds. These are the same type of
    funds collected by any other city in the country from their residents
    and tourists and the District should spend these funds in the same
    manner as any other city through a locally-generated and approved
    budget. The District's local-funds budget should not be tampered with,
    which is why I have supported budget autonomy for the District in
    authorizing legislation this year. I hope my colleagues will take a
    fair look at that legislation and support treating D.C.'s locally-
    generated funds just as their home cities are treated.
        However, the Congress, in its oversight capacity is interested in
    how the local budget is developed and how it best serves the
    partnership we have: to maintain a balanced budget and excellent
    services to the citizens and visitors to the District. In addition, the
    Congress has the responsibility to see that Federal funds provided to
    the District are used wisely and appropriately. Beyond the small amount
    of Federally-appropriated funds, the City receives Federal grants and
    formula funds totaling $1.7 billion, about 30 percent of the total
    spending for the year that are directed toward particular purposes. All
    together, the City's fiscal year 2003 budget totals $6.56 billion.
        This budget deserves a high degree of respect because the District
    has achieved the Congressional requirements of the Control Board Act,
    so this is the first budget in several years that was created and
    approved by the City without a Control Board in effect. The process was
    driven and directed by the locally-elected representatives of the
    citizens of Washington, D.C. without the involvement of the Control
    Board. This budget opens a new chapter of fiscal responsibility in the
    City's history.
        I want to congratulate Mayor Williams and Council Chairman Cropp,
    and all of the other elected officials involved for their hard work to
    create a fiscally-responsible plan to meet their citizens's needs. I
    would also like to recognize the extraordinary work of the Chief
    Financial Officer, Natwar Gandhi for his efforts to ensure that the
    City has accurate information about the status of its finances, so that
    we can examine this budget with confidence, and for creating a true
    picture of the City's health. Dr. Gandhi is not able to be here today,
    we hope he is doing well, and we welcome Dr. Julia Friedman to testify
    on behalf of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
        Due in part to the fiscal stewardship of local officials,
    Washington, D.C. has enjoyed a renaissance. People are beginning to
    move back into the City after years of declining population. The real
    estate market is booming. Crime is far below the levels of ten years
    ago. Throughout the region, the City has become a favored destination
    for shopping, dining, and entertainment. It has even begun to recover
    from the shock of September 11.
        The City does face serious challenges that may threaten its
    continued budgetary and economic success, however. Public education in
    the District of Columbia has severe problems implementing reform in the
    classroom. Special education costs threw the Public Schools budget into
    deficit in fiscal year 2002. Part of this is certainly due to the fact
    that many families seek legal redress to have their children placed in
    costly private schools for special education services. But there is
    also a management failure at work here: the failure to collect all of
    the Medicaid reimbursements due to the District Public Schools for
    special education has exacerbated this problem. Nor has the school
    system developed adequate special education programs as an alternative
    to private placements. I am particularly interested to learn about the
    city's proposed Medicaid Special Education Reform Fund and how the city
    and school district will work together to make the most of this unique
    funding opportunity.
        The child welfare system is another area of concern. Too many
    children are, staying in foster care situations for too long at great
    expense, or they are placed in dangerous settings. Last year, Congress
    established a Family Court for the District that will hopefully improve
    matters, but the City still needs more social workers and better
    placement screening. This Subcommittee invested in the from of the
    Family Court, and has contributed to hiring social workers who will
    support children as they maneuver through the Courts to permanency. I
    look forward to an update from the City on how the funds provided in
    fiscal year 2002 are being expended.
        Some of the long term fiscal problems facing the District are due
    to the unique status the City has as the Nation's Capital. More than
    half of the City's property cannot be taxed because it is owned by the
    Federal government or other tax-exempt entities. Much of the income
    earned in the City is not subject to taxation. The City still pays for
    a variety of functions that could be considered ``state''
    responsibilities. Other cities do not support services to the same
    degree or in the same manner. Public education will be 21 percent of
    the District's fiscal year 2003 local budget, an expense many other
    cities do not have. We reviewed the budgets for Seattle, New Orleans,
    and Milwaukee all about the same size as the District and none of them
    had a line item in their budgets for schools. Education is often a
    shared cost between the state and possibly direct local taxes or bonds.
        I am also interested in the state of infrastructure in the
    District. Every city suffers from degrading schools and government
    buildings. However, the District, and the Congress before it, have
    continually deferred capital improvements, maintenance was deprived due
    to poor management, leaving every aspect of infrastructure lacking. The
    result is not only a depleted capital stock, but beleaguered citizens
    seeking clean parks, safe roads, a sewer system that can handle heavy
    rain and modernized schools.
        The General Accounting Office is examining these factors, believed
    to reflect a structural imbalance in the District, and a report is
    forthcoming. I had hoped that GAO's work would be finished in time for
    this hearing, but the detailed analysis required to make this report
    useful to Congress will take longer than anticipated.
        Despite all the difficulties that remain, I believe that the City
    is up to the challenge. The Chief Financial Officer has taken
    appropriate steps to resolve some $250 million in spending pressures in
    fiscal year 2002. The Mayor and the City Council took the brave step of
    suspending a scheduled income tax rate reduction in order to have
    adequate resources on hand in the future to meet the City's needs. In
    this budget, the City has put off some capital projects in order to
    make ends meet. These are the kinds of responsible steps any group of
    city officials must take in meeting fiscal challenges.
        I believe the District of Columbia has a bright future. The
    renaissance will continue and expand to reach all of the city. I
    commend all of the elected officials for their focus on the City's
    continued financial success. Mayor Williams has tackled the most
    difficult management problems and is working to fix them. The Council,
    under the leadership of Chairman Cropp, has shown its seriousness of
    purpose by getting the budget out on time and by its active oversight
    over city operations. Natwar Gandhi and his team have fixed a broken
    revenue system and are doing a terrific job advising the Mayor and the
    Council on the City's overall fiscal health. Most importantly, all of
    these people are working together to continue the Washington success
    story. With sound fiscal management and a vision to revitalize areas
    like the Anacostia, Washingtonians can be proud of the work that is
    being done by their elected representatives.
        Thank you all for your time today. I look forward to hearing from
    our witnesses.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Welcome, Mayor, and welcome, council leader Linda Cropp.
        I want to say that I am very interested in hearing your
    testimony. I have been looking at what you have been doing, and
    I am very pleased, in general, with the way the city is going.
    You know that when I was chairman of this subcommittee, we
    created a cash reserve system that we hoped would be solid so
    that the city would have its rainy day funds in the event of an
    emergency. Certainly with the hard economic times we have had
    this year, you have had to dip into those funds, and I am glad
    that we had a bit of an excess.
        Also, my purpose was to strengthen the city's bond rating
    so that the costs of borrowing would be less and it would save
    borrowing costs in the long run. Therefore, I am pleased to see
    that you are on schedule for filling the reserve fund, but I
    would also like to have your testimony about how you are going
    to refill the money used from reserve funds last year.
        Also, I am very concerned about the situation with the
    lifting of the caps on the school system's attorney's fees last
    year. As you know, I fought this because I felt that the
    millions that were put into attorney's fees could go for
    serving the school children in the District. I am sorry to say
    that lifting the caps will cost the city's school district
    millions of dollars. I would like to pursue this issue with you
    to see what your view is and if you believe that we should do
    something to try to keep some kind of cap on attorney's fees
    without jeopardizing a child's or parent's right to sue, but at
    the same time making sure that it does not become a business.
    The Washington Post certainly pointed out that it has become a
    business.
        I thank you, Madam Chairman, and look forward to continuing
    to work with the city.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Mr. Mayor, if we could start with your opening statements,
    and we are asking you to keep them to 5 minutes each, and then
    we will have a round of questions.

                     STATEMENT OF MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

        Mr. Williams. Well, thank you, Chairman Landrieu and
    Senator Hutchison. What I will do is I will submit my testimony
    for the record and try to abbreviate my testimony and give you
    the highlights of it here in my opening statement so we can get
    to questions and answers that I look forward to eagerly.
        This is the first budget that we have developed after the
    sunset of the Control Board, and I am proud to report that it
    is a balanced budget. It reflects the priorities of our
    citizens and begins a new era of cooperation among locally
    elected leaders of the District of Columbia. At a time when
    economic and security challenges face our city and our Nation,
    elected leaders must be especially disciplined and resourceful
    and must make tough decisions among competing priorities. This
    budget reflects such choices. It includes small but important
    investments in areas of high priority to citizens. It includes
    sacrifices in other areas, as needed, to preserve the city's
    strong financial recovery.
        Throughout our budget formulation process, three central
    goals guided our decision making at this significant time in
    the District's development: one, investing in key priorities;
    two, reducing spending; and three, obtaining relief from
    Federal barriers to the District's financial recovery.
        In the area of investing in key priorities, we invest in
    priorities articulated by thousands of residents and citizens
    at our Citizen Summit last October, as well as top priorities
    developed through 39 neighborhood planning sessions across the
    city.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        And we submit to you today a budget that includes modest
    investments in education, children, infrastructure, and
    emergency preparedness. A few of the highlights.
        A $36.7 million increase for public schools to support
    mainstream classroom teaching, including funding for a pay
    increase of 20 percent for District teachers over the next 3
    years.
        An $11.4 million increase for children and family services
    agencies as part of our commitment to raising the standard for
    services for our most vulnerable children, and $5 million for
    the Children and Youth Investment Trust, which provides a wide
    array of child care and other support services for citizens.
        A $45 million commitment in the capital budget for the
    Unified Communications Center to begin rebuilding the city's
    emergency response infrastructure.
        A $13 million net increase for the Department of Public
    Works, primarily for a trash disposal contract, $4.5 million;
    equipment lease debt service for vehicle purchases, around $3
    million; increased parking enforcement operations, which I hear
    a lot about, $2 million; approved pay raises of $3 million.
        And finally, a $6 million increase for WMATA.

                              RESPONSIBLE SPENDING

        In the area of reducing spending, the District no longer
    suffers from rampant overspending by agencies. There remain,
    however, two troubled programs that really drive the cost
    increases in this government above acceptable levels, and they
    are Medicaid and special education. They require immediate
    reform in order to compensate for decades of operational
    neglect.
        The District is wrestling with Medicaid for the same
    reasons as other States, rising health care costs, increased
    enrollment, and the challenges of cost containment. To address
    this issue, I am focusing resources on this program in the same
    way we focused on solving the problems with receiverships,
    which I am happy to say are now ending across the city.
    Agencies administering these programs will be held accountable
    for producing, at a minimum, $50 million in annual savings by
    the beginning of fiscal year 2005. I also expect to appoint a
    director of public provider Medicaid reform to coordinate the
    very complex functions across agency programs that are needed
    to bring this issue under control.
        Until the District achieves these savings, however, the
    tobacco securitization funds will be used to cover these
    health-related cost increases. Initially we wanted to use these
    tobacco funds for new health programs and investments, but
    given that Medicaid cost increases are in part due to the
    expansion of health services, we found it a reasonable way to
    use them for a limited time.
        Special education in the District has mushroomed into a
    dangerous drain on the District of Columbia Public Schools'
    budget and the resources of the District as a whole. We are
    spending 30 percent of our schools budget on 16 percent of the
    school body, mostly because the District does not have the
    capacity to provide for students with special education needs
    within the city and, I might add, within the system. The
    transportation costs alone are exorbitant. The city contributed
    an extra $90 million to manage special education in fiscal year
    2002, and it is providing about that much in fiscal year 2003.
        In the same way we have tackled the receiverships and other
    financial and management crises, we will focus the highest
    level of this administration's resources on fixing this problem
    in partnership with DCPS and the council. The public schools
    have developed a plan to reform special education over the next
    3 to 5 years. The plan focuses on seven key points: building
    understanding and acceptance of local schools' responsibility
    to meet the needs of special education; managing the use of
    non-public school special education providers; strengthening
    the schools' internal special education capacity; restructuring
    and improving management and operations to establish cost
    management measures; effectively managing transportation;
    establishing new legal strategies to contain growing attorney's
    fees, and I might say litigation, which is why out of whack or
    out of synch with the size of our school population; building
    creative partnerships with other agencies within the District
    government. And I believe that addressing special education and
    addressing Medicaid, we can begin to bring our costs down to an
    acceptable level and can meet our commitment to the council and
    to our citizens to reduce overall the level of operations by
    the District government, $150 million by 2005.
        I also might add that we are on track by 2002 in meeting
    our 7 percent cash reserve, are on track in meeting our budget
    reserve obligations, and as part of that on a local level, I
    think meeting our $50 million budget reserve as well.

                               LONG-TERM RECOVERY

        I want to talk very briefly about what I think are Federal
    barriers to the District's fiscal long-term recovery.
        One, I urge the Congress' adoption of the Fiscal Integrity
    Act of 2002, which would, in addition to providing for the
    necessary independence and autonomy for the CFO and the IG,
    give the District autonomy over its local funds budget, which I
    think is important to give us the competitive standing that we
    need to compete as a center of a growing region and a global
    economy.
        I also believe that the Congress should give favorable
    consideration to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's
    proposal, the Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2002, which
    would give the District a durable, longstanding, and yet
    elastic formula of Federal contribution to meet a growing set
    of demands that are regional and Federal, international even in
    nature that are imposed on our city with a very limited tax
    base.
        That sums up my remarks, an abbreviation of them. Again,
    the full testimony has been submitted for the record, and as
    always, I look forward not only to answering your questions,
    but look forward to working with this committee, as we have in
    the past, to make our city the shining star we know it can be.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Mayor Anthony A. Williams
        Good afternoon Chairman Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and members of
    the subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the
    District's fiscal year 2003 Budget and Financial Plan.
        This is the first budget developed after the sunset of the control
    board, and I am proud to report it is balanced. This budget reflects
    the priorities of our citizens and begins a new era of cooperation
    among the locally elected leaders of the District of Columbia. At a
    time when economic and security challenges face our city and our
    nation, elected leaders must be especially disciplined and resourceful,
    and must make tough choices among competing priorities. This budget
    proposal reflects such choices. It includes small but important
    investments in areas of high priority to citizens, and it includes
    sacrifices in other areas as needed to preserve the city's strong
    financial recovery.
        Throughout our budget formulation process, three central goals
    guided our decision-making at this significant time in the District's
    development:
      --Investing in key priorities
      --Reducing spending
      --Obtaining relief from federal barriers to the District's financial
            recovery
        By meeting these goals, I believe the District government will
    ensure that city services and neighborhoods will continue to improve,
    while maintaining the highest standards of fiscal responsibility.
                          investing in key priorities
        The District is undergoing a tremendous renaissance in our
    neighborhoods and downtown, while the delivery of city services has
    greatly improved. However, because too many of our neighborhoods and
    citywide infrastructure still suffer from the effects of decades of
    neglect, much work remains to be done.
        This budget invests in priorities articulated by thousands of
    residents at our second Citizen Summit last October as well as the top
    priorities developed through 39 neighborhood planning sessions across
    the city. These priorities include improving investing in neighborhood
    services, providing a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens,
    improving public schools, and restoring the Anacostia River and the
    neighborhoods along its banks.
        The budget we submit to you today includes modest investments in
    education, children, infrastructure, and emergency preparedness. Here
    are a few of the highlights:
      --A $36.7 million increase for DCPS to support mainstream classrooms,
            including funding for a pay increase of 20 percent for District
            teachers over the next 3 years;
      --A $11.4 million increase for Child and Family Services as part of
            our commitment to raising the standard for services for our
            most vulnerable children; and $5 million more for the Children
            and Youth Investment Trust, which provides a wide array child
            care and other support services for our citizens;
      --A $45 million commitment in the capital budget for the Unified
            Communications Center to begin rebuilding the city's emergency
            response infrastructure;
      --A $13 million net increase in DPW primarily for trash disposal
            contract ($4.5 million), equipment lease debt service for
            vehicle purchases ($2.9 million), increased parking enforcement
            operations (2 million), approved pay raises ( $3.3 million);
            and
      --A $6 million increase for WMATA.
                               reducing spending
        The District no longer suffers from rampant overspending by
    agencies. There remain, however, two troubled programs--Medicaid and
    Special Education--that require immediate reform in order to compensate
    for decades of operational neglect.
        The District is wrestling with Medicaid for the same reasons as
    other states: rising health care costs, increased enrollment, and the
    challenges of cost containment. To address this issue, I am focusing
    resources on this program in the same way we focused on solving the
    problems with receiverships. Agencies administering these programs will
    be held accountable for producing, at a minimum, $50 million in annual
    savings by the beginning of fiscal year 2005. I also expect to appoint
    a Director of Public Provider Medicaid Reform to coordinate the very
    complex functions across agency programs that are needed to bring this
    issue under control.
        Until the District achieves these savings, however, the Tobacco
    Securitization funds will be used to cover these health-related cost
    increases. Initially, we wanted to use these tobacco funds for new
    health programs and investments, but given that Medicaid cost increases
    are in part due to expansion of health services, we found it reasonable
    to use them for a limited time.
        Special education in the District of Columbia has mushroomed into a
    dangerous drain on District of Columbia Public Schools' budget and the
    resources of the District as a whole. We are spending 30 percent of our
    schools' budget on 16 percent of the student body--mostly because the
    District does not have the capacity to provide for students with
    special educational needs within the city. The transportation costs
    alone are exorbitant. The city contributed an extra $90 million to
    manage Special Education in fiscal year 2002 and is providing about
    that much in fiscal year 2003.
        In the same way that we have tackled the receiverships and other
    financial and management crises, we will focus the highest level of
    this administration's resources on fixing this problem, in partnership,
    with DCPS and the council. DCPS has developed a plan to reform special
    education over the next three to five years. The plan focuses on seven
    key points:
      --Building understanding and acceptance of local schools
            responsibility to meet the needs of special education children;
      --Managing the use of non-DCPS special education providers;
      --Strengthening DCPS' internal special education capacity and
            offerings;
      --Restructuring and improving management and operations to establish
            cost management measures;
      --Effectively managing transportation;
      --Establishing new legal strategies to contain growing attorney fees;
            and
      --Building creative partnerships with other agencies within District
            government.
        I believe that with the full support of the District's leadership,
    we will turn around special education service delivery in the District.
                                 fiscal resolve
        Over the past five years, the District has demonstrated its will to
    solve its financial crisis and the ability to continuously strengthen
    its financial health. During the control period--and since its end--
    District citizens and leaders have steered the city cautiously and
    responsibly. This leadership produced balanced budgets, clean financial
    audits, investment-grade bond rating, and hundreds of millions of
    dollars in financial reserves. The District's response to the fiscal
    challenges emanating from September 11 and the overall economic
    slowdown is testament to our commitment to fiscal responsibility and
    our ability to make expeditious financial decisions.
        I am pleased that Congress has recognized the District's ability to
    manage its finances, and as such, has introduced the ``Fiscal Integrity
    Act of 2002'' to permanently remove locally generated tax dollars from
    the federal appropriations process. The District's local budgeting
    process is immensely complicated by the need to work through
    appropriation subcommittees in both the House and Senate--and all of
    this effort is exerted to approve the spending our local tax dollars.
    This lengthy process greatly complicates our revenue estimation and
    routinely delays the beginning of our fiscal year.
        This legislation will also permanently authorize the city's Chief
    Financial Officer (CFO) to maintain independent monitoring and control
    over essential financial functions. The CFO plays a critical role in
    providing good and open government to our residents, and I strongly
    urge Congress to support this legislation and move it forward.
        In addition to passing the Fiscal Integrity Act, there remains a
    second set of federal barriers impeding the full financial recovery of
    the District.
             federal barriers to the district's financial recovery
        When it comes to delivering human service, public safety service,
    and other services the federal government treats the District as a
    state. However, the federal government places major restrictions and
    demands on the District that no state must face. Specifically, the
    federal government:
      --Does not pay property taxes on the buildings it occupies, which
            cover 42 percent of the District's taxable area;
      --Requires a height restriction on all buildings in the District,
            which further limits the city's tax base;
      --Requires major municipal services for the large presence of federal
            events, property, and employees--services that are funded by
            local residents; and
      --Does not allow the District to tax the income of non-resident
            workers.
        Because of this disparate treatment, the District faces a
    structural imbalance between growing expenditures and limited revenues.
    Experts--including former members of the control board--estimate this
    imbalance to be $400 to $500 million annually, and predict it will
    threaten our financial recovery and operational improvements.
        The District has made major sacrifices to balance our budget
    despite its inherent imbalance. These sacrifices include delayed
    improvements to our schools, our transportation system, sewer system,
    emergency preparedness projects, and other infrastructure needs.
    District leaders will continue to balance its budget, regardless of the
    sacrifices required. Our agencies are working to root out inefficiency
    and identify savings, but even with savings, federal compensation is
    necessary because no local government could solve this problem on its
    own--a problem caused by the federal government's restrictions and need
    for services.
        The federal government must play an important role in removing the
    barriers to the District's continued financial recovery. This can be
    accomplished by: removing the limitations on our tax base, ending the
    uncompensated service demands, and providing compensation for this
    disparate treatment.
        Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced the Fair Federal
    Compensation Act of 2002, which will provide federal compensation to
    the District so it can continue to provide improved services to local
    taxpayers, commuters, and the federal government, while maintaining its
    hard-earned fiscal stability. I strongly encourage the Congress to
    introduce and pass similar legislation.
              a critical juncture in district-federal partnership
        We have the opportunity to make our Nation's Capital a shining
    example to the world of what America can achieve. I know you share our
    vision of Washington as the premier world-class city.
        The President, Congress, and District leadership have demonstrated
    strong cooperation and mutual commitment to the well being of the
    nation's capital city. We appreciate your support in carrying forward
    this spirit of cooperation as we pursue enactment of the District's
    fiscal year 2003 budget and of the Fiscal Integrity Act.
        Finally, the District is truly on the verge of achieving its full
    potential as the heart of this vibrant region. Yet, as the world's
    leading democracy, the United States does not grant voting rights to
    the residents of its capital city. Although full voting representation
    is a fundamental right held by every citizen, the people of the
    District have been disenfranchised for almost 200 years. This body has
    acted on behalf of disenfranchised women, African Americans, Latinos,
    Native Americans, and other groups, and now the people of my city look
    to you to act on behalf of all disenfranchised citizens of our Nation's
    Capital by passing legislation to reverse this injustice.
        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 those very
    concise remarks, and we appreciate your highlighting some of
    the areas that this committee and you share an interest in.
        Mrs. Cropp?
    STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Ms. Cropp. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu and
    Senator Hutchison. It is a pleasure to be here before you again
    testifying on behalf of the citizens of the District of
    Columbia.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget is another fiscally sound and
    responsible budget that marks a monumental stride in our city's
    home rule. It exemplifies our readiness and capacity to govern
    ourselves. This budget is a reflection of us as one good
    government that stood united, resolved, and resolute to turn
    our abysmal financial situation around, got rid of the
    Financial Authority, made some very tough decisions, and
    legislated another balanced and financially sound product.
        Fiscal discipline has always been and will be a top
    priority of our legislative agenda. We demand it of the
    executive branch and the council practices it ourselves. The
    various forms of fiscal discipline from rainy day savings,
    financial safeguards, insurance, and investment policies,
    economic triggers to PAY-AS-YOU-GO funds, that we have demanded
    of and imposed on ourselves in the past several years have
    yielded high returns on investments.
        Case in point. In spite of the temporary setbacks suffered
    after 9/11 following the recession and the war against
    terrorism, the robust fiscal health of the city has provided an
    important buffer against the economic downturn. As you will
    see, this fiscal year 2003 budget reflects our priority to
    guarantee that residents are provided benefits, services, and
    programs, basic municipal needs that are critical in making the
    District a very special place to live.

                            LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS

        As this council period comes to a close, we are proud to
    say that in addition to fiscal discipline that we imposed on
    ourselves and the executive branch, we have achieved other
    important goals set forth on the agenda. They are the
    revitalization of our neighborhoods, the investment in our
    youth, protection of vulnerable citizens, oversight of the
    executive performance and service delivery, promotion of
    economic stability and growth, and we are still looking forward
    to the expansion of home rule and democracy.
        I have a copy of our legislative agenda titled At Work for
    a Better Washington and would like to provide this as part of
    the record to my testimony today.
        The council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning
    both sets of priorities and put together a fiscally sound and
    responsible spending plan. The operating budget funds basic
    city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result of
    stringent oversight by the council, was realigned. For example,
    funds were redirected and targeted toward projects with higher
    priority and critical needs such as schools for children,
    improving blighted properties in the neighborhoods, and
    enhancing existing facilities for better public and council
    interaction.
        The council submitted earlier 12 committee reports, and we
    would like for that to be a part of the record of this
    testimony too.
        To meet the goals of our legislative agenda, schools
    continue to receive full funding. To protect our vulnerable
    citizens, the council found $7.3 million to fund the Interim
    Disability Assistance Program for Disabled Adults. To invest
    for future generations, capital and operating dollars were
    added for our young children to improve their studying
    environments and broaden their academic and vocational skills.
    We scrubbed, scrounged, and saved another $10 million for long-
    term investment in the Tobacco Trust Fund. This is in addition
    to the $33 million that we have painstakingly saved for the
    past 2 years.
        At this juncture I would like to emphasize how the council
    exercised fiscal prudence with additional money that became
    available. It chose to put in place a budget stabilization
    function, also known as PAY-GO, for critical, one-time
    expenditures. First, this budget approach allows the District
    to spend funds on necessary items to improve service delivery
    for the residents, and second, it controls the base budget and
    restricts agencies from overspending and ballooning their
    budget. Third, it prevents the tendency simply to plow more
    money into ongoing programs without constraint and needs. And
    lastly, it helps us by not having to pay debt service on money
    that we would borrow for capital projects.
        In addition, the council will continue to phase in the tax
    reductions associated with the Tax Parity Act of 1999, albeit
    with some modifications. In agreement with the Mayor, the
    council will reduce the corporate tax rate from 9.975 to 9
    percent. When the CBO released a modest economic growth rate of
    2.2 percent this winter, the personal income tax rates were
    judiciously postponed. Should the District's economic outlook
    continue to improve, the council does intend to phase in the
    continuation of the individual income tax at a later date.
        When we looked at the spending, we wanted to make sure that
    we did not continue to spend, and there was a cap that was
    placed in for future years at the 4 percent level.
        As you consider our appropriations request, we ask that you
    support and pass the 2003 budget in time for the start of the
    new fiscal year and before adjournment of the 107th Congress.
    We are eagerly anticipating that you will pass the supplement
    which is pending before you, which actually you are working on.
        We would like to thank you for allowing the city to use its
    own funds for the expansion of the health benefits for domestic
    partners. We ask that you continue this good faith action by
    respecting our own local laws and decisions and urge that no
    extraneous or new riders be inserted into our budget bill. Let
    me emphasize that this appeal for no anti-democratic riders
    extends to a recent, unprecedented effort to deal with zoning
    issues.
        Let me also ask if in this budget, at no cost to the
    Federal Government, if the District would be allowed to carry
    over funds that we have not spent. Once we reach our cash
    balance, which we hope to reach this year much earlier than we
    had anticipated and certainly a larger amount than any other
    government, we would like to be able to carry over funds from 1
    year to the other. No other government is not allowed to do
    that. In fact, by not allowing us to do that, it sort of says
    to folks, spend, and that's not the message we want to send to
    our agencies. So, we would like to carry them over.
        Finally, we urge you to support this monumental budget
    because it is a true home rule budget put together by local
    leadership. This council-Mayor-public citizen process, besides
    complementing the efforts in our crafting a spending plan that
    will make Washington, D.C. a much better place, truly reflects
    the beauty of our democratic principles at work. Like Congress,
    the council remains staunch in its legislative role and stands
    committed to oversee the executive branch operations. We will
    keep expenditures and revenues in check. We will respond
    swiftly to our constituents and their needs, and we will work
    with the Mayor, Congress, and the surrounding governments to
    achieve mutually shared goals. We will always produce good
    responsible budgets that invest dollars for the District and
    leave a legacy for future generations.
        And thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Linda Cropp
        Good morning, Chairman Landrieu and members of the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am pleased
    to be here to testify on the District's fiscal year 2003 budget.
                                  introduction
        The fiscal year 2003 budget is another fiscally sound and
    responsible budget and marks a monumental stride in our city's history
    of home rule. This is the first budget that we, the locally elected
    leaders, have crafted by ourselves AND entirely within the Home Rule
    process in a post-Control Board period. This budget is proof that the
    Council and the Mayor can work together and produce a good spending
    plan that continues to make the District a better place to work, live,
    visit, and raise a family. Most importantly, this budget, which came at
    the heels of the Council's reoccupation of its own City Hall, marks a
    new era for the District. It exemplifies our readiness and capacity to
    govern the city ourselves. Moreover, it is a reflection of us as one
    good government that stood united, resolved, and resolute to turn our
    abysmal financial situation around, got rid of the Financial Authority,
    made some tough decisions, and legislated another balanced and
    financially sound ``product''.
        Fiscal Discipline.--This has always been and will always be a TOP
    PRIORITY on our legislative agenda even as the Council Period XIV comes
    to a close. We not only demand it of the Executive Branch, we practice
    it ourselves. The various forms of fiscal discipline--from rainy day
    savings, financial safeguards, insurance and investment policies,
    economic triggers to PAYAS-YOU-GO funds--that we have demanded of, and
    imposed on ourselves in the past several years, have yielded high
    ``Returns On Investments''.
        Case in point . . . inspite of the temporary setback the city
    suffered after 9/11, followed by the recession and the war against
    terrorism, the robust fiscal health of the city has provided an
    important buffer against the economic downturn. As you will see, this
    fiscal year 2003 budget reflects our priority to guarantee that
    residents are provided benefits, services, and program--basic municipal
    needs that are critical in making the District a special place to live.
                               council period xiv
        As the Council comes to the close of Period XIV, we are proud to
    say that in addition to the fiscal discipline that we imposed on
    ourselves and the Executive Branch, we have achieved other important
    goals set forth in our agenda. These are:
      --Revitalization of our Neighborhoods
      --Investment in our Youth
      --Protection of our Vulnerable Residents
      --Oversight of the Executive Performance and Service Delivery
      --Promotion of Continued Economic Stability and Growth
      --Expansion of Home Rule and Democracy
        I have here a copy of our Legislative Agenda titled At Work for a
    Better Washington and would like to provide this for your information
    as it elaborates on the various measures that the Council implemented
    to achieve these priorities.
                        the council/mayor budget process
        In December of last year, the Council passed the Fiscal Year 2003
    Budget Submission Requirements Resolution of 2001. It established March
    18 as the date by which the Mayor shall submit to the Council the
    proposed budget. The Mayor transmitted his budget on March 18 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. The operating budget
    funds basic city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result
    of stringent oversight by the Council, was realigned. For example,
    funds were redirected and targeted toward projects with higher priority
    and critical needs, such as schools for the children, improving
    blighted properties in the neighborhoods, and enhancing existing
    facilities for better public and Council interaction.
                   the council/public citizen budget process
        An integral part of the Council budget process is public input and,
    as such, many hearings on the fiscal year 2003 budget were held. The
    process gave the citizens and our workforce an opportunity to comment
    and critique programmatic and funding needs and agency performances
    that impact them. 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
    marks, the Committee of the Whole made additional recommendations in
    order to bring the budget into balance. At the end of this public
    process--which translated into 67 public hearings or about 282 hours--
    we incorporated findings from our citizens and employees into the
    budget.
        I've here copies of the Council's committee reports and the fiscal
    year 2003 Budget and I would ask that they be made part of the record.
                   highlights of the fiscal year 2003 budget
        When the Mayor submitted the budget to us, he had proposed a local
    budget of $3.74 billion, an increase of $168 million or 4.7 percent
    over the revised fiscal year 2002 budget as amended by the fiscal year
    2002 supplement, the reallocation of reserve funds, and the
    reprogramming. On May 7, the Council approved the $6.4 billion spending
    plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services and
    programs. To meet the goals in our legislative agenda, schools continue
    to receive full funding. To protect our vulnerable residents, the
    Council found $7.3 million to fund the Interim Disability Assistance
    program for disabled adults. To invest for future generations, capital
    and operating dollars were added for our young children to improve
    their studying environments and broaden their academic and vocational
    skills. We scrubbed, scrounged, and saved another $10 million for long-
    term investment in our Tobacco Trust Fund. This is in addition to the
    $33 million that we have painstakingly saved from the past two years.
                              pay-as-you-go funds
        At this juncture, I would like to emphasize how the Council
    exercised fiscal prudence when additional money becomes available. It
    chose and put in place, a budget stabilization function, also known as
    the PAY-GO for critical one-time expenditures. First, this budget
    approach allows the District to spend funds on necessary items to
    improve service delivery for the residents. Second, it controls the
    base budgets and restricts agencies from overspending and
    ``ballooning'' their budgets. Third, it prevents the tendency to simply
    plow more money into ongoing programs without constraint and need.
                             tax parity/tax relief
        In addition, the Council will continue the phase-in of tax
    reductions associated with the Tax Parity Act passed in 1999, albeit
    with some modifications. In agreement with the Mayor, the Council will
    reduce the corporate tax rate from 9.975 percent to 9 percent. When the
    CBO released a modest economic growth rate of 2.2 percent this winter,
    the personal income tax rates were judiciously postponed. Should the
    District's economic outlook continue to improve at a rapid rate, the
    Council intends to phase-in the individual income tax reductions
    starting in 2004. Given our amazing financial turnaround, the
    revitalization of the city, and the resilience of our economy, we are
    very optimistic that the ``renaissance'' of Washington will come full
    circle once we bring our taxes in-line with our neighbors in the next
    few years. Lastly, let us not forget the tax relief we gave our
    residents in this budget when we capped real property tax assessment
    increases at 25 percent for all owner-occupied housing.
                                cap on spending
        Having pulled ourselves out of the financial abyss of the mid-
    1990s, the Council has always remained vigilant fiscally. Concerned
    about the unchecked growth in spending, we decided to compare the
    growth rate of local spending and revenues from fiscal year 1997 to
    2001. This analysis shows that based on a 3-year growth rate from 1999
    to 2001, the District has experienced an average of 9.9 percent growth
    (see attached chart)! Concerned about the spike in growth spending in
    this current administration, the Council passed an amendment that would
    cap the expenditures at 4 percent for the fiscal year 2004 budget. In
    taking this action, the Council believes that while we do not take the
    good fortunes of the city for granted, we too must prevent a fiscal
    train wreck when we see it coming.
             federal financial assistance for structural imbalance
        According to a study done by the McKinsey Group, the District could
    face a budget deficit of at least $500 million unless corrective and
    preventive actions are taken. While we do our share to contain
    spending, we ask that the Committee provide additional financial
    assistance to compensate for the structural constraints and financial
    burdens that the District bears as the Nation's capital. This
    structural imbalance is also supported by the analysis done by the
    Greater Washington Society of CPAs (GWS of CPAs) on the District's
    share of revenues from the federal grants. Compared to the other 50
    states, 32 states received a greater portion of federal funds for their
    general fund than the District does. Given our long and historical
    federal/local relationship, the ratio of federal grants to the District
    General Fund revenue is not fair and hardly equitable (see table
    attached).
                                   conclusion
        As you consider our appropriations request, we ask that you support
    and pass the fiscal year 2003 budget in time for the start of the new
    fiscal year and before the adjournment of the 107th Congress. We are
    eagerly anticipating that you will pass the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplement
    which is pending before you. As fellow legislators, we recognize that
    disparate issues often become linked in unpredictable ways. Under
    current law, our budget requires Congressional approval. Your action on
    this Supplement, which the Council passed in early April, would greatly
    support the city's budget process.
        We also would like to thank you for allowing the city to use its
    own funds for the expansion of health benefits for domestic partners.
    We ask that you continue this good faith action by respecting our own
    local laws and decisions and urge that you not include any extraneous
    or new riders in our budget bill. Let me emphasize that this appeal for
    ``no anti-democratic riders'' extends to a recent, unprecedented effort
    by several of your colleagues to interfere in a local zoning matter for
    which local administrative appeals have not even been exhausted and
    about which litigation is pending in the courts. Please let the locally
    elected and locally appointed officials who represent the citizens of
    the District of Columbia decide local issues--such as those pertaining
    to the District's zoning and permitting process.
        Finally, we urge you to support this ``monumental'' budget because
    it is a ``true'' Home Rule budget put together by the local leadership
    (and without the Financial Authority). This Council/Mayor/Public
    Citizen budget process--besides complementing the efforts in our
    crafting a spending plan that will make a better Washington a reality--
    truly reflects the beauty of our democratic principles at work. Like
    Congress, the Council remains staunch in its legislative role and
    stands committed to oversee the Executive Branch operations. We will
    keep expenditures and revenues in check. We will respond swiftly to our
    constituents and their needs. We will work with the Mayor, Congress,
    and the surrounding governments to achieve mutually shared goals. We
    will always produce good responsible budgets that invest dollars for
    the District and leave a legacy for future generations.

           COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE REVENUES--DC vs. OTHER GOVERNMENTS FOR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2000
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Prince
                                                                  District of    State of     George's     State of
                                                                    Columbia     Maryland    County, MD    New York
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Grants..............................................       $1,253       $3,974         $663      $24,004
    Federal Pension Costs.......................................          182  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Federal Reimbursements for ``Restrictions and Unusual                 254  ...........  ...........  ...........
     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 Revenue to total revenue..............           24           25           41           33
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: District of Columbia Audit Task Force, Greater Washington Society of CPAs, District of Columbia Audit
      Briefing Fiscal Year 2000 Report.

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Dr. Friedman.
    STATEMENT OF DR. JULIA FRIEDMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL
                OFFICER FOR RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, AND
                CHIEF ECONOMIST, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
        Dr. Friedman. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu and Senator
    Hutchison. I am Julia Friedman. I am the Deputy Chief Financial
    Officer for Research and Analysis, and the Chief Economist for
    the District. I am here for Dr. Gandhi, who has been called out
    of the country on a family emergency.
        My remarks will briefly touch on the fiscal year 2002
    budget and the fiscal year 2003 budget outlook. The formal
    submission----
        Senator Landrieu. Dr. Friedman, you are going to have to
    try to speak a little more closely into that microphone.
        Dr. Friedman. Dr. Gandhi has been called out of the country
    on a family emergency and sends his apologies for not being
    able to be here.
        As the Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Gandhi's major
    responsibility is to ensure the overall financial viability of
    the District of Columbia in the short-, medium-, and long-term.
    In the past year, we have enjoyed some notable successes,
    including the fifth consecutive clean opinion from the city's
    independent auditors, with the fiscal year 2001 comprehensive
    annual financial report completed ahead of time and with a
    balanced budget. Overall, the city ended fiscal year 2001 with
    a surplus of $77.6 million and a positive fund balance of
    $562.2 million. In 1996, there was a negative fund balance of
    $518 million. So, we have witnessed a turnaround of over $1
    billion since then.
        I believe we are on a good position to continue this
    progress. We have instituted several changes in financial
    systems that will give us a much better picture of our
    financial position as we go through the year. And for fiscal
    year 2003, we plan to apportion the budgets of the city's
    largest agencies. At the end of 2001, we had $100.8 million in
    cash reserves available. This has now grown to nearly $151
    million, and we expect the amount to grow to about $250 million
    by the end of fiscal year 2002. Along with the fund balance
    noted earlier, these steps should solidify the district's
    improved bond ratings and contribute to lower borrowing costs
    in the future, as they were intended to do.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        Dr. Friedman. For fiscal year 2002, year-to-date spending
    pressures are estimated to cumulatively total $283 million.
    Through various actions, the District has resolved $250 million
    of these spending pressures and the remaining $33 million will
    be addressed through the District's budgeted reserve.
        The fiscal year 2002 supplemental bill consists of $37
    million in appropriation authority changes and a set of
    language provisions to clarify the intent of Congress in
    selected areas. This has now been reported out of the full
    committee and we want to thank you for your leadership in this
    matter.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN

        Moving to fiscal year 2003, the District's general fund
    operating request is $5.7 billion from all funding sources.
    This represents an increase of $402 million, or about 7.6
    percent, over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated levels.
        In local funds, which are about two-thirds of our budget,
    the fiscal year 2003 budget request is $3.8 billion, an
    increase of $209 million, or 5.9 percent, over fiscal year 2002
    appropriated levels.
        Much of the remainder of the testimony speaks to the issue
    of the structural imbalance that the CFO sees in the District's
    long-term prospects for fiscal stability for the District.
    There is a great deal to be said about this, and I would
    recommend these remarks to you. A long-term solution has to be
    found in some way.
        One option is the passage of the Federal Fair Compensation
    Act of 2002, as introduced by Congresswoman Norton. This would
    certainly improve the District's ability to service its
    residents, as well as its nonresident workers in the long term.
    In the absence of this act, a dialogue must continue that
    revisits the Federal-local partnership and arrives at a long-
    term solution for the support of D.C. services.
        Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I
    request that the prepared statement of D. Gandhi be made part
    of the record.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer,
                              District of Columbia
        Good morning, Chairwoman Landrieu, 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 today to
    testify on the District's fiscal year 2003 budget request to the
    Congress. My remarks will briefly touch on the fiscal year 2002
    financial outlook and supplemental, the fiscal year 2003 request, and
    the structural imbalance that threatens the District's long-term
    financial viability.
                                    overview
        As the chief financial officer, my major responsibility is to
    ensure the overall financial viability of the District of Columbia in
    the short-, mid-, and long-term. In the past year, we have enjoyed some
    notable successes, including the fifth consecutive ``unqualified'' (or
    clean) opinion from the city's independent auditors, with the fiscal
    year 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) completed ahead
    of time and with a balanced budget. Overall, the city ended fiscal year
    2001 with a surplus of $77.6 million and a positive fund balance of
    $562.2 million. In fiscal year 1996, there was a negative fund balance
    of $518 million, so we have witnessed a turnaround of over a billion
    dollars since then. This result is another milestone for the financial
    turnaround that began in the fiscal year 1997 CAFR and is a fitting
    beginning for the District's return to Home Rule last October 1.
        I believe we are in a good position to continue this progress. We
    have instituted several changes in financial systems that will give us
    a much better picture of our financial posture as we go through the
    year, and for fiscal year 2003 we plan to apportion the budgets of the
    city's largest agencies. At the end of fiscal year 2001, we had $100.8
    million in cash reserves available; this now has grown to nearly $151
    million. We expect this amount to grow to about $250 million by the end
    of fiscal year 2002. Along with the fund balance noted earlier, these
    steps should solidify the District's improved bond ratings and
    contribute to lower borrowing costs in the future.
        We have made progress on other fronts as well. This year, for the
    first time, the District of Columbia's ``Comprehensive Financial
    Management Policy'' appears as an appendix of the budget submission.
    This policy, required annually by the fiscal year 2001 District of
    Columbia Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-522), is actually a
    compilation of policies in key areas and a financial management tool
    that codifies current policies and procedures. It will be updated
    annually.
        Effective with the fiscal year 2003 budget development process, we
    began the transition to performance-based budgeting. With the active
    support of the Office of the City Administrator, seven large operating
    agencies, including the OCFO, submitted performance-based budgets based
    on agency strategic business plans aligned with the mayor's citywide
    strategic plan. For the fiscal year 2004 budget process, we anticipate
    converting another 20 agencies to performance-based budgeting.
        In the area of payroll operations, we have moved all agencies
    except Fire and Emergency Medical Services back to the UPPS payroll
    system. This agency will be converted before the end of the fiscal
    year. A long-term replacement strategy for the payroll system and its
    integration with other administrative systems has been developed as
    part of the Administrative Services Modernization Program, spearheaded
    by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer.
        Over the next two years, all of the District's administrative
    systems--personnel, payroll, pension operations, procurement, property
    management, and budget--will be upgraded and integrated with the System
    of Accounting and Reporting (SOAR). For the first time, this will give
    the District a top quality, integrated information system with which to
    manage District operations. Now that we have two years of operating
    experience with SOAR, we are utilizing more of its capabilities.
                       fiscal year 2002 financial outlook
        Year-to-date spending pressures for fiscal year 2002 are estimated
    at $283 million. Through various actions (use of reserves,
    reprogrammings, agency gap-closing plans, and the proposed supplemental
    appropriation), the District has resolved $250 million of the spending
    pressures. The remaining $33 million will be addressed through the
    District's budgeted reserve. Thus, I am confident we will end the year
    with a balanced budget.
        The District submitted a fiscal year 2002 supplemental budget
    request consisting of $37 million in appropriation authority changes
    and a set of language provisions to clarify the intent of Congress in
    selected areas. The Council of the District of Columbia passed the
    supplemental on April 9. The full committee reported out the
    supplemental on May 22, and it passed the Senate on June 7. We want to
    thank you for your leadership and support on the District portion of
    it.
                        fiscal year 2003 budget request
        The Council of the District of Columbia voted to approve the fiscal
    year 2003 budget request on May 7, and copies of the budget documents
    were recently made available. I would like to briefly summarize some of
    the key points in the request.
        In total, the District's general fund operating request for fiscal
    year 2003 is $5.7 billion from all funding sources (local, federal,
    private, and other), which represents an increase of about $402
    million, or 8 percent, over approved fiscal year 2002 levels. The total
    number of positions in fiscal year 2003 from all funding sources is
    33,958, which represents an increase of 708 positions, or about 2.1
    percent.
        In local funds, which comprise about two-thirds of the total
    budget, the fiscal year 2003 budget request is about $3.8 billion, an
    increase of about $209 million, or 5.9 percent, over approved fiscal
    year 2002 levels. The total number of positions funded with local funds
    is 26,846, an increase of 524 positions, or 2.0 percent.
        The District's expenditure growth since fiscal year 1999 has been
    concentrated in several large agencies. The overall growth rates of
    expenditures in fiscal year 2000 (over fiscal year 1999) and fiscal
    year 2001 (over fiscal year 2000) were 8.9 percent and 10.8 percent,
    respectively. However, an analysis shows that the District's
    expenditure growth has been driven by four agencies--the DC Public
    Schools, the Public Charter Schools, the Department of Mental Health,
    and the Public Benefit Corporation subsidy (plus transition costs in
    fiscal year 2001)--where expenditure growth was 28.5 percent and 29.3
    percent in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, respectively. These
    rapid growth rates are attributable to rising enrollments in Public
    Charter Schools, and, in the other three agencies, to Medicaid and
    other costs related to the health care needs of the District's low-
    income citizens. Outside of these four agencies, expenditures grew by
    only 2.5 percent in fiscal year 2000 and 3.1 percent in fiscal year
    2001, aided in part by reductions in debt service. During this same
    period, the Consumer Price Index for the Washington Metropolitan Area
    grew by 3.1 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively.
        As you will see, the budget projects positive net operating margins
    through fiscal year 2006. This projection shows a positive financial
    picture and is based on revenue forecasts that use realistic economic
    and demographic assumptions generally accepted by the forecasting
    community and the federal government.
        However, a closer examination of the data suggests that the
    District is operating on a much slimmer financial margin. While we
    believe the costs of maintaining current services can be kept within
    projected amounts, it is unlikely the city will operate over the next
    few years without program initiatives. Further, as we have seen
    recently, it has been necessary to use reserve funds. While revenues
    grew by 7.4 percent annually between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
    2001, the District now likely faces a more slowly rising revenue curve,
    as financial markets return to more normal patterns and the frenzied
    pace of property renovations lets up. For these reasons, the city and
    its elected leadership will face difficult program and financial
    decisions in the years to come. For these same reasons and others, we
    believe there is a structural imbalance in the District's budget that
    needs to be addressed.
                 structural imbalance in the district's budget
        The ``structural imbalance'' is the difference in the long-term
    between the District's unreimbursed expenditures and its constrained
    revenue base. Working together, the elected officials of the District
    must find ways to balance expenditure needs with revenue requirements,
    in order to balance the city's budget and ensure that the control board
    does not return. This involves some very difficult decisions, due in
    significant part to the unique status of Washington, DC, and the
    challenges related to that status.
        Others external to the District have looked and continue to look at
    the structural imbalance. The Federal City Council commissioned
    McKinsey & Company to independently assess the District's financial
    position. Their report, issued in March 2002, stated, among other
    things, that federal constraints impose an annual opportunity cost of
    at least $500-$600 million. As you know, both the General Accounting
    Office and the Congressional Research Service are conducting separate
    analyses of the city's financial structure.
        What we already know is that the recent recession forced cities and
    states across the country into difficult budget decisions. Cities and
    states have dipped into rainy day funds, delayed tax reductions, and
    implemented service cuts. For cities, the economic downturn compounds
    other recent fiscal challenges. While the population of states rose by
    an average of 13.1 percent in the 1990's, the population of the largest
    27 cities grew by a slower rate of 8.5 percent. While states provide
    services to a resident base with a poverty rate of 11.3 percent, cities
    provide services to a resident base with a poverty rate of 17.9
    percent. And while the federal government and state governments
    experienced revenue growth of 136 percent and 97 percent respectively
    between 1988 and 2001, cities--which rely on revenue sources such as
    property taxes, which generally do not keep pace with the economy--
    experienced more modest growth of 69 percent. In the District, growth
    over this period was 34 percent. Excluding the federal payment,
    District revenues grew by 58 percent over this period, lower than the
    other jurisdictions.
        In each of these three cases--population growth, poverty rate, and
    revenue growth--the District performed more poorly over the past decade
    than cities overall and the states. In the District of Columbia, the
    pressures facing all levels of government generally--and all cities
    particularly--are extenuated by restrictions on the District's revenue
    base and expenditure requirements reflective of the District's unique
    status as the nation's capital.
        The revenue base is constrained because:
      --66 percent of the income earned in the District cannot be taxed by
            the city, meaning that 34 percent of the District's income tax
            base subsidizes the public services that the District provides
            its nonresident workers;
      --42 percent of the real property in the District is owned by the
            federal government and is exempt from city taxation;
      --11 percent of other real property in the District also is exempt
            from taxation; and
      --District buildings have federally-imposed height restrictions,
            which reduce population and economic density, as well as
            property tax revenues.
        The District also provides services beyond its capacity. For
    example:
      --Services to the federal government, such as public works and public
            safety, are valued at $240 million in a normal year and more in
            times of crisis; between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2006,
            this is estimated at $1.2 billion.
      --Services of a state-like nature, such as human services, mental
            health, and the University of the District of Columbia, are
            valued at $500 million a year; between fiscal year 2002 and
            fiscal year 2006, this is estimated at $2.6 billion. These
            services are in addition to those absorbed by the federal
            government through the 1997 Revitalization Act.
      --Services to the region, such as the 400,000 out-of-District
            vehicles that drive in the city every day--and represent 70
            percent of traffic on District roads during business hours--but
            do not contribute to road repairs are valued at $150 million a
            year; between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2006, this is
            estimated at $0.75 billion.
        While these expenditure and revenue pressures are not unique to
    Washington, they represent a special challenge here, due to the
    District's limited ability to address them, because:
        District tax rates and burdens on both households and businesses
    already are high in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions when
    considering the complete menu of taxes--sales tax, income tax, property
    tax and business taxes. The individual income tax burden in the
    District is 34 percent higher than Virginia, and the city's real
    property tax burden is 15 percent higher than Alexandria.
        The District's capacity to borrow funds is limited, with a per-
    capita debt of $4,651, second only to New York City's per-capita debt
    of $4,664. Due to planned capital spending, the District's per-capita
    debt will rise steadily through fiscal year 2006 to an estimated
    $6,531. Even that level of capital spending does not address all of the
    urgent infrastructure needs, particularly roads, Metro expansion, and
    the DC Public Schools. Deferring investments in infrastructure can
    cause crisis-like pressure on operating spending.
        Local fund expenditures also are constrained. Of the nearly $3.8
    billion in budgeted expenditures, less than $1.5 billion is available
    for discretionary purposes. The remaining expenditures are mandatory,
    in the sense that they are required to fulfill financial or contractual
    obligations or to comply with federal or local legislation or court
    order. Even within the discretionary total of less than $1.5 billion,
    most is required to provide a basic level of municipal services, such
    as police, fire, and public works.
        The long-term solution to the structural imbalance is a matter to
    be addressed by District and congressional policy-makers. Passage of
    the Federal Fair Compensation Act of 2002 (H.R. 3923), as introduced by
    Congresswoman Norton, would certainly improve the city's ability to
    service its residents as well as its non-resident workers. In the
    absence of this act, a dialogue must continue that revisits the
    federal/local partnership and arrives at a long-term solution for
    equitable support of District services.
                                   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 members may have.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

                           THE DISTRICT'S BOND RATING

        Let me just begin, if I could, with you, Ms. Friedman. The
    bond rating. Both Senator Hutchison and I served as treasurers
    of our State, so we had to take this on. Kind of our full-time
    focus was to increase the bond ratings of our States and keep
    them high. It is just one reflection of the fiscal health of an
    entity. It is not the only, but it is a good guiding post
    because, as you know, the rating agencies rate all States and
    all cities and all jurisdictions. So, they have a lot of
    comparative data.
        I am noting that the bond rating for the city, although we
    have made a lot of progress, is still one of the lowest in the
    Nation. It is a BBB+. I would note that it is equivalent to my
    own home city, the City of New Orleans, which is facing some
    challenges.
        But could you, from your position, outline the three or
    four things that the rating agencies are looking for before
    they will begin to consider moving the city higher? What are
    the two or three things that they discuss with you about that?
        Dr. Friedman. One of the benchmarks that they constantly
    refer to is our debt per capita. It is quite high in the
    District, second only to New York City.
        Senator Landrieu. And what is that ratio, do you remember,
    just for the record?
        Dr. Friedman. Someone will pass me the number in just a
    minute. It's something like $5,000 per capita. We have brought
    that down successfully in the last year with the securitization
    of the tobacco funds and using that money to write down our
    debt. So, we have substantially reduced it.
        We also note that some of our indicators are considerably
    stronger than other cities that have much higher ratings such
    as Detroit and Philadelphia and some of the other areas where
    we have more real property value per capita. We have in some
    ways much stronger budget positions than they do.
        In our discussions with the rating agencies, they continue
    to look for strong political leadership and consistent and
    strong management. These are areas that they talk about.
        There is a certain degree of uncertainty that is inherent
    in the city's relationship with the Federal Government and they
    do talk to us about the need for certainty and stability in
    that relationship as well.
        The debt per capita, I am told, is $4,600 in the District.
        Senator Landrieu. So, besides the debt per capita, the
    uncertainty of the relationship, and some management issues,
    would you say that those are the three points that continue to
    be a challenge for the District?
        Dr. Friedman. Yes, I would say that. In fact, there has
    been a history, that you are quite aware of, of testimony
    before you by the rating agencies. Those are the same elements
    that repeatedly reoccur. They are very happy about the
    relationship between the Mayor and the council and very
    impressed by that. We hear that quite a lot.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor, would you like to add anything
    to that? And Ms. Cropp. I know that you all talk with the
    rating agencies too, so just something from your perspective
    that you would like to add.
        Mr. Williams. Well, you know, my years as CFO talking to
    the rating agencies and now as Mayor talking to them, I would
    agree with Julia that their concern is the debt load per capita
    being high. But I think the point has to be made that that debt
    load per capita is high. It used to be, in large part, driven
    by uncontrolled expenditures and bad management, recognizing
    now that it is driven by the fact that we have a very narrow
    tax base to support that kind of debt load and--and this gets
    to the Federal relationship--a feeling by the rating agencies
    that we have got to finally figure out a way to address
    structural imbalance in our budget, which gets us to the need
    for a Federal contribution I think because the city can do what
    it has done, in terms of better fiscal management--we are very
    proud of the fact that, working with Senator Hutchison and the
    committee, that by the end of 2002, we are going to have 7
    percent of our cash reserve. This is going to be leading the
    country. The District of Columbia. No one would have thought
    that years ago. But having met that kind of tight fiscal
    benchmark, to still have the credit rating we have to us is
    really frustrating because we think that it is not completely
    within our power to solve. We need that durable, elastic
    Federal contribution I believe.
        Senator Landrieu. Ms. Cropp, anything?
        Ms. Cropp. Just in addition to that, I think they are
    pleased with the way the city is moving with our budget. We
    have been meeting with them recently and, I think, again
    tomorrow actually. The idea that we are not putting all of our
    dollars into our base budget in case something happens, that we
    will have access to some monies in the future, I think has been
    very helpful.
        Attached to my testimony is something that the Mayor said
    with regard to structural imbalance with the District. I do
    want to call your attention to a chart that was created by the
    Greater Washington Society of CPAs that really shows that the
    District and its relationship with the Federal Government is
    not as lucrative as with many other States. In fact, with the
    Federal Government acting somewhat as the District's State, the
    District's percentage of Federal dollars that comes back to it
    is much smaller than many other places.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, on that point, let me mention
    because I am hopeful that this bond rating will improve and I
    think there have been steps taken that would warrant an upgrade
    in the bond rating. It is one very, sort of clear-cut
    benchmark, if you will. So, what I have heard this morning
    indicates that potentially the city is in a position to see an
    upgrade in the bond rating.
        One point on the debt and then one point on the structural
    imbalance. I think the Mayor is absolutely right in the sense
    of analyzing debt. If you have got a lot of debt because you
    are overspending your operating budgets, then that could be
    very detrimental not only in the short term, but in the long
    term. But if your debt is high because you are making wise
    investments in infrastructure and future and capital
    improvements, then that is a whole other issue. So, it is not
    just the amount of debt, but the purposes for which the debt is
    being entered into, and I think we are in a positive trend
    line.
        I want to say on the record that although we do not have a
    date yet, it is the intention of this chair and our committee
    to hold a several-hour hearing on the structural imbalances
    issue. Both the Mayor and the chairman of the council have
    requested that. I have agreed to that. Our members are
    interested, but we are waiting for a report that GAO is
    currently working on that they indicate will have some
    preliminary findings in the fall. So, we really hope to address
    that issue because there are some questions that are being
    raised and potentially some solutions to that for the long term
    for the District.

                               SPECIAL EDUCATION

        I have one more question on education, and then I am going
    to turn it over to Senator Hutchison. To either the Mayor or to
    the president of the council, can you talk a little bit more
    about the special education challenge? Spending 30 percent of
    the overall budget for 16 percent of the children is very
    problematic. Having a special education budget--I would not say
    out of control, but there is not the kind of framework in place
    that gives me confidence that we are going to be moving in a
    positive direction in this. And I will say that all
    jurisdictions are struggling with this, including the Federal
    Government itself with our rules and regulations regarding
    special ed.
        But it seems to me that the District has more children in
    private schools, and I do not support widespread vouchers, but
    I am having a hard time understanding the difference between
    vouchers for special education and general vouchers because,
    generally, you have a system of vouchers to me in the District.
    In other words, if you cannot get the services in a public
    school, you basically give a child a voucher to go to a private
    school to get educated. 2,500 children currently, if my number
    is correct.
        So, Mr. Mayor, you may want to comment about that, because
    we would like to try to help if we can. Both Senator Hutchison
    and I are very interested in trying to contain these costs and
    help develop a system that is fair to the children and the
    families but also fair to the taxpayer. If you all could just
    give a little more testimony about our plans for reform.
        Senator Hutchison. Could I add something?
        Senator Landrieu. Let the Senator respond.
        Senator Hutchison. Before you answer, I would like to
    intervene because that was a line of questioning I also was
    going to pursue. If I add my question to Senator Landrieu's
    comments, I think you can answer them all at once.
        Not only is there a high level of private school usage, but
    apparently it has been abused by one law firm that also has an
    interest in private schools and diagnostic testing. There has
    been over $9 million in abuse paid to this one law firm in a
    round robin way by the law firm being legal adviser, giving
    diagnostic tests and sending students to a private school in
    which the firm has an interest. Therefore, please speak to the
    general point, the abuses that have been reported and what you
    will be doing about then.
        Mr. Williams. I think the public schools have shown in the
    past a limited capacity to provide services to the most
    disabled students on a local basis. So, as a result, these
    students are being placed by court order in out-of-town
    schools. You have got expensive transportation costs, expensive
    tuition. Sometimes you have got cases of thousands of dollars
    being spent on transportation. You could almost rent a car for
    a student and family for lower than you are paying for
    transportation. A huge amount for out-of-state tuition.
        The one issue where the schools have done a good job of
    addressing a problem has actually made the problem worse, and
    that is 2 years ago we had a huge backlog of students who had
    not been properly assessed for special education placement. So,
    the schools diligently went at assessing these students, and in
    fixing this problem, as a result, out-of-state and overall
    costs have mushroomed. So, this now presents a dangerous drain
    on resources to the schools and hence a dangerous drain on
    resources for the city as a whole.
        What the Mayor and council have agreed to jointly do is,
    initially by Mayor's order and now by legislation, to create,
    chaired by this Mayor and the Chair of the council's Education
    Committee, a special education task force. The special
    education task force's job will be to do what we have done in
    receiverships across the government. We have now moved, with
    the exception of special education, if you want to call it
    semi-receivership, all of our receiverships back into the
    government because we have satisfied judges, masters,
    advocates, stakeholders, and everybody else that the District
    can now responsibly meet all of these responsibilities, all
    these requirements and objectives.
        We want to do the same thing in special education and
    harness our private sector, our nongovernmental organizations,
    all the District's agencies with the goal of building and
    bringing more special education within the city to the maximum
    extent possible, within the District, doing what we can to
    reengineer and revitalize systems so that we reduce
    transportation costs, and in all of this, find a way to--and I
    believe this is the ultimate challenge here--reduce the need
    for litigation in the first place by changing the process of
    assessment because right now we have, I think, something like
    10 times fewer people than Chicago and 10 times more
    litigation. So, we clearly are going off on the wrong track.
    When you have, I think, a process that invites litigation and
    in and of itself triggers litigation, then the lifting of the
    attorney's fees cap is going to have the result that we all
    expect it is going to have, which is a mushroomed cost. But I
    guess the point I am making is it is not necessarily attorney's
    fees in and of themselves; it is the amount of litigation that
    we engender in the process that we have.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, two things. Let me comment about
    the fee cap, and I do not want to take too much time on this.
    But also, I would like you to try to answer a little bit more
    specifically about this particular question of Senator
    Hutchison about the particular law firm, the system. Has that
    been addressed? Is it going to be addressed, et cetera?
        But I am glad, Mayor, that you mentioned that while the fee
    cap might have some bearing, the system of how children are
    designated, first of all, to be special ed children, the
    responsibility that each individual school in the District
    considers their responsibility to take care of the special ed
    children within their district, limiting out-of-city placement,
    and limiting private school placement, as well as getting a
    handle on the system that Senator Hutchison--I think is a
    combination of things that will help us to get this under
    control. And if we do not, it may upset the financial balance
    of the school system and then directly the city's good
    financial trend line.
        So, Chairman Cropp, can you add something to that?
        Ms. Cropp. I just want to add. You both have mentioned the
    out-of-state placement. It is to the point where it is almost
    ridiculous where we have had to pay $80,000 for one student.
        One of the things that is happening is we are looking at
    our charter schools, and our charter schools are starting to be
    able to provide the type of services that we have been
    utilizing out-of-state placement for. So, we hope to see the
    cost reduced by that.
        Additionally, the executive branch has successfully
    negotiated a new contract with our teachers that will change
    the hours of school enrollment that will help to ease the
    transportation problem and the costs with that.
        One of the things that the Federal Government can help
    with--and I would suspect it is not just a problem in the
    District, but across the country. We are required in the
    District, for example, with transportation to put one child on
    one large school bus, and I want to put emphasis on that. We
    will move one child in a school bus instead of a car, instead
    of a van. And as I understand it, it is because of laws that
    are in existence. Our transportation cost has really been
    somewhat overwhelming, and we would like to work with you all
    on that as we look at trying to address this particular issue.
    I think all of us are interested in the safety of our children,
    and it is a safety issue I understand. And all of us,
    obviously, are interested in the safety of our children, but I
    think that we can probably find a better approach for us to
    deal with that.
        Senator Landrieu. Dr. Friedman?
        Dr. Friedman. Just a couple of more factual comments. One
    thing that happened in fiscal year 2001 was that there was a
    large caseload of applications for special education that kind
    of got worked through and cleared out so that some of the
    increases that we have seen lately is a response to the fact
    that the caseloads are not so backlogged anymore.
        The second is that one of the problems in the 2003 budget
    is that we have had to reduce the estimate of how much revenue
    would be recovered from Medicaid, for expenses on Medicaid-like
    expenditures in the public schools. So, there is a $27 million
    increase in local expenditures that we hope eventually can be
    filled with Medicaid revenue.

                  REPRESENTATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

        Senator Landrieu. I have just got to get something on the
    record in response to the question about the system of the same
    company doing the evaluation, the placement, and then running
    the ultimate schools. Has any action been taken? Do you plan to
    take any action, or is it something that you endorse? I mean,
    you either like the system and you endorse it or you think that
    there have to be some changes, and I just need to get something
    on the record.
        Mr. Williams. My understanding is that the Board of
    Education is in the process of creating new regulations
    regarding the relationship of attorneys to recipient
    organizations and clients to try to break up that triangle that
    has been identified in the question and in the earlier article.
        Ms. Cropp. Let me say that, no, I do not like the system. I
    do not think the city likes the system, and we will make sure
    that it changes. It is something that leads someone to try to
    get more money out of this city than is necessary. So, it is
    our expectation that we will see a change there.

                         DEVELOPMENT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

        Senator Landrieu. And a question on the charter schools,
    and then I will turn it over to Senator Hutchison. I am glad to
    hear you say, Ms. Cropp, that the charter schools could
    potentially be part of the solution to our special ed
    challenges and part of the solution to try to bring renewal and
    renaissance and reform as a catalyst for change to our whole
    public school system. As you know, because you have attended
    many of these hearings, I am a very strong supporter and have
    encouraged you all and commented about the job you seem to be
    doing and being open to charter schools.
        But what are you planning as the City Council Chair, or the
    Mayor may want to comment--about supporting the need for
    charter schools to have some capital funds so that they can
    create the kind of physical facilities necessary to carry out
    their mission and also be helpful with special ed students
    which then becomes particularly challenging to try to have the
    physical facilities to care for student, as well as students
    with disabilities, some of whom are physically challenged? So
    there are expenses associated with those kinds of facilities.
    Mr. Mayor?
        Mr. Williams. First of all, in terms of space for the
    schools, we had 38 surplus schools. More than half of them went
    to immediate use of education facilities, and around a dozen
    went to charter schools. Of those schools that were identified
    for other public uses, to the extent that those programs are
    not moving as fast as we would like, we are also identifying
    some of that space for our charter schools. So, we are more
    than open to giving our public space to charter schools on an
    accelerated basis, full funding over the last couple of years
    for charter schools. So, they do not have that to worry about.
        The City Council and I have worked together to create
    something called the Charter School Credit Enhancement Fund,
    which is a fancy way of saying giving them the resources to get
    additional facilities. We have added $5 million in local money
    to that, and I stand willing to go to the council for further
    modifications, additional money as the case may be.
        A final point and the chair can talk about this. I give her
    credit for pushing the whole notion of collocation of our
    regular public schools and the charter schools because while we
    have been providing a lot of outside of regular public school
    space for the charter schools and while we have provided full
    funding now for the charter schools--and we are happy to say
    that--we have also maintained the regular funding for the
    original public schools and the regular space for the original
    public schools, even though 10,000 students have left. So,
    clearly there has to be an accommodation with the regular
    public schools budget, and I will let the chair continue on
    that line.
        Ms. Cropp. Senator, the idea is that we have a vacancy rate
    in our existing traditional public schools. The charter schools
    are looking for space. We have an obligation to help with the
    facilities of the charter schools. They ought to be able to
    collocate in buildings where there is a vacancy. It will do a
    couple of things. It will save money from having to spend it on
    new facilities for the charter schools. It would help us use
    those dollars to help renovate and update the existing school
    building for usage by the charter school and the traditional
    public school.
        The Mayor and the council are on the same page with that.
    We have had council hearings about it. We have talked to the
    charter schools and the public schools about it, and hopefully
    we will see that really swinging into effect in the very near
    future.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Senator Hutchison?

            REFORM OF SYSTEM REPRESENTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mayor Williams, I just want to go back one more time to the
    line of questioning that Senator Landrieu was pursuing and ask
    you if you are also committed to stopping the reported abuses
    of the law firm-diagnostic-private school nexus.
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely. In supporting of the board in its
    effort to pursue new regs, bringing in the IG as necessary to
    do the necessary investigations, and with the task force that
    we have created by law, we have now got across the government
    the plenary authority to go in and make changes where we have
    to make changes to prevent these abuses from happening in the
    future.
        Senator Hutchison. Do you think putting some kind of
    reasonable cap on attorney's fees would be a step back in the
    right direction. We had the caps and it lowered the cost of
    attorney's fees. According to a GAO report the caps did not
    make much of a difference, but the report only analyzed 99
    payments that resulted from court judgements, while there were
    more than 5,800 payments paid to attorney. Of the $13 million
    paid in lawyer's fees by the District for special education
    cases, only $3 million, resulted from the 99 cases court
    judgments. Therefore, it seems that the lack of caps could
    cause the attorney's fees to go back up from the more
    reasonable levels that we had last year before.
        Do you have any suggestions on a way to handle this without
    jeopardizing a right to be represented while at the same time
    establishing some reasonable limit?
        Mr. Williams. Well, you know we originally supported a
    reasonable cap on fees. When that really was not effectively
    working, we are now looking for another strategy to try to
    streamline and make more efficient--and you are absolutely
    right--the administrative process, clean up and make more
    efficient the assessment process in general so we do not spawn
    and engender all the litigation and all the disputes that I
    think are driving these fees in the first place. I think that
    is the way to go about it in a way that gets the buy-in and the
    stakeholdership of all the different parties.
        The problem we had with pursuing the original strategy of
    simply curtailing attorney's fees was not proving workable in
    my mind because it did not have the buy-in and stakeholdership
    of all the different groups, the council, the plaintiffs'
    lawyers involved, the advocates, and everybody else. I am just
    trying to find something that is workable and gets to the
    fundamental issues involved. And I think it is cleaning up the
    administrative process, cleaning up the basic issues that are
    driving the disputes and the litigation.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, perhaps that will work and perhaps
    taking away the incentives for the abuse that has led some law
    firms to have reportedly received inordinate fees, but you just
    cannot argue with the numbers of what is going into attorneys'
    pockets versus getting the job done of educating the children
    with special needs in the District. I would like some
    substantive proposals because I just cannot, in good
    conscience, sit here and let the District spend $13 million
    when previously it was handling these on a much more regular
    basis. So, I am open but I am looking for answers.

                             BUDGET RESERVE POLICY

        The second question is back to the budget. I wanted to,
    first of all, say I appreciate how diligent all of you have
    been--Mayor, your leadership, Mrs. Cropp, your leadership, and
    certainly the Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Gandhi--in
    establishing these reserves. The one thing that happened this
    year is that some of the reserves were spent, and you will have
    to spend about $45 million to come back up to the $70 million
    that is required under our agreement under the budget for 2003.
    So, it is about $45 million, as I understand it, because the
    budget reserve is currently at $25 million, and by 2003 you
    need $70 million.
        So, is that in the budget and do you expect that you will
    be able to do that?
        Dr. Friedman. The answer is yes. The full $70 million is
    budgeted in the new budget for 2003.
        Senator Hutchison. And plus, you are ahead of schedule on
    the other reserves, which I think is just fabulous.
        Let me just ask you one other question and that is back to
    your answer----
        Mr. Williams. See, Senator, that is where I think it is
    really patently unfair. Here we are, as you know as a former
    treasurer, we have one of the most outstanding cash reserves
    now in the country, but we do not have the bond rating to show
    for it. I think it is really unfair.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that you are on the road.
    Do not be faint-hearted because I think your bond rating is
    going to go up and I think the elements that Dr. Friedman
    mentioned are there. The leadership is there. The reserves are
    very clearly there, and that is the main thing that they look
    at and on which they have complimented you.

                     DEBT AND CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

        So, the one outstanding issue, it seems to me, is the
    amount of debt per capita. Mayor I wanted to clarify what you
    said in the tobacco securitization fund when you said you were
    going to spend that money on health care costs. Is that in lieu
    of paying down debt or is that in addition to it?
        Mr. Williams. The securitization of debt using the stream
    of tobacco payments has happened, and so what we are talking
    about are the proceeds from that pay-down of a huge amount of
    debt. And I am proud the Mayor and the council came together to
    do that. What we are talking about is temporarily suspending
    another aggressive program that the Mayor and the council have
    launch, which is to take half of the tobacco stream, the
    proceeds freed up from the pay-down of debt, and half of that,
    in turn, put into a rainy day fund. This is on top of the 7
    percent of cash reserve on top of the budget reserve. So, we
    are extremely fiscally prudent, and we are saying up until the
    period of 2005, temporarily use funds to help Medicaid and
    special education get on their feet, with the recognition that
    special education and Medicaid have to give back to the
    government a total of $50 million.
        Senator Hutchison. But you will be paying down long-term
    debt, the half of it.
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely.
        Senator Hutchison. As you originally had intended.
        Mr. Williams. Absolutely.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, as that occurs, do you think it is
    going to show with the rating agencies? I know your long-term
    debt has been quite expensive, and I know you are paying that
    off first. Is that on course? Do you see that debt per capita
    coming down in the next 2 years?
        Dr. Friedman. Well, we have brought the debt down by more
    than $500 million through the securitization process, and then
    in the secondary process of the savings on that and allocation
    of those savings, we will have a further impact on the amount
    that we have to borrow. We do have the capital improvement
    program facing us, but as part of the 2003 capital improvement
    budget, there was a scrub basically that reduced $230 million
    of prior projects. So, we brought that baseline down another
    $230 million.
        In addition, in this budget--and Mrs. Cropp should speak to
    this issue--there is a PAY-GO option. I believe it is budgeted
    for $16 million.
        So, all of these things are coming together to maintain
    this downward pressure on the amount of debt per capita that we
    carry.
        Ms. Cropp. Senator, with regard to our capital budget, over
    the past 2 years, the District has really gone through a
    revolutionary process where we have truly reduced the amount of
    money that we were borrowing. In fact, what we would do, if a
    project was not ready to really move off, we would remove that
    project, put it closer to the end of the line and move up a
    project that was there rather than to keep borrowing all the
    dollars.
        I think the bond market is very pleased with regard to the
    PAY-GO capital line that we have. It is $16 million with the
    potential of going up to $22 million for this budget season. As
    I said, it allows us to fix projects in the city, but we do not
    go and borrow the dollars. So, that is something that is
    exceptionally good.
        In addition, there are still some tobacco dollars too that
    we have not spent.
        Senator Hutchison. I think what you have done in that
    regard is excellent, and I applaud you. Every city in this
    country is facing problems because of the economy. So, I think
    you are doing very well in this climate.
        Let me just ask one last question of Dr. Friedman. Is long-
    term debt--or whatever is the most expensive debt that is on
    the books--are you in your office trying to replace that with
    the shorter-term, lower interest costs?
        Dr. Friedman. We have been through a process of doing some
    refundings, and I need to actually get information from behind
    me. But I believe we are in the process of evaluating
    refundings for 2003.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, it is wonderful not to borrow
    more, and I would like for you to answer this in writing when
    Dr. Gandhi comes back. But I hope that part of this program
    includes a restructuring, assuming that the numbers work, by
    replacing long-term expensive debt with less expensive short-
    term funding--I hope that is part of the process because it
    seems that everything else is going in the right direction. The
    budgeting process, the reserves, holding the line on spending;
    those all seem to be going in the right direction, but you need
    to make sure that on the financial side you are doing favorable
    restructuring.
        [The information follows:]

                          Letter From Natwar M. Gandhi

                Government of the District of Columbia,
                         Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
                                         Washington, DC, June 18, 2002.
    Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Hutchison: At the Subcommittee's June 11 hearing on
    the fiscal year 2003 budget request of the District of Columbia, you
    requested information on the District's long-term debt structure. This
    letter provides that information.
        Over the past several years, the District's Office of Finance and
    Treasury (OFT), in conjunction with its financial advisors, has been
    constantly monitoring and evaluating its debt structure and the
    composition of its debt portfolio. The District has been taking
    appropriate actions to optimize its debt profile, given the level of
    its capital.needs and the constraints within which it must function.
        In this regard, several accomplishments are noteworthy.
        The District executed a debt restructuring in fiscal year 1999,
    which took the District's debt profile from one that was heavily
    ``front-loaded'' (a disproportionate amount payable in the near-term,
    putting a strain on the budget) to a structure that was in line with
    rating agency benchmarks and industry standards regarding debt
    amortization.
        The District has used innovative (yet not excessively risky)
    financing structures and techniques to produce lower debt service
    costs. This includes the use of variable-rate demand bonds and
    interest-rate swaps, resulting in lower interest rates, and therefore
    debt service savings, for the District.
        District financial officials continually monitor the District's
    outstanding debt for opportunities to refinance, its debt at lower
    interest rates to produce savings. The District has executed several
    debt refinancings between fiscal year 1997 and the present, in order to
    replace higher-cost debt with lower-cost debt. These transactions have
    resulted in over $25 million of present-value savings to the District
    in debt service costs.
        The District intends to execute another refinancing transaction
    this year on its outstanding Certificates of Participation, in order to
    produce additional savings.
        The District will continue to actively monitor and evaluate its
    outstanding debt, and take appropriate actions to obtain and maintain
    an optimal debt profile.
        I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further
    concerns, please contact me on 727-2476.
                Sincerely,
                                              Natwar M. Gandhi,
                                               Chief Financial Officer.

        Dr. Friedman. I will turn the mike over to the chairman in
    just a minute. One of the things we have been very conscious of
    with the tobacco money and our whole debt management strategy
    in the last several years is spreading out the debt. I know you
    were familiar with this enormous sort of mountain of debt that
    we faced in the near term about 10 or 14 years out. The
    District's strategy has been to try to reduce the debt,
    particularly in that time period so that the debt service
    burden is not so large in the very near term.
        I think that strategy has been working very well. If you
    could see the chart that shows the time distribution of the
    debt, it is much flatter, and we have accomplished really a
    piece of that goal, and that continues to be the goal.
        I know one of the things we are doing now is seeking more
    variable rate debt so that we can take advantage of the lower
    interest rate options kind of automatically as they come along
    as well.
        Ms. Cropp. There is one thing and it is with regard to the
    cash reserve. That would be possibly $240 million. It seems to
    me that the city ought to have an opportunity for those dollars
    for us to have maybe three levels of investment for those
    dollars so that we can get a good return, for you to have that
    much cash somewhere in a safe, somewhat conservative form of
    investment. We ought to be able to do it. If you look at our
    worst time in the past, I guess, few years, we have had to
    spend maybe $120 million with D.C. General where we needed to
    come up with an awful lot of money. If you look at that, I do
    not think we will have anything where we would again have to
    spend that much.
        We ought to be able to divide our cash reserves some way,
    maybe in a three-tier type program where the first tier will be
    something that will be in the Mayor's drawer, and if we need it
    on an emergency basis, he can open up the drawer and pull it
    out. Obviously, the return would be very short. But we ought to
    be able to invest it where it will be a little harder to get
    the money, but we should be able to get it if we need it. And
    then the third tier, harder term.
        Our problem is that as we looked at how we could do that
    investment, at some point based on investments, we may not have
    the 7 percent, and we would like to be able to work with you
    all so that we could get the best return on that much money.
        Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. There are a couple of
    solutions that we can work with you on. And they are not
    difficult because many cities and States have these--in
    Louisiana we have a Louisiana asset management program which we
    actually started for all of our cities. It is a pooled
    investment strategy where cities can get a very high or higher
    rate of return than they normally would with having deposits in
    a more traditional fashion. But the money is readily usable and
    available. So, why do we not direct the staffs to come up with
    some specifics and we will work with you on that. I think that
    we can solve that problem.
        Let me just go to three things quickly, and I would like to
    start with the second panel in about 5 minutes.
        But, Mr. Mayor, one of the great challenges before us with
    you right now is protecting the city from future terrorist
    attacks and from dealing with the consequences, should they
    occur. Right after September 11, we invested as a Congress over
    $200 million to help increase the security of the District,
    recognizing that this is a very target-rich place. Because of
    that, because this is the Nation's capital, the city has
    additional responsibilities. All cities have to heighten their
    security, but the District has some challenges.
        However, I was concerned when I read recently about an
    incident that occurred in Metro where a man suffered a heart
    attack and because of some communication breakdown, we were
    unable to provide him the kind of immediate assistance
    necessary. It had to do with the new radios that we provided
    funding for, but yet we did not have the kind of antennas
    necessary between the city and Metro.
        So, Mr. Mayor, could you address that? We hope that has
    been fixed. If not, how are we going to fix it? Because it is a
    little bit discouraging to continue to fund new radios, new
    equipment, new systems and then to have something like this
    happen that causes us to wonder if we are getting it right.
        Mr. Williams. In order to give you a complete and thorough
    answer, could I ask our Deputy Mayor to respond on that
    particular instance?
        Senator Landrieu. Yes.
        Ms. Kellems. Good afternoon. I am Margaret Kellems, the
    Deputy Mayor for Public Safety.
        That was a disturbing incident we had there, and we have
    worked very closely with WMATA, the Metro Authority, that
    actually has jurisdiction.
        To make a very long story short, you all were kind enough
    to give this city a significant amount of money, $156 million
    approximately, for emergency preparedness. About $46 million of
    that was to fix, among other things, the radio system, the
    communication system, for first responders. WMATA, the Transit
    Authority, actually got a separate pot of money as well.
        The technical issues aside, essentially you need
    communication systems inside the tunnels and above ground. And
    we are working very closely with WMATA and have struck a deal
    that this city is making the investment for the above ground
    infrastructure and WMATA is making the investment for the
    infrastructure needed inside the tunnels. In the meantime, we
    are working through some operational short-term fixes so that
    we do not have this problem again.
        The bottom line is communication systems have a very hard
    time operating underground in any city.
        Senator Landrieu. But a couple questions. Are we convinced
    that the plan we have now can be implemented, and when it is
    implemented, can the taxpayers expect basically full coverage
    underground and above ground? Or are we going to be somewhat
    limited no matter what we do?
        Ms. Kellems. Well, we will have 100 percent coverage but it
    will not necessarily be from the infrastructure investment. We
    are hoping to get very, very close to 100 percent, but there
    will always be some very, very limited circumstances where the
    infrastructure is not going to be the solution. In other words,
    you will have to have some kind of interim solution for very
    certain limited circumstances.
        In Washington, because of height limitations, we build down
    very deep into the ground and it is difficult, if not
    impossible to get radio signals. The example we always use is
    the communications. There is a cellular carrier here that has
    more than 100 antennas throughout Washington and they do not
    have coverage everywhere. It becomes at some point impossible.
        Our goal is to have 100 percent communication even if only
    98 percent of it is from the infrastructure of the antennas
    that we are putting into place, and 2 percent has to be
    augmented with other systems.
        Senator Landrieu. In terms of the time frame, when do you
    estimate that coverage will be completed, antennas up,
    infrastructure in, so we can count on a pretty good system of
    security and communication between Metro and the city?
        Ms. Kellems. Well, with the Metro system, we are hoping to
    do this very expeditiously. There is a plan in place and they
    are looking to build it out. I am going to get back to you with
    a very definitive answer, but I would say it is probably in 6
    to 9 months. For the rest of the city, for the rest of the
    internal into the buildings, we are looking at about 16 months
    right now.
        In the meantime, this is incremental. It is not sort of
    nothing is going to happen and 16 months from now we flip the
    switch. The incremental improvements are being made as we go
    along right now with things like vehicle repeater systems and
    mobile communications devices that we can dramatically improve
    the communications as we go along.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you for that information.
        Two more questions quickly, both to the Mayor and Mrs.
    Cropp. One of the great challenges before the city is reform of
    the child welfare system. I understand in your budget the Mayor
    has proposed and the city council has approved an increase.
    There are going to be an additional, I think, 82 positions. How
    many of those positions are social workers? Could you both give
    maybe a minute-and-a-half comment about how you see the child
    welfare reforms developing, what you are pleased with, what you
    still see are problem areas? And how many of these new
    positions are actually going to be social workers? And can you
    comment as to what the caseload will then be decreased to,
    which is one of the main problems of an efficient system having
    too few social workers, too many cases, and not enough
    attention per child or per family?
        Ms. Cropp. Our rate of social workers coming on and off I
    think has been much too swift. The District in the past,
    because it wanted to do things a little better, had some
    outdated things with regard to some of our social workers. I
    would like to see us move into somewhat of a tier case having
    social workers with a master's degree and then also having some
    social workers with a bachelor's degree to help out.
        We have to do a better job I think on hiring, bringing
    people in and attracting our social workers to come in. That is
    one of the areas where I think you will see the Mayor and
    council working together on it. It is one of those problem
    areas, as we come out of receivership, that we are going to
    concentrate on.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor?
        Mr. Williams. June 15 marks the 1-year anniversary of the
    termination of Federal Court receivership for child and family
    services. Two things that I am particularly proud of is, one,
    bringing in Olivia Golden as the director of this agency. I do
    not think you could find a better director in the country than
    Olivia Golden with just a national standing, working for Marion
    Wright Edelman, national standing working for Donna Shalala,
    just a huge background to bring to this job.
        Second, working with Sandy Allen, the Chair of the
    council's Human Services Committee and the council to do
    something that is sometimes unusual for public organizations to
    do, and that is fully fund child and family services agencies.
    As you know, there is no lobby for the child and family
    services agency. There is no one standing outside your door
    saying fully fund this agency. You get a lot of brickbats and
    abuse for funding an agency that has had, because it was in
    receivership, a lot of problems. That is why it was in
    receivership. But to fully fund that organization and to allow
    it to meet its responsibilities I think takes us a long way.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $224 million. It is
    the first budget developed for the agency as a new cabinet
    level agency for the District with new responsibilities for
    abuse and neglect, licensing and monitoring of foster homes and
    group homes, as well as for personnel and procurement
    authority. It is the first budget that reflects a full child
    welfare reform enacted by the District in April 2001.
        And I can get you the figures as to how this budget is
    broken down between social workers--we are getting it right
    here. New positions, 28 social workers transfer from court
    services, 40 brand new positions, for a total of 68. And our
    goal is 340 social workers next year to get close to the
    mandated ratio. So, we are actually making substantial progress
    now in meeting that objective.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, let me commend you for the
    leadership that you brought in because I have a great deal of
    confidence in this leadership team and have met with them on
    several occasions. And we will try to keep a close relationship
    because, Mr. Mayor, as you know, this is an issue of great
    importance to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in
    both the Senate and the House. We have invested as a Congress a
    considerable amount of money, almost $30 million in a new
    family court system, and will continue. That will only work if
    the city's half of that effort is conducted in a professional
    and efficient way.
        And I really want to commend you and tell you please do not
    hesitate to ask for resources that are necessary, not to say
    that we could meet every request, but we want to truly be a
    partner in creating a model child welfare system in this
    community.
        The same way you have a very desperate shortage of
    teachers, we have to think of new ways of recruiting teachers,
    new ways of compensating teachers, new ways of thinking outside
    of the box of certifying teachers. I think the same thing is
    going to start happening with social workers because, Chairman
    Cropp, our turnover rate is too high. So, we have to think of
    getting different kinds of people involved that can do the
    work, maybe not have the traditional certifications, but do
    have the skills, do have the motivation, and do have the
    ability to help our families and our children through some very
    difficult crises. So, I challenge you all to think about that.
        Let me say I am sorry I have got to bring this to an end
    and begin our second panel because, Mayor, I know your time is
    limited. I am going to have to stop this hearing actually in 20
    minutes. I want to thank this panel for their time.

                        ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE

        Would the second panel please come forward: Mayor Williams,
    Mr. Andrew Altman, who is Director of the Office of Planning
    for the Anacostia Waterfront, and Mr. Jerry Johnson, General
    Manager. We will not take a break, if you do not mind, and just
    continue to try to work through. Thank you all very much.
        Could we start with the PowerPoint presentation I
    understand that you all have? And let us go ahead and get that
    started because I really think it would be important for us to
    see this presentation and then have at least 10 minutes for
    questions and comments. Are we ready to begin? No, not yet?
        Let us start with you, Mr. Mayor, while they are getting
    ready. Do you want to make some opening remarks? I know that
    you and I share a passion for this initiative, and let me just
    begin by thanking you and complimenting you. It is just a
    wonderful project for the city and this region, and we are
    looking forward to the presentation today.
        Mr. Williams. Well, Chairman Landrieu, I am speaking to a
    partner in our effort for the Anacostia Waterfront initiative.
    So, I have submitted written testimony which really reiterates
    something that you well know and other Members of Congress
    know, our partners, about the need to restore this river and
    the need to focus on our Anacostia River not only to bring the
    District's waterfront to where it should be for a great city,
    but also to use the Anacostia waterfront and surrounding
    neighborhoods as a way to tie our city together recreationally,
    culturally, commercially, and environmentally.
        There have been some notable successes in bringing this
    river back, a river with such glorious history, Frederick
    Douglass and the Navy. You are well aware of some of the
    initial successes from the work on the river walk to the
    investments of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
    to the investment of NAVSEA and the expansion of the Navy Yard,
    partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, the partnership,
    for that matter, with Congressman Steny Hoyer enlisting support
    in the Congress to relook and rethink about South Capitol
    Street as a major gateway into our Nation's capital. It is
    certainly a major gateway right now, as you well know, as you
    cross the Frederick Douglass Bridge.
        So, while we have a lot to speak to in terms of
    accomplishments, there is still a need for major public
    investment and I think chief among those investments--and I am
    glad that Jerry Johnson is here who is the Executive Director
    of the Water and Sewer Authority--certainly initially is to get
    control of combined sewage overflow into the Anacostia. It
    makes it one of the dirtiest rivers in the country.
        Certainly another initial investment--and we want to thank
    you for your support on it--is looking at the whole area around
    Kenilworth Park and seeing what we can do to make it a major
    investment in the short term to provide more recreation for our
    children and families, and do it in such a way that in the long
    term it supports the District's efforts to be a site of the
    2012 Olympic bid.
        With that, I think the PowerPoint is just about ready, but
    I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership and
    partnership with us on what I think will be a legacy project
    for all of us, 20, 30, 40 years down the road and something we
    can all be proud of.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Mayor Anthony A. Williams
                        anacostia waterfront initiative
        Chairman Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about
    the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. We have achieved our first
    successes, and yet much remains to be done to restore the Anacostia
    River and recover its shoreline for the people of the District of
    Columbia and the nation.
        We face a historic opportunity in the District of Columbia--
    virtually unmatched in scale by any other American city--to transform
    upwards of 900 acres of a neglected, abused river corridor into a model
    of 21st century urban life. A network of neighborhoods and parks that
    are socially diverse and vital can be made environmentally and
    economically sustainable for future generations.
        Conventional wisdom tells us that Washington lies along the
    Potomac, but this is just half of the story. The Anacostia--the
    District's other river--comprises more than two-thirds of our city's
    total linear shoreline. The Anacostia is the District's--perhaps even
    the nation's--most undervalued natural resource.
                   history and the current state of the river
        The Anacostia has played a critical role in our city's history.
    Early settlers were drawn to its natural riches. With the establishment
    of the capital city, it became the location for our nation's oldest
    Navy Yard, which was surrounded by bustling market places and working
    harbors. Freed slaves found footholds in waterfront neighborhoods,
    particularly on its eastern shores.
        However, the Anacostia has been in a state of environmental decline
    for centuries. By the time of the Civil War, the river had been silted-
    in by deforestation and careless agriculture. The deep-water port of
    Bladensburg was no longer navigable by ocean-going vessels. The
    development of armaments at the Navy Yard combined with other
    industrial uses introduced toxic wastes into its eco-system. The
    construction of Washington's combined sewer system has discharged
    sewage into the river for more than a century.
        In the 1920s, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    to fill in the river's tidal wetlands in pursuit of public health
    improvements and flood control. The resulting 1200 acres of parkland
    were placed under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
    but no significant investment has been made in the lands since that
    time. The National Park Service must also renew its commitment to
    stewardship of lands in its care.
        Increasingly, the Anacostia River is threatened by the phenomenon
    of non-point-source pollution--the run-off carrying pollutants from our
    parking lots and streets. Post-war suburbanization of the river's
    watershed has resulted in the most densely populated sub-watershed in
    the entire Chesapeake Bay. With 80 percent of the river's watershed
    located in Maryland, this is a regional environmental crisis.
        Today, 70 percent of the watershed has been urbanized. Less than a
    quarter of the original forest cover remains. In addition to upstream
    pollution, the District's sewer system still releases sewage into the
    river when the storm sewer system is overwhelmed by heavy rains. The
    Anacostia is one of the Chesapeake's three most polluted rivers.
                                need for action
        I like to take visitors up to St. Elizabeths for the breathtaking
    view of the District and the Anacostia River that runs through it. For
    too long, the river has symbolically divided our city into rich and
    poor neighborhoods. Nothing would better symbolize our aspirations and
    our success in revitalizing our city than to restore the river and its
    waterfront.
        As one of the District's most unique assets, we must capitalize on
    what the Anacostia can offer us. We can unify and revitalize diverse
    waterfront neighborhoods by introducing new parks, housing, and
    commerce.
        Currently, more than 90 percent of the river's immediate shoreline
    is in public ownership, with the National Park Service, the Navy
    Department, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the District
    the major landowners. The waterfront revitalization effort necessitates
    a broad-based, coordinated effort between the District and the federal
    government.
        In March 2000, I brought all the parties together that own or
    control the land along the Anacostia. The resulting Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by
    the District of Columbia and more than 18 federal agencies.
        I believe that this is one of the most important partnerships
    between the District and the federal government.
                                accomplishments
        As a result of this new and unprecedented level of coordination,
    the Anacostia partnership has begun to produce results. Just to mention
    a few:
        The consolidation of the NAVSEA division to the Washington Navy
    Yard as part of the base realignment process has proven to be powerful
    driver for the Near Southeast neighborhood. The Navy has invested more
    than $200 million into renovating its historic structures, which now
    includes more than 10,000 personnel. Once again, the Navy Yard is an
    important economic engine for Southeast Washington.
        The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
    awarded the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) a $35 million
    HOPE VI grant to transform distressed public housing only five blocks
    away from the Capitol building. This action is historic in two
    respects. First, it is the highest leveraged grant in the history of
    the HOPE VI program, inducing more than $350 million of public and
    private investment. Secondly, the project has guaranteed one-to-one
    replacement of public housing units. This development will go a long
    way to realizing our vision of a mixed-use and mixed-income waterfront
    neighborhood in the Near Southeast.
        A partnership that includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
    District, and the National Park Service has led to the restoration of
    42 acres of wetlands on Kingman Lake, one of the islands in the
    Anacostia. Habitat restoration work is also underway on Kingman Island,
    after the title was transferred to the District in December 2000. These
    projects foreshadow the large-scale environmental restoration projects
    necessary to reconstruct the river's riparian systems.
                           need for public investment
        A river that was once a national embarrassment will one day become
    a national treasure. However, there is a need for continued public
    investment in the river and its neighborhoods, if we are to achieve our
    shared vision:
        To fish and swim in the Anacostia within our lifetime, it is
    imperative that the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's
    Long-Term Control Plan be implemented. Implementing this plan will
    control sewer overflows, one of the Anacostia's major sources of
    pollution.
        To safely stroll and bicycle along the shoreline, it is imperative
    that the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail provide more than 18 miles of
    continuous paths. More than any other project, the Riverwalk will
    connect divided neighborhoods to each other and give people access to
    the river. The project has already received $1.3 million for planning
    and three demonstration segments will be constructed this coming
    summer.
        To engage in waterfront activities and enjoy the Anacostia's
    natural splendor, it is imperative that a system of great parks is
    constructed along its shores. New signature parks and plazas should be
    constructed in Southwest, at the Southeast Federal Center and at Poplar
    Point. The Navy is leading the way with a newly constructed park
    nearing completion at the Navy Yard.
        In addition, the surrounding obsolete highways, bridges, and
    boulevards need to be redesigned and reconstructed in order to provide
    access to the waterfront. We are promoting multi-modal uses and civic
    design for all river crossings. We envision redesigning the city's
    principal avenues to the waterfront--Maine Avenue, South Capitol
    Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue--into pedestrian-friendly urban
    boulevards and gateways to the area's network of parks.
                                    endeavor
        Our shared vision for the Anacostia Waterfront is to transform the
    river from a dying artery into to a great civic heart--beating with
    vitality and life. It is a vision that promotes a sustainable balance
    of neighborhoods and the natural environment; that provides the
    amenities and infrastructure necessary to grow in the 21st century.
        The District and our federal partners are working closely on the
    Anacostia Waterfront Initiative framework plan, which is projected to
    be released this fall.
        Similar to the MacMillan Commission's vision for the National Mall
    in 1900, the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative will take many years to
    fully implement. I look forward to returning to this committee to brief
    you on the full outline of improvements proposed by the partnership's
    framework plan. I look forward to working with the Senate and the House
    to establish sustainable and regular appropriations to address this
    important investment in our city.
        This concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to
    bring this important initiative before the committee. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

        Senator Landrieu. We will go ahead while we are waiting.
    Mr. Altman.
    STATEMENT OF ANDREW ALTMAN, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING
        Mr. Altman. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Landrieu. What
    I am going to do today is to provide a very brief overview in
    light of the time on the PowerPoint.
        As the Mayor said, the Anacostia really is the future of
    the city and of 21st century Washington, of bringing together
    the east and west sides of the river and really being the
    center of Washington in its next stage of development. It is in
    many ways the unfinished business of both the MacMillan plan
    100 years ago, and we have a tremendous momentum now on the
    anniversary of that plan to really see it through to completion
    and transform the city. It truly is a legacy project.
        What makes this initiative I think so unique and so
    different from past efforts has been the leadership of the
    Mayor in bringing together all the Federal agencies. It is
    truly a partnership between over 18 Federal agencies. As you
    know, 90 percent of the land along the Anacostia is publicly
    owned. Over 70 percent is Federally owned. So, the initiative
    cannot be successful without a strong partnership and that is
    what the Mayor has brought together in the memorandum of
    understanding that has been signed by these agencies who all
    committed to focus on the Anacostia Waterfront as the major
    initiative moving forward for the city.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Andrew Altman
                                 the awi vision
        Few human endeavors are more rewarding than participating in the
    reversal of a long-standing, negligent course of action towards an
    environment--and reaping the benefits of the reversal of fortune for
    that environment. That is what lies ahead for the District of Columbia
    in relationship to the Anacostia River and its environs.
        The District faces a historic opportunity--virtually unmatched in
    scale in other American cities--to transform upwards of 900 acres of a
    long-neglected, indeed, abused, river corridor into a model of 21st
    century urban life--socially heterogeneous; culturally diverse and
    vital; environmentally and economically sustainable across generations.
        Implementing the vision outlined in the forthcoming Anacostia
    Waterfront Draft Framework Plan will mean that successive generations
    of 21st century Washingtonians will experience an enhanced quality of
    life made possible by a restored, reclaimed and well used river
    environment at their civic doorstep. A revitalized Anacostia waterfront
    will be key to the rediscovery of the city as a great place to live.
        It will mean reinvestment in, and stewardship of, a host of
    neighborhoods that have long bordered the Anacostia, but have had
    insufficient access to its assets.
        It will mean the creation of new neighborhoods, fulfilling the
    growing demand for additional urban housing and accompanying urban life
    styles sought by Americans interested in alternatives to the suburban
    experience.
        It will mean a generosity of public space and a substantial
    expansion of those indelible images of place that American's associate
    with their nation's capital.
        No longer to be the District's unheralded river, the Anacostia
    represents the natural next direction of both growth and renewal for
    the city itself. It must be wise growth and renewal. The Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative sets its sights on nothing less. Its foremost
    goal is the creation of a world-class urban waterfront cherished by the
    citizens of the District, and a symbol of renewed center-city urbanity
    for America.
                                what is the awi?
        The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative is an inter-agency partnership
    to create a vision for waterfront areas along the Anacostia River.
    Building on the great historic plans for the District of Columbia, the
    partnership envisions an energized waterfront for the next millennium
    that will unify diverse areas by capitalizing on one of the City's
    greatest natural assets, the Anacostia River. The Initiative seeks to
    revitalize waterfront neighborhoods, enhance and protect park areas,
    improve quality of water and environment, and where appropriate,
    increase access to activities along the waterfront.
                   the awi memorandum of understanding (mou)
        A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in March 2000 by 18
    Federal and District agencies who control or have direct jurisdiction
    over the banks of the Anacostia River. Please find a copy of the MOU
    attached to this testimony.
                                 the awi goals
        The community planning process has developed a series of guiding
    objectives:
        1. Restore the Anacostia's water quality and its natural beauty
        2. Reclaim the river's waterfront as a magnet of activity
        3. Embrace the Anacostia as the District's central natural feature
        4. Stimulate sustainable development in waterfront neighborhoods
        5. Promote excellence in design in all aspects of the endeavor
        6. Engage all segments of the community to foster river stewardship
        7. Create a lively urban waterfront of world-class distinction
                          the awi draft framework plan
        All great urban waterfronts depend upon the following
    characteristics: waters that are clean and safe (and therefore able to
    be well used), segments which preserve the river's natural qualities
    and habitats, clear and easy access to and along the water, frequent
    crossings (so that the water itself avoids becoming a barrier), a
    continuous network of great parks and open spaces, special destinations
    and attractions, and vital neighborhoods for living, working and
    learning. The five themes that guide the forthcoming AWI Draft
    Framework Plan document (for release in September 2002) aim to achieve
    these qualities on the Anacostia waterfront.
    1. A Clean and Active River
        The most ambitious, yet most essential goal of the AWI is for the
    Anacostia River to be a clean, safe and well-used waterway--a swimable
    and fishable river--by 2025. This involves implementing the D.C. Water
    and Sewer Authority's (WASA) estimated $1.4 billion, 20-year Combined
    Sewer Containment Plan to control sewer outflows, the Anacostia's
    principal source of pollution. Likewise, best practices must be
    employed throughout the watershed with low-impact development, natural
    systems restoration, and environmental stewardship.
    2. Breaking Down barriers and Gaining Access
        The Anacostia is unique as it is readily served by transit with 8
    Metro stations within a 10 minute walk of the waterfront. Nevertheless,
    the waterfront is currently separated from its adjacent neighborhoods
    by aging, commuter-oriented transportation infrastructure making it
    difficult for anyone to access the river's edge. The emerging Anacostia
    Riverwalk and Trail will provide over 18 miles of continuous access to,
    along and across the water connecting neighborhoods to the river and to
    each other. Moreover, the Frederick Douglass Bridge and the 11th Street
    Bridges should be reconstructed for local access and all bridges must
    be redesigned to include pedestrian and bicycle access. The redesign of
    the city's principal avenues, like Maine Avenue, South Capitol Street
    and M Street, into pedestrian-friendly urban boulevards is another
    vital step towards revitalizing the Anacostia waterfront.
    3. A Great Riverfront Park System
        The Anacostia River and the National Park Service's Anacostia Park
    are two of the District's most precious, though underutilized, natural
    resources. Creating the Anacostia Waterfront Park Network would
    complete the regional park system by integrating it with the river and
    the existing Anacostia Park through the 18-mile Anacostia Riverwalk and
    Trial and over 120 acres of new, distinctive waterfront parks in the
    Southwest Waterfront, Near Southeast, Reservation 13 and Poplar Point.
    From the wetlands and wilds along its upper reaches to the formality of
    esplanades along the Navy Yard and the Southwest Waterfront, the
    Anacostia's potential is even greater than that of Rock Creek Park to
    serve the very heart of the District as a great and varied park
    environment.
    4. Cultural Destinations of Distinct Character
        The Anacostia River waterfront is a diverse landscape made up of
    qualitatively different segments--the upper reaches are
    characteristically natural and pastoral, while the middle and lower
    reaches are more recreational and urban. By designing new places and
    parks for civic gathering, celebration and culture, the segments of the
    river can be made more distinct, diverse, and special. There are 10
    possible sites along the waterfront for new museums and 15 possible
    sites for new memorials.
    5. Building Strong Waterfront Neighborhoods
        Opportunities to live and work along the waterfront will be
    plentiful with approximately 20,000 new units of waterfront housing
    Connect existing neighborhoods to waterfront park system New mixed-use
    (housing, retail, office, culture, recreation) waterfront
    neighborhoods.
                           the benefits to be gained
        This strategic long-term partnership between the District and the
    Federal Government, dedicated to transforming 900 acres of land along
    an urban waterfront--nearly 90 percent of which is in public
    ownership--will result in:
      --Preliminary estimated public investment of $3 Billion over 25
            years.
      --Substantially improved water quality for the Anacostia through the
            implementation of the Combined Sewer Outflow Long Term Control
            Plan, wetland restoration and stream daylighting, and
            environmental guidelines governing future development along the
            Anacostia.
      --An integrated open space system incorporating and connecting 1,800
            acres of park land, including over 100 acres of newly created
            public parks.
      --Eighteen miles of a continuous Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail along
            both banks of the Anacostia.
      --A revitalized South Capitol Street Corridor in the form of a
            ceremonial boulevard and, along with the Suitland Parkway,
            creating a grand gateway to the Capitol Building.
      --A signature cultural park at Poplar Point celebrating the area's
            rich African American history and heritage, with improved
            access to the river from all of the adjacent neighborhoods.
      --New mixed-use neighborhoods at the Southwest Waterfront, Buzzard
            Point, the Near Southeast Waterfront, and Reservation 13.
      --15,000 to 20,000 additional housing units for the District.
      --Prominent sites for 10 additional museums and/or cultural
            destinations, and for more than a dozen future memorials and
            monuments.
      --Four-to six additional public boat launching sites and boathouses.
      --Upwards of 20,000,000 square feet of commercial, retail and
            service-oriented space.
                          coordinated actions to-date
    The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative: Two Years Old and Setting High
            Goals, May 16, 2002
        It has been two years since Mayor Anthony A. Williams gathered
    representatives of over 18 Federal and District agencies at the
    Washington Navy Yard to sign the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
    Memorandum of Understanding. Since that day in March 2000, the AWI
    partnership has been at work coordinating land use and landscape plans
    for the waterfront.
        This process has been unprecedented in a number of ways:
      --Inter-agency cooperation has included all government agencies, both
            District and Federal, who own, control or regulate land along
            the river;
      --The process includes both sides of the river from the Maryland
            border to the Tidal Basin, not just a single property or
            neighborhood;
      --The planning has been comprehensive and has sought to find
            integrated and sustainable solutions to environment,
            transportation and land use challenges;
      --Most importantly, the process has included extensive community
            engagement, which has brought the wishes and desires of
            neighborhood leaders to the fore and into direct contact with
            MOU agency representatives.
        The process is being coordinated by the DC Office of Planning,
    which has recently issued the AWI's preliminary recommendations for a
    first round of public comment and is working toward releasing the
    complete AWI Draft Framework Plan this fall.
        However, AWI is not intended as a planning exercise only.--The AWI
    partnership has been hard at work coordinating actions ``on the
    ground'' and yielding exciting new results for the neighborhoods along
    the river. The following represents a snapshot of current public sector
    projects that are catalyzing the transformation of the shores of the
    Anacostia River and the Washington Channel by providing important
    infrastructure and environment improvements.
    Upper Reaches of the River: Anacostia Waterfront Park Network
        The District, the National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland
    Department of Transportation (M-DOT) have signed an MOU to extend the
    Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail from the Kennilworth Aquatic Gardens to
    the recently constructed public marina and park in Bladensburg,
    Maryland.
        The U.S. Soccer Federation, together with NPS and DC Sports and
    Entertainment Commission (DC-SEC) have received funding to begin
    planning of recreational fields in Kenilworth Park.
        The District Department of Transportation (D-DOT) is revising
    designs for the Kenilworth Freeway at Nannie Helen Burroughs NE to
    create a pedestrian and bicycle gateway to Kenilworth Park and Aquatic
    gardens. This link will connect the District's largest park and trail--
    Watts Branch--to the waterfront park system.
        Langston Golf Course is in the design phase to build a new club
    house.
    Middle Reaches of the River: RFK Area/Reservation 13, Anacostia
            Waterfront Park Network
        The District Department of Transportation (D-DOT) is completing
    reconstruction of the Benning Road bridge to include wide sidewalks and
    a new pedestrian gateway to Kingman Island.
        The DC Department of Parks and Recreation (DC-PR), the DC
    Environmental Health Agency (DC-EHA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (U.S.-ACE) are restoring natural habitat to Kingman and
    Heritage Island and constructing additional wetlands along the Island's
    shoreline.
        The US-ACE and the NPS are ``daylighting'' Popes Branch and Ft.
    Dupont Creek. These projects will take the streams out of below-grade
    storm sewers to flow at-grade through Anacostia Park thereby creating
    habitat and visual interest in the park.
        The DC-SEC has brought the Cadillac Grand Prix racing event to the
    RFK campus for the first time and is currently reconstructing the
    parking lots north of RFK, while introducing state-of-the-art storm
    water run-off technologies to the RFK parking lots.
        St. Coletta School is in design for the first building to be
    constructed on Reservation 13 since the Draft Master Plan was completed
    in March. The design architect is Michael Graves.
    Poplar point
        The NPS, DC-EHA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) are funded to daylight Stickfoot Creek and
    remediate soils on Poplar Point.
        The Advantage Charter School is nearing completion on Howard Road.
    Near Southeast
        The Marine Barracks project has broken ground at 7th and L Streets
    SE. The project will be the new home for the U.S. Marine Corps Band and
    practice facility as well as a ballfield to be shared with neighborhood
    residents.
        The $35M HOPE VI grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD) has been leveraged by the DC Housing Authority
    (DC-HA) by approximately 9:1. Over 1500 new units of housing will be
    created with a guaranty of 1:1 public housing unit replacement to
    create a new mixed-use, mixed-income waterfront neighborhood.
        The D-DOT will break ground on three important projects this
    summer, including the reconstruction of 8th Street Barracks Row, the
    extension of M Street and the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail
    demonstration projects.
        The Navy is in the final stages of constructing a beautiful new
    waterfront park, which includes innovative elements such as Low Impact
    Development measures as well as a design approach which will address
    force protection and security while also allowing continuous public
    access to the water's edge.
        The U.S. Department of Transportation will be relocating to the
    Southeast Federal Center. This 1.7 million gsf building will bring an
    additional 7,500 federal employees to the neighborhood.
        The GSA has completed construction of a new seawall at the
    Southeast Federal Center and has issued an RFP for the development of
    the remaining 44-acres of prime waterfront land. D-DOT has
    reconstructed all of the streets surrounding the SEFC, upgrading the
    quality of public spaces in preparation for development.
        The DC Office of Planning has rezoned the land known as Buzzard
    Point permitting residential uses to be introduced to this prime
    waterfront land.
        Pepco, the District, NPS and the Navy have partnered with the Earth
    Conservation Corps and the National Geographic Society to create the
    Matthew Henson Center, a new environmental learning center in the
    former PEPCO pump house.
        In a similar partnership, D-DOT has made a building beneath the
    11th Street bridges available to the Capitol Community Rowing Center, a
    non-profit boat house to serve the Anacostia River rowing community.
    Southwest/Washington Channel Waterfront
        The District has entered into a public-private partnership to re-
    introduce 4th Street SW through the site known as Waterside Mall in
    order to create a new retail town center for the Southwest
    neighborhood.
        D-DOT and Federal Highways are commencing the rehabilitation of the
    10th Street overpass which will include the redesign of the urban
    streetscape of L'Enfant Plaza. The goal will be to create a more
    hospitable urban realm between the Smithsonian Institution and the
    Washington Channel Waterfront.
        The National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) has taken
    control of the Gangplank site and procured the services of a new marina
    operator.
        The District has issued a $46 million tax-revenue bond for the
    Mandarin-Oriental hotel on the Portals Site, providing a key amenity at
    the gateway between the Tidal Basin and the Washington Channel.
        The US-ACE and the District Department of Housing and Community
    Development are completing a marina and site improvements, which will
    restore historic structures, create more marina capacity and improve
    parking at the Washington Marina and the Fish Market.
        Together, these projects demonstrate the first-step commitment to
    reclaim Washington's waterfront for the benefit of neighborhoods, the
    nation's capital and the region. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
    Framework Plan will build on these first steps to chart the course
    towards achieving full clean-up of the River's water; easy access to
    its shores; creation of a great new parks network; introduction of
    cultural destinations and the strengthening of all the neighborhoods
    along its shores.

        Senator Landrieu. Can I just ask you something? Is the
    planning money that supports that 18 agency consortium coming
    out of the city budget or is it something the Federal
    Government is contributing to?
        Mr. Altman. That is largely city. We received some Federal
    funds through transportation dollars, but largely it has been a
    city-backed initiative.
        Senator Landrieu. I would like to help you with that. I
    think we could pick up legitimately some additional expenses
    associated with that since it involves so many Federal
    agencies. It is not just coordinating city agencies, but it is
    our responsibility also I think to help coordinate the Federal
    agencies. So, we will work with you, Andrew, on that.
        Mr. Altman. That would be wonderful.
        Senator Landrieu. It is a small help, but I think it would
    make sense.
        Mr. Altman. Much appreciated. It goes a long way.

                          WHAT MAKES UP THE WATERFRONT

        As you can see here, the boundaries of the initiative go
    all the way from the southwest waterfront, which is 7 blocks
    from the Mall where we sit today, all the way through--this is
    Buzzard Point over to the east, Poplar Point. This is around
    RFK and where Reservation 13, our recent planning efforts,
    Kingman and Heritage Island, and all the way up to the
    Arboretum, and of course, Kenilworth. So, it is roughly 2,800
    acres in area.
        We have five major themes. I am going to run through these
    very quickly because there are a lot of detail and
    recommendations behind each of these. There are five critical
    elements to creating a great waterfront for the city. One is a
    clean river. Two is breaking down our barriers, in other words,
    getting access to the river. Third is creating a great park
    system that we think should rival the great park systems of the
    world. The fourth is bringing cultural destinations to the
    waterfront, and the fifth is building strong waterfront
    neighborhoods. And I am going to go through each of these very
    briefly.
        The first is a clean and active river. I am glad that Jerry
    Johnson is here, and you will hear more detail about this. But
    it is clear that we have one of the most polluted rivers in the
    country. The Mayor has been very committed to the cleanup of
    the Anacostia and made that a priority to put our attention to
    it, and the plan you will hear from Jerry Johnson today is part
    of redressing that. But clearly fundamental is getting a clean
    river again. That also requires the cooperation with Maryland
    in order to do that.
        The overview of the plan shows that the major initiatives
    to do that are implementing the CSO, the combined sewer
    overflow plan that WASA is putting forward, implementing state-
    of-the-art restoration practices. We have to continue to have
    the cooperation with Maryland because roughly 80 percent of the
    pollution is coming from downstream as part of the watershed
    here. We want to create triple the amount of wetlands as is
    happening now with the restoration around Kingman and Heritage
    Island. We want to continue to expand public access to the
    water. We want to start daylighting streams and really doing
    more low impact development. But key to this will be the sewer
    plan that you are going to hear in a moment.
        Our goal is, obviously, to have a swimmable river by 2025
    so that we can move from the condition--as you see here, this
    is some of the sewer outflow. These are some of the industrial
    uses that pour into the river--to create much better
    environments along our waterfront.

                         BARRIERS TO WATERFRONT ACCESS

        The second major initiative of the Anacostia Waterfront is
    eliminating barriers. Here are some of the barriers to
    accessing our waterfront, the railroads, the bridges, many of
    the freeways that come through were built in sort of the
    classic way in cities throughout the country that separated
    waterfronts from their neighborhoods. So, we have to overcome
    those barriers and bring access to the waterfront.
        Some of the key things we want to do. One is build our
    capacity with transit. We are looking at different light rail
    possibilities in the city, particularly along M Street and
    going up here through RFK. Here are all the Metro stations. If
    we connect that with the new light rail, you would have a
    tremendous opportunity. It has been done. San Francisco
    recently has put light rail along their waterfront. It
    transformed the Embarcadero.
        We are looking at reconfiguring the bridges so the South
    Capitol gateway being more of a commuter bridge, make these
    other bridges on 11th Street and moving up the river,
    Pennsylvania Avenue, more local bridges the way the Ellington
    Bridge is. If you think what a beautiful bridge that is
    connecting Adams Morgan to Woodley Park, imagine that across
    the Anacostia.
        Here just shows you the South Capitol gateway. This is
    going to be a major initiative. This is what the Mayor
    mentioned in terms of Congressman Hoyer's intention. He has
    given us $500,000 to study a new alignment, and you can see
    here is the current alignment. If you move it over this way,
    you can restore Poplar Point, create a really beautiful park
    here, a signature park, have a great bridge. This is in Bilbao.
    So, you can imagine a beautiful bridge, create access to
    neighborhoods that are landlocked. It will be a major
    initiative.

                            REVITALIZING CITY PARKS

        Third, creating great parks. This just shows you the park
    systems of Washington. Here is Rock Creek Park, roughly 1,200
    acres. Here is the Anacostia, which is roughly 1,800 acres on
    Park Service land. Here is the Mall. This is basically the way
    the system works. We have to create so the Anacostia parks are
    equal and surpass Rock Creek. So, you start thinking of the
    Anacostia park as where everyone from the neighborhoods and the
    city goes on the weekends and it is part of the original
    MacMillan plan. This actually shows the park system. People
    focus on the Mall, but actually there was as much attention to
    what happens in this whole park system. We want to complete
    that. We would like to have over 100 acres of new destination
    parks from the southwest where we think we could have a new
    sort of park at M Street. The Southeast Federal Center is an
    opportunity for a new 5-to 7-acre park. Poplar Point should be
    a great, wonderful park. We have the Frederick Douglass home
    right here. The gardens could be a part of this, make this a
    great cultural park, going up to Kingman Island where the Mayor
    has made a priority of bringing a nature center, really making
    that a great place for children and education activities along
    the waterfront, fully restoring that. That was returned to the
    city last year, thanks to the Mayor's work with the President.
    So, there are really wonderful opportunities. And of course,
    Kenilworth is here. Watts Branch. So, a system of parks is the
    key that you'd be able to go in a day, you would imagine going
    to a series of different kinds of parks, urban parks, more
    recreation, leisure parks, and parks that are really very rural
    in nature as you go up the Anacostia.

                            FUNDING THE INITIATIVES

        Senator Landrieu. May I ask a question on that? I am going
    to try to expedite this. The main way the Federal Government
    helps localities fund parks throughout the country is through
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The State side of that
    funding had been zeroed out for a number of years and now is on
    the increase. Do you all look at this fund as a potential
    source of funding? Does that even fit in your equation? I do
    not think the District has gotten very much money out of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, and I want to just suggest to
    you that that should be something, Mr. Mayor, that we put a
    little political muscle behind and require. I would be happy to
    do that because it is, on average, about $450 million on the
    Federal side and about $200 million to $300 million on the
    State side. There is a formula that gives money out.
        But there might be a way that we could secure a portion of
    those funds for a long-term commitment to this project. It is
    not a huge amount of money, but I am thinking $5 million to $10
    million to $12 million. But if you keep getting that every
    year, you can bond it out and it could go a long way towards
    securing a long-term capital improvement plan for this area.
        And that is my question. This plan looks spectacular. Have
    we identified a revenue stream or a source to help fund the
    development of these various parks, and what would it be
    briefly?
        Mr. Altman. It is a very good question. Right now we have
    developed a plan. There are a couple more sections I would like
    to share with you.
        As you know, most of this is under Federal ownership. As I
    said, roughly 70 percent is under Federal ownership. So, I
    think you are absolutely right. One of the things we want to
    do--and the Mayor is going forward to present so that the
    Federal Government can start to make the appropriations
    necessary in order to implement the plan. Transportation funds,
    for example, that will be needed for the bridges and the
    infrastructure. Funding for the park, as you have identified,
    because as we know, working with the park system, they are
    saying they control 1,800 acres of the park, and they really
    have very minimal allocations. They barely had enough money,
    frankly, to do their long-term management plan, let alone
    improvements to make it a great park.
        We are also looking at some local revenue sources in terms
    of the city's portion that is privately owned and also where
    the National Capital Revitalization Corporation controls the
    southwest part of the waterfront. And we are looking at what
    local sources we can also use to support that development so
    that we can have a Federal-local match so we can put up funds
    that would hopefully leverage those Federal dollars.
        Senator Landrieu. I think that is just so important.
    Capital improvements of your basic infrastructure, highways,
    and the bridges is one thing, but I would like to pursue the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund in getting the District its
    appropriate share of to help improve some of these parks.
        Continue.
        Mr. Altman. Absolutely. I am almost done.

                     EXAMPLES OF WATER-FRONT REVITALIZATION

        But your point is exactly right. Just to show you--I think
    it is pretty dramatic--here is Poplar Point. Here is the river
    here. It is about 120 acres and in it you have various
    facilities that have been thrown up as sort of temporary
    facilities. It is not really a beautifully landscaped park that
    can serve as a resource for the neighborhoods. Particularly,
    neighborhoods have been cut off from the water, some of the
    poorer neighborhoods of the city that should have a great
    waterfront; RFK, where it is largely parking lot. So, you have
    areas where we could really transform these into great parks.
        This is Louisville, Kentucky. It just shows you--110 acres,
    roughly the same as Poplar Point--the difference that you can
    make by having the right kind of appropriations to create a
    great park system.
        Really the signature of this will be a river walk. We would
    like to create a continuous 18-mile river walk that connects
    from the southwest all the way, both sides of the river, really
    unify the waterfront. We think that that is about $1 million
    per mile. It is roughly a $25 million project just to create a
    nice, simple trail.
        Just to show you the difference, this is the Mount Vernon
    Trail on the Potomac, a very simple trail. And now, here is the
    Anacostia. Same city. So, we really need to look at the same
    Park Service and we have to look at how do we get funds so that
    there is an equity issue to make sure that the remainder of the
    Anacostia, the 18 miles, can really be not only equal to the
    Potomac, but frankly surpass the Potomac and get that
    investment.
        This just shows you how to take--this is out by Watts
    Branch in Kenilworth and taking what had been a former
    municipal dump and turning it into really a recreation center.
    This is where the soccer investment that you have made--and we
    would like to build on that. This is Watts Branch. The
    neighborhood is very interesting in restoring that. Make this a
    great park, multi-use recreation. The Mayfair neighborhood
    here. The golf course is here and the Arboretum is here.

                             EXPLORING PARK DESIGN

        Senator Landrieu. Can you leave that slide up just a
    minute? Let me make a comment. I am not an expert on park
    development, but I have been working at it enough years to kind
    of have a sense that while you want to keep your parks,
    obviously, open to everyone and have multi-use, it is also
    important for each park to have a lead purpose. Some parks--
    their lead purpose is recreation, but they are used for other
    things such as, organized sports. Others are sort of wilderness
    parks that are occasionally used.
        I would like to challenge us to come up with a plan that
    would really identify parks, so it is clear. In other words, if
    you know who owns it, then somebody will actively advocate for
    it. If it is unclear who owns it, then nobody is responsible
    for it and nobody lobbies for it because it is kind of nobody's
    park.
        So, part of what I would like to see how Kenilworth would
    develop is primarily recreational for organized sports, which I
    think the District is really short on and, as you know, was
    featured in many articles and just highlighted recently about
    the disparity between the conditions of fields. Whether you are
    speaking about soccer fields, baseball fields, or golfing
    opportunities for young children. While that park could be used
    for other things, walking trails and some wilderness areas--
    there is a beautiful garden and the Arboretum is right there--
    that to have a place where families can really focus on soccer
    and basketball and baseball and tennis and golf is so important
    so that we can stop having to send our kids out to the suburbs
    on the weekend and they can play right here in the District
    because there is a big exodus every weekend. Everybody gets in
    cars and goes miles and miles away to find these good fields to
    play on when we could have them right here in the District.
        So, I really want to work with you on that and make sure,
    particularly on the soccer and basketball and baseball we
    have--and then the revitalization of Langston both for the
    adults and the Junior Tee or what do they call it?
        Mr. Altman. First Tee.
        Senator Landrieu. First Tee project maybe in some ways
    connected to Langston. But, again, Mayor, it fits into your
    idea about getting these fields up to snuff so we can compete
    for some of these national games, whether it is the Olympics or
    something else.
        Mr. Altman, real quickly if you can wrap up.
        Mr. Altman. Okay. I am going to wrap up. Two more points.
        One is creating also great cultural destinations. I think
    your point is excellent. What we want to create is a series of
    experiences along the waterfront. So, for example, we want to
    bring new museums, new cultural institutions, places like
    Poplar Point. Here you have the Navy Yard, the Navy Museum, the
    southwest waterfront near Arena Stage, and the nature center,
    so new sites for cultural institutions as part of a park
    system, as part of revitalizing the waterfront.
        And of course, the Olympics, which will be a major impetus
    for us in terms of what it brings to the Anacostia in terms of
    facilities.

                       BUILDING WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOODS

        Finally, we want to build strong waterfront neighborhoods.
    There are roughly 900 acres. Out of the 2,800 acres along the
    Anacostia Waterfront that we think you can create new
    neighborhoods. What that means is large tracts of Federal land,
    for example, that are no longer needed for those purposes can
    become great neighborhoods. We toured the Southeast Federal
    Center. So, here it sits right here. The Mayor brought in HOPE
    VI with the cooperation of the Federal Government, transforming
    the southeast. The Navy Yard has 10,000 jobs. The Southeast
    Center could be home to up to, we think, 2,000 new residential
    units. Bring residential to the southwest waterfront. We just
    completed planning around Reservation 13, jurisdictions being
    transferred to the city. It could be another 1,000 units of
    housing, as well as health care facilities. Poplar Point as
    well.
        So, we think we can build new neighborhoods. It does not
    involve displacement. It strengthens the waterfront, takes
    Federal lands. St. Elizabeth's is right here. It actually
    touches the waterfront. It is about 300 acres of land. It is
    the most beautiful area, no longer needed, we believe, for
    Federal purpose, connect that to the waterfront, and you build
    great neighborhoods east and west.
        Senator Landrieu. May I ask a question on that? I really
    thank you. I had a wonderful tour that day that we spent
    several hours touring the site and am now very familiar with
    it.

                            PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

        But what in your opinion would be the best way the Federal
    Government could help you? I understand that there are some
    discussions about whether we have multiple master plans or a
    single master plan. What would be the best thing that GSA could
    do to help you all keep this coordinated and keep it moving? It
    is not just the coordination of it, but it is moving it so it
    does not take us 30 years to do it, that we could actually see
    this accomplished in the next few years. Should we push for a
    multi-master or a single master, or what in your opinion would
    be the best approach?
        Mr. Williams. I think the most important thing we can do,
    Senator, is for the Federal Government and the city with GSA to
    focus on joint master planning for the southeast waterfront and
    for St. Elizabeth's, and then with St. Elizabeth's work on
    early disposition of St. Elizabeth's to the District, similar
    to what the Federal Government is doing right now with
    Governors Island in New York to New York City or what happened
    with the Presidio out in San Francisco, you know, speed up the
    master planning and the disposition. When I say the city, I
    mean basically the consortium somehow or another managing it so
    we can get this into active use because even more so than the
    southeast waterfront--I do not know if you have toured St.
    Elizabeth's. We need to take you up there. That is a
    spectacular site.
        Senator Landrieu. And do we not need legislation or some
    sort of administrative action to initiate that? Because I would
    be happy to try to get in as soon as possible to initiate that
    through this committee.
        Mr. Williams. Well, we would like to work with the
    Congresswoman to figure out--with the support of the leadership
    of the city, some sort of Federal legislation that would
    sanctify or enshrine or formalize, I guess is a better word,
    this consortium because the problem with the consortium right
    now is it does not have the durability and the standing that
    goes beyond any one set of players. So, if Congresswoman Norton
    is gone or you are gone or I am gone or Linda Cropp is gone,
    what is to keep this project going? One.
        Senator Landrieu. Absolutely.
        Mr. Williams. And two, what is to keep the Federal
    Government bound and committed? No one is a stronger supporter
    for home rule than I am, but you cannot bind the Federal
    Government with local law. We need some kind of Federal rubric
    here.
        Senator Landrieu. We will pursue that.
        Mr. Williams. Do you agree?
        Mr. Altman. Absolutely.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Johnson, because we only have a few
    more minutes, can you just testify briefly maybe 1 or 2 minutes
    about the cleanup efforts underway?
    STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER,
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER
                AUTHORITY
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am, and thank you very much, Senator.
    Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
        We have been working for the last 3 years, with support of
    the Federal Government, with EPA, in developing a long-term
    control plan to address CSO outfalls, 17 of which are located
    on the Anacostia River. There are a total of 60 in the District
    of Columbia on the Potomac, Rock Creek, and Anacostia. However,
    those 17 outfalls are responsible for about 65 percent of all
    of the combined sewer overflow that goes into that water body
    and overflows about 75 times per year.
        A combined sewer system I am sure you are probably familiar
    with. It is a combination of both sanitary and storm flow. When
    we get rainfalls of a certain duration and certain volumes of
    water, the system is overwhelmed. Generally that flow will go
    to the waste water treatment plant. When it becomes
    overwhelmed, it flows directly into these water bodies as a
    solution of dilute sewage that is going into these water
    bodies.
        The system was designed in the 1890's by the Corps of
    Engineers and constructed in the early part of the century and
    serves about one-third of the District of Columbia.
        The plan that we put together is a plan that represents a
    $1.2 billion expenditure in today's dollars, and it is a
    program of engineering and construction projects throughout the
    system that include the development of Metro-sized tunnels
    basically to park this flow until we have the capacity to be
    able to pump it into the waste water treatment plant.
        We have not waited for the plan to be approved and for
    certain actions to be taken. We spent about $10 million of
    ratepayer monies to date in addressing this problem. We have
    another $100 million on the drawing board either in design or
    out to bid to support this project.
        Our plan will reduce those overflows generally by 96
    percent. It will reduce flows into the Anacostia by 98 percent,
    from 75 to 2 overflows per year. The problem is that it creates
    a tremendous burden on the ratepayers of the District of
    Columbia in trying to fund the project.
        Am I okay with time? Can I take about another minute?
        Senator Landrieu. Go ahead.
        Mr. Johnson. This project, in looking at the EPA
    affordability guidance, basically says that it is primarily
    affordable. When we dig deeper into the population, we find
    that about 20 percent of the population is currently above that
    maximum affordability level established by U.S. EPA. And with
    the imposition of this plan, that pushes us to about 3.75
    percent or well over the affordability guidance. We believe
    that in order for us to get this plan undertaken, that it is
    going to require a partnership between the Federal Government
    and the District of Columbia in order to fund the plan and
    avoid this tremendous rate shock on the residents of the
    District of Columbia.
        We have submitted written testimony that goes into a great
    deal of detail explaining the program and the plan, and we urge
    this committee's continued support of the efforts that are
    being undertaken both by WASA and the Mayor through the offices
    within the District of Columbia to make this project happen.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
        [The statements follow:]
                     Prepared Statement of Jerry N. Johnson
        Good morning, Madame Chairman, and members of the Committee. My
    name is Jerry N. Johnson, and I am the General Manager of the District
    of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (``the Authority'' or ``WASA'').
    I am very pleased to represent the agency at its first appearance at
    this annual hearing, and to be asked to provide testimony on the
    Anacostia Waterfront Initiative--one of the most significant economic
    development and environmental initiatives to be undertaken here in the
    nation's capital.
                        general authority responsibility
        The Authority provides retail water services to residents,
    businesses and visitors to the national capital. Treatment is provided
    by the Washington Aqueduct. We operate storage, pumping and
    distribution lines to deliver about 132 million gallons of water per
    day.
        Of particular relevance to any discussion of the Anacostia River
    and the Waterfront Initiative is WASA's responsibility to provide
    wastewater collection and treatment services for this same population.
    In addition, WASA provides wastewater treatment services to 1.6 million
    people in Maryland and Virginia through its operation of the Blue
    Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, the largest advanced
    wastewater treatment plant in the world.
               strong authority governance & management capacity
        The Authority, with its independent board of directors, was created
    in 1996 as a quasi governmental agency with the strong interest and
    support of the United States Congress. As you may know, six of the
    Authority's eleven board members including its Chairman are residents
    of the District of Columbia, five members reside outside the District
    in Prince George's, Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, and each is
    appointed by Mayor of the District of Columbia. Since 1996, WASA has
    made tremendous strides in improving its operations and financial
    status by, for example:
      --reducing its operating budgets while improving the quality and
            timeliness of its services
      --routinely meeting EPA Drinking Water and other regulatory
            requirements
      --maintaining a 180-day operating reserve equivalent to six months of
            expenses or about $90 million
      --earning ratings from three bond agencies of ``A1'', ``A'' and
            ``A+''
      --initiating a $1.6 billion 10-year Capital Improvement Program
            (``CIP'') to repair and rehabilitate the aging wastewater
            collection and treatment systems and the water distribution
            infrastructure.
      --undertaking the development of a long-term control plan to address
            combined sewer overflows that affect our waterways, especially
            the Anacostia River.
             ltcp component of anacostia river improvement efforts
        WASA was among the first signatories to the Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative MOU, Madame Chairman. I mention WASA's governance structure
    and accomplishments only to emphasize its growing capacity to
    effectively undertake and manage yet another major capital project that
    is a central ingredient in the success of efforts to make our waterways
    cleaner, especially the Anacostia River. That project is the Combined
    Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan (``CSO LTCP'').
        Improving the quality of urban waterways is a challenging technical
    public policy issue. Streams in the District of Columbia receive
    pollutant loadings from a number of diffuse sources, both inside and
    outside the District. Combined sewer overflows are a significant source
    of pollution in our rivers, including the Anacostia.
        The $1.2 billion program (in today's dollars) will rival the
    current $1.6 billion 10-year Capital Improvement Program in size and
    scope. WASA has built the management capacity to develop and implement
    this plan designed in response to federal requirements. We note,
    however, that the financial impact of adding such a large new
    infrastructure program will be extremely burdensome to District of
    Columbia ratepayers.
        The future of the Anacostia waterfront and its neighborhoods are at
    stake as the question of whether the waterfront will continue to be
    walled off from nearby neighborhoods or is developed as a community
    resource. Both Mayor Williams and Mr. Altman have noted today a clear
    vision that embodies this joint District, federal and community effort
    to revive one of the national capital's historic waterways.
        Major public and private decisions and substantial investments are
    being made, and these decisions will dramatically affect the future of
    the Anacostia River, residents, businesses and visitors. Similarly, the
    Authority in conjunction with the Government of the District of
    Columbia and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is also
    preparing to launch a program to address the problems associated with
    the combined sewer system, the combined sewer system overflow long-term
    control plan.
                             combined sewer system
        In a separate sewer system storm water collected during periods of
    wet weather is discharged directly to area waterways. As you may know,
    Madame Chairman, about 12,955 acres (33 percent) of the nation's
    capital is served by a drainage system known as the combined sewer
    system that conveys both sanitary waste and wet-weather storm water.
        During wet weather, the flow (a dilute mixture of sanitary
    wastewater with storm water) carried by the combined sewer system may
    exceed the conveyance capacity of the collection system to carry the
    flow to the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility.
    Approximately 75 times a year, rainfall volume is high enough to result
    in periodic discharges, or ``combined sewer overflows'' (``CSOs'') into
    the Potomac, Anacostia or Rock Creek.
          federal origins and reliance upon the combined sewer system
        This system was planned, designed, and constructed by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers in 1890, and built by the federal government late in
    the nineteenth century. The system was designed to pump most sanitary
    and storm sewage eastward and downstream, far away from the White
    House, the U.S. Capitol, and major federal office buildings.
        The combined sewer system encompasses much of the central core of
    the District (the White House, U.S. Capitol complex, the Supreme Court,
    U.S. Naval Observatory and much of the downtown area, including many
    major federal office buildings). The combined sewer system serves many
    federal agencies, embassies and a large number of all those who work in
    and visit the nation's capital and contribute to the approximately 3
    billion gallons of combined sewer overflows from the combined sewer
    system into Rock Creek, the Anacostia River, and the Potomac River.
        Unfortunately, discharges from the District's combined sewer
    system, and from other combined sewer systems across the country,
    affect the quality of waterways. The lower Anacostia, which flows
    through a highly urban area but which is bordered by the Navy Yard, the
    Anacostia Naval Station, and national park land is subjected to a
    number of these CSO overflow events--approximately 75 in an average
    year, and will be a principal beneficiary of the plan to control CSOs.
                            epa permit requirements
        CSOs are regarded as point sources of pollution and are subject to
    both technology-based and water quality-based permitting requirements
    under the federal Clean Water Act. EPA allows CSOs under the National
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to the
    District of Columbia. The EPA permit, however, also requires the DC
    Water and Sewer Authority to propose a program that addresses these
    CSOs--a Long Term Control Plan. The permit requires WASA to reduce the
    periodic overflows into receiving streams in the nation's capital, and
    the long-term control plan or LTCP is the proposed response to this
    federal mandate.
                       the long-term control plan process
        After a 3-year study conducted with support from the EPA, WASA
    released a proposed draft plan in June of 2001. In accordance with EPA
    guidelines a large range of technological options were considered,
    including complete sewer separation. These options were evaluated in
    the context of regulatory compliance standards, cost effectiveness,
    complexity and other operational factors, and public acceptance.
        It is important to note, Madame Chairman, that WASA has not been
    idle through this process. We have moved forward to address some CSO
    issues using our existing Capital Improvement Program, even as we
    worked to develop a long-term plan over the last few years. WASA has,
    for example, already invested about $10,000,000 of its resources to
    evaluate and upgrade existing CSO control facilities, like a swirl
    concentrator facility and fiber dams, even as the LTCP has been under
    development.
        Efforts to solicit public comment have continued throughout the
    last several months in response to our issuance of the draft plan last
    summer. An extensive public participation program that included, for
    example, establishing a Stakeholder Advisory Panel, preceded this
    comment period. The Panel held ten well-attended meetings, and
    significantly influenced WASA's approach to developing the draft LTCP.
    Useful discussion with all stakeholders, including the District of
    Columbia Department of Health and the EPA are on going.
                                    the ltcp
        Implementation of an LTCP will cost in excess of $1.2 billion in
    today's dollars (significantly more with inflation), and involves a
    program of engineering and construction projects throughout the
    combined sewer system. The plan involves creating large storage tunnels
    to provide significant system storage capacity during periods of heavy
    rainfall, as well as upgrading pumping capacity to move stored storm
    and wastewater to the treatment plant at appropriate intervals. The
    LTCP would result in very significant progress, but does not completely
    eliminate CSO discharges or ``overflow'' events.
        It is important that the Committee understand that elimination of
    all CSOs would require complete separation of the storm sewer system
    from the sanitary sewer at approximately three times the cost of the
    draft LTCP. As important, Madame Chairman, complete separation would
    provide a lower degree of improvement in water quality than the plan.
    WASA is very pleased that our plan will provide a 96 percent overall
    reduction in CSO volume, with the highest reduction of 98 percent for
    the Anacostia River. As a result, the plan will reduce CSOs to levels
    that surpass those required by the Environmental Protection Agency of
    85 percent (the presumptive approach requirement). WASA is preparing to
    issue a final control plan shortly.
                              impact on anacostia
        The general study area boundaries for the Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative extend from the Washington Channel on the west to
    approximately the District line on the east. The boundaries that
    parallel the River vary depending on the surrounding neighborhood, but
    generally include the Southeast neighborhood and Southeast Federal
    Center, the Southwest Waterfront and the surrounding neighborhoods
    including Buzzard Point, Anacostia Park and the Poplar Point area, the
    Anacostia-Park on both sides of the river, and the RFK Stadium area.
    The Anacostia River, in particular, and waterfront development
    initiatives will greatly benefit from controlling CSOs.
        The impact of the CSO plan will be very significant, particularly
    on the Anacostia. Currently:
      --there are a combined 60 CSO ``outfalls'' where discharges from the
            combined sewer system empty into Rock Creek, the Potomac and
            the Anacostia--several of the outfalls are located on the
            Anacostia
      --of the total system volume of overflows from the combined sewer
            system, models indicate over 65 percent is discharged in the
            average year into the Anacostia
      --an average of 75 overflow events occur annually on the Anacostia
        Implementing the LTCP will result in:
      --only 2 overflow events on the Anacostia in the average year
      --the volume of overflows into the Anacostia dropping from 2,142
            million gallons to 54 million gallons, for a 98 percent
            reduction in the average year
      --reductions in the impact of CSOs on bacteria and low dissolved
            oxygen levels
      --although there are other sources of bacteria, and other causes of
            low dissolved oxygen levels in the Anacostia, the impact of
            CSOs will be significantly reduced
      --virtually eliminating the solids and floatable debris from CSO
            discharges because the majority of CSOs will be captured and
            treated.
        The LTCP will completely eliminate some of the outfalls along the
    Anacostia River, and water quality in the river will be improved and
    floating trash and debris from CSOs will be practically eliminated.
        WASA's studies have also demonstrated that that even complete
    elimination of CSOs would not result in making the Anacostia fishable
    and swimmable much of the time. This is because other pollution
    sources, including sediments in the river bed, District storm water and
    upstream sources in Maryland would prevent attainment of standards even
    if CSOs were completely eliminated. The District's combined sewer
    system is not the source of all pollutants that prevent making the
    Anacostia swimmable and fishable, and this finding is consistent with
    other assessments performed by the District of Columbia Department of
    Health and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
                                 affordability
        Financing CSO programs in an equitable manner without placing an
    unreasonable burden on ratepayers is one of the biggest challenges
    facing any CSO community, especially Washington, DC. The current cost
    of wastewater services in for the average household is $271 annually.
    The additional cost following completion of the current Capital
    Improvement Program will be $357 in today's dollars. The cost will rise
    to about $600 annually for the average household with the addition of
    the proposed CSO control program.
        WASA has used EPA procedures outlined in: ``Guidance for Financial
    Capability Assessment and Schedule Development'' for determining
    affordability to help assess the impact of CSO control costs on
    ratepayers and the fiscal health of the District of Columbia.
        EPA's method is based on computing the cost per household of both
    CSO projects and existing and proposed non-CSO wastewater projects on
    median income households ($39,760 in 2001). EPA regards residential
    impact as ``low'' if the combined cost of wastewater projects is less
    than 1 percent of the median household income; ``medium'' if the cost
    is between 1-2 percent of median income, and ``high'' if the costs is
    greater than 2 percent of the median household income. Other factors
    like the unemployment rate are also used to make an overall assessment.
    Using EPA's methodology, the burden will be in excess of 1.5 percent
    for median income households for wastewater treatment costs including
    the proposed CSO controls. EPA, therefore regards the proposed control
    program as resulting in a ``medium'' burden.
        However, the projection approaches the ``high'' threshold, even for
    the median household in the District, and EPA officials have voiced
    concern about the affordability of the control program. Also, as you
    know, household income levels in the District of Columbia do not follow
    a conventional statistical distribution. Rather, incomes are clustered
    at the high and low ends of the spectrum. For the lowest 20 percent of
    District of Columbia households on the income distribution, the current
    capital improvement program imposes about a 2 percent burden. With the
    additional cost of the CSO controls, the burden will rise to about 3.24
    percent.
        The District of Columbia and its citizens face a massive challenge
    in financing the reinvestment in all publicly owned assets like local
    roads, schools as well as the water and sewer infrastructure upon which
    the local community, the region, the federal government and the nation
    depend to one degree or another. Already, WASA's ratepayers are already
    beginning to absorb their share of the cost of a $1.6 billion
    investment program to upgrade the water distribution, sewer collection
    and wastewater treatment systems. The cost of the CSO plan will be
    almost as large.
                                  partnership
        WASA is in the midst of a rate-setting process for the coming year.
    Although the WASA Board has insisted that the rate increases required
    to finance the existing $1.6 billion CIP be carefully managed in order
    to avoid ``rate shock,'' the increasing costs of services will be a
    burden to many of our ratepayers. The additional cost of the LTCP,
    unless other sources of funding can be obtained from our partners in
    this initiative, will be problematic for many of our customers.
        As you know, Madame Chairman, Mayor Williams has requested federal
    participation in this massive infrastructure project in the past two
    appropriations cycles, including a request for $50,000,000 for fiscal
    year 2003. There are many precedents for such direct Congressional
    support to communities across the nation. In several instances, there
    have been very substantial grants over a number of years, including
    direct support for CSO control. Until last year's $1.8 million grant,
    Madame Chairman, we are aware of no direct appropriation to support
    these efforts in the nation's capital.
        Apart from the financial burden, there are a number of compelling
    reasons to justify a meaningful long-term partnership with the federal
    government in addressing this environmental, economic development,
    engineering and financial challenge:
      --the federal government designed and built the combined sewer system
      --the federal government owns much of land served by combined sewer
            system
      --the federal government relies upon the combined sewer system
            (serves White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, federal agencies,
            embassies, other institutions, commuters, visitors)
      --the majority of the federal workforce is housed in this area
      --the federal government (EPA) mandates under the Clean Water Act
            that WASA address combined sewer overflows
        Even though WASA's role is that of a utility and its job with
    respect to CSO control is principally technical and administrative,
    there are other important considerations. The Authority's view of
    itself is that we are among the most important stewards of the
    waterways surrounding the nation's capital. The Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative, as the Mayor and Mr. Altman have described it, is likely to
    help re-define the waterfront and the neighboring communities well into
    the future. The Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and Rock Creek Park,
    however, have also helped define the culture and the history of the
    national capital.
        There already exists a many-layered relationship with the federal
    government affecting many aspects of this historic waterway. The LTCP
    is an opportunity for a meaningful partnership that provides tangible
    and quantifiable benefits for the environment, the local community, and
    the nation.
        Once again, WASA appreciates the invitation to appear before the
    Committee. The Authority particularly appreciates your interest, Madame
    Chairman, and that of the Committee in the Long-Term Control Plan. I
    would be pleased to respond to any questions from the Committee at this
    time.

        Senator Landrieu. Well, I thank you very much because your
    contribution to this effort is just so necessary because the
    swimability issues, the recreation issues, the development
    issues, none of that is going to happen until people feel
    confident that the cleanup is not only planned well but there
    is funding to actually implement it because no one wants to
    look out on a dirty river. No one is going to recreate around a
    river that they do not consider or does not look to them to be
    clean and attractive.
        But on that, let me also try to lighten your burden in this
    way. Every city in America--and I cannot tell you the long
    stream of people that come into my office on this exact issue.
    Every city has these affordability problems, and it is getting
    to be such a crowd, that I think Congress is going to end up
    addressing this in a national way--I am not sure exactly how--
    to try to provide a source of funding to cities to try to deal
    with these costs because otherwise, it is either an unfunded
    mandate or a tax increase of substantial proportion on some of
    your lower income people throughout the Nation or moderate
    income or middle class families. It is a real problem.
        So, let us keep working on District-specific solutions, but
    to connect as much as you can with this national effort that is
    sort of bubbling up to get the Federal Government's attention
    for some real investments in these sewer systems that have to
    be addressed or we will not be able to clean up the water
    anywhere, not here in Washington, New York, San Francisco, or
    New Orleans.
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, I happen to also be Chairman
    of the National CSO Partnership, which is an organization that
    was formed a number of years ago, and has been looking to
    address these issues.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, good. Then you are absolutely in
    the right position to help.
        Mr. Johnson. I am very plugged in.
        Senator Landrieu. Good. You are probably doing the plugging
    if you are the Chairman. So, that is good. But keep pushing
    because we have really got to press the Federal Government for
    some additional help in this regard and identify a source of
    revenue to help our cities because they are really struggling.

                              prepared statements

        Finally, I want to include for the record, the statement of
    Doug Siglin, the Director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    regarding the Anacostia River and Paul Strauss, the Shadow
    Senator for the District.
        [The statements follow:]
          Prepared Statement of Doug Siglin, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
        Chairman Landrieu, Senator DeWine and members of the subcommittee,
    I am most grateful for the opportunity to submit a brief statement for
    the hearing record regarding the District of Columbia's fiscal year
    2003 appropriations request and the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.
        The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Anacostia River Initiative is
    working to help catalyze the cleanup and restoration of the Anacostia
    River so that it can become a valuable economic, recreational and
    natural resource for the District of Columbia and the surrounding
    region, as well as a healthy component of the Chesapeake Bay system.
        In general, we are deeply supportive of both the Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative and the District's request for a $50 million
    fiscal year 2003 appropriation to begin the process of modernizing the
    city's combined sewer.
        In regards to the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, we believe it
    very important that the District derive more economic, recreational and
    educational value from the tremendous natural resource with which we
    have been blessed. Of course, we are full of high hopes and
    expectations that the AWI will, over time, serve to enhance rather than
    degrade the water quality of the Anacostia. The proof will come to the
    degree that present and future development along the Anacostia is
    required or is provided incentives to substantially improve air and
    water quality. If each new construction project marginally improves the
    environmental status quo, the public investment in the Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative and the private investment that follows will be
    good for the economy, the environment, and the quality of life in the
    region generally--the essence of sustainable development.
        In regards to the District's $50 million appropriations request, we
    believe that it is imperative for the federal government to take on a
    substantial portion of the projected cost of the proposed combined
    sewer modernization. While the final details of the plan have yet to be
    worked out, we know that the cost will be substantial, and we urge the
    Senate Appropriations Committee to do all it possibly can to support
    the costs of this most critical upgrade in the city that is the federal
    seat of government.
        I want to offer four broad points for your consideration:
    (1) The Anacostia is, more than any other, the river of the Nation's
            Capital
        The Anacostia, as Mayor Williams poetically put it a couple of
    years ago, runs through the soul of Washington. It flows 6\1/2\ miles
    through the center of the District, and much of the District's
    population lives in its watershed. More than 200 years ago, President
    Washington had the Residence Act changed to include the Anacostia
    within the original borders of the District, and the materials that
    built the Capitol building came up the Anacostia on ships and barges.
    Today, the Anacostia flows past Capitol Hill about 2000 yards from the
    U.S. Capitol, and pollution from not only that building, but from most
    of the public buildings in Washington, contributes to the river's
    challenges.
    (2) The Anacostia is among the nation's most polluted rivers
        Substantial progress has been made in cleaning up the Anacostia,
    but it still carries a huge load of sediment, bacteria, organic matter,
    nutrients, chemicals, and metals. At certain spots in the tidal river,
    there are deep toxic accumulations in the bottom sediments. These
    challenges are significant, but not insurmountable.
    (3) The full economic and recreational value of the Anacostia
            Waterfront Initiative can only be achieved if the river is much
            cleaner than it is today
        It is certainly possible to derive additional economic value from
    the Anacostia in its polluted state, but it stands to reason that the
    value of the housing, office buildings, and small businesses that the
    Anacostia River Initiative anticipates will be significantly enhanced
    if the river isn't filthy and dangerous. Moreover, the use of the
    Anacostia as a recreational asset is severely limited in its current
    state. The fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and sailing that are normal and
    widely enjoyed recreational activities in America's waterways simply
    can't thrive with the river so severely polluted.
    (4) Although there is substantial federal activity to clean up and
            restore the Anacostia, the scope and pace of efforts is not
            nearly sufficient.
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
    National Park Service, the Navy, and other federal agencies continue to
    be involved in projects to help clean up and restore the Anacostia. We
    appreciate and applaud such efforts. The pace, however, is insufficient
    to the task. We urge you and your colleagues to consider a focused
    Congressional effort, perhaps involving hearings, to determine what can
    best be done to pick up the pace of federal involvement in the cleanup
    and restoration of the river that runs through the heart and soul of
    the District.
        In closing, I reiterate that we believe that the Anacostia River
    has the potential to be an extremely valuable federal, regional and
    local resource deserving of significant public investment. However, we
    believe that additional public investment to clean the river must be
    made to maximize the value of the public and private economic
    investment that the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative envisions. We
    would, of course, be grateful for the opportunity to continue
    discussing with your staffs specific ideas and policy initiatives
    towards that end.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to offer our views in this
    hearing. We very much appreciate your interest in the future of the
    Anacostia River.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Paul Strauss, Shadow U.S. Senator, District of
                                    Columbia
        Chairperson Landrieu and distinguished members of the Subcommitee.
    I am Paul Strauss, and I am the elected United States Senator for the
    District of Columbia. In that capacity, I am pleased to submit this
    statement for the record on the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. The
    communities within the District of Columbia understand the necessity
    for local improvement and hope to work on maintaining an environment
    that we can proudly call our nation's capital. I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to discuss the necessity and potential benefits
    of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.
        This initiative is essential for the development of our city. The
    improvement of the current status of the Anacostia Waterfront is
    essential for both the economic and moral development of the District
    of Columbia. I am a boater here in DC and have sailed the Anacostia
    River and understand the need for significant changes in this area. The
    project is important to both residents of the Anacostia area and boat
    owners like myself. There are several benefits to this project, which
    will affect not only the District of Columbia but also the Federal
    Government. The Anacostia River, named for the Native Americans who
    first settled here, is a symbol of our great American history. As a
    river sailed by George Washington and other founding fathers in the
    early days of our nation, it is our duty to maintain this heritage. By
    supporting this initiative, we are not only supporting the economic
    needs of the residents in the area, but maintaining an area that is
    important to the United States and Native American history.
        The main purpose of the Anacostia Waterfront initiative includes a
    development of a plan for the future of the waterfront and a
    coordination of land use and development actions of the city and
    federal funds. This coordination is necessary in order to delegate over
    $30 million in both district and federal funds. By forming a coalition
    of local interests, we will attract new resources that will benefit the
    community and raise revenues. I am asking that the Senate support the
    Anacostia Waterfront Initiative in providing the necessary funding for
    the project.
                           background of the project
        The district and federal governments own 90 percent of the
    riverfront land, suggesting a joint responsibility for the improvement
    of the area. The future of the Anacostia waterfront and its
    neighborhoods is essential to the future of the District of Columbia.
    There is a dire need for both public and private investment in this
    area, especially by the Southeast area of the Anacostia Riverfront
    between the river and Southeast Freeway, I-395. This is an area that is
    in a stage of potential development. With an operation of only 5
    percent capacity, there is currently a $100 million plan to create new
    office buildings, which is a partnership at the Southeast Federal
    Center, the Capital Square townhouse community, a new Navy Yard Metro
    Center on M Street, and streetwork for M street. This type of joint
    commitment along the waterfront will provide success and economic
    development to much-needed areas. It is necessary that these areas
    begin operating at full capacity in order to ensure adequate
    development and increase revenue for the District of Columbia. Without
    this type of initiative, potential gains will never be seen.
        It is important to note that this is a joint initiative between
    both city and federal agencies, which will be involved in both the
    planning and funding process. The estimated costs of this plan are $1.5
    million, which will be shared by district and federal agencies, the
    Sports and Entertainment Commission, the Summit Fund, and the Housing
    Authority. Coordination of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative is
    currently the responsibility of the Memorandum of Understanding, which
    includes the DC Office of Planning, the U.S. General Services
    Administration, and the National Parks Service. This type of coalition
    indicates the joint interests in propelling the plan to serve several
    different interests. There are several groups that will benefit from
    this process, and it is essential that funding and organization
    continue until the fulfillment of the plan.
                               economic benefits
        The economic benefits of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative are
    both vast and necessary for the future of the District of Columbia.
    There are several aspects of the economy which will a positive change
    with the completion of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. For
    example, the plan will promote the continuation of maritime use in the
    area, which is essential for both the existing community and the future
    of tourism. It also serves as encouragement for future private
    investment in the area. Along with the importance of maritime use,
    there will be aesthetic benefits to the project. The beautification of
    this area is important in encouraging private organizations to bring in
    job creation and commercial activity, two elements that are crucial to
    the area at this time.
        It is also necessary to address community concerns of residents and
    property owners in the area. By improving the residential property,
    there is a potential influx of new residents and business owners that
    could further improve the quality of economic development on the
    Anacostia Waterfront.
                             environmental benefits
        There is a dire need to improve the environmental situation on the
    Anacostia Waterfront. By completing the Anacostia Waterfront
    Initiative, we will address necessary environmental concerns. There are
    plans to restore the water quality of the Anacostia River, as well as
    enhance its natural beauty. There has been a stated concern by the
    Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Bureau of
    Environmental Quality, and Watershed Protection Division. The
    improvement of water quality and the aesthetic well being of the area
    is important to further sustainable economic development, as well as
    prevent further environmental damage to the rest of the city.
        There has been a proven improvement in the economic and
    environmental aspects due to waterfront initiatives in several other
    U.S. cities, including Providence and Jersey City. The economic and
    aesthetic improvements in these cities created vast improvement, which
    indicates that there is a definite potential for the same improvements
    to occur in the District of Columbia.
                                   conclusion
        I would like to thank you, Chairperson Landrieu, and other
    supporters of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, especially those
    individuals involved in the planning of the project. There is a
    definite interest in the improvement of the city, as seen by the work
    put into this project. We must realize that this project not only
    provides benefits to the city, but other necessary changes as will. I
    hope that this project will attain successful completion and provide
    the necessary improvement for the Anacostia area. In closing, let me
    thank Ms. Urmy Shukla of my staff, for her assistance in preparing this
    statement.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Landrieu. There will be some additional questions
    which will be submitted for your response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to Mayor Williams for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
                             overall fiscal health
        Question. What specific steps is the city taking in implementing
    the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budgets, and in planning for the fiscal
    year 2004 budget to maintain a balanced budget?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, the District faced substantial
    spending pressures and, consistent with a trend affecting states across
    the country, a substantial revenue shortfall. To address these
    challenges, the District utilized reserve funds and reduced agency
    spending. Through these measures, the District will balance its budget
    at the end of the fiscal year.
        To ensure that current year spending pressures do not create a
    problem in fiscal year 2003, the District (a) is reforming the Medicaid
    and special education operations which were the primary sources of
    revenue and expenditure problems in the District, and (b) has budgeted
    substantial general fund increases for Medicaid in fiscal year 2003 to
    cover potential spending pressures and revenue shortfalls that cannot
    be avoided in the near term.
        Since the District finalized its fiscal year 2003 budget, however,
    major new revenue shortfalls have emerged for states across, and the
    District is no exception. Currently, the District is updating its
    revenue projections for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, and
    expects a major decline in revenue for those years. To offset this
    revenue loss, the District is developing plans to scale back
    expenditures and tap other revenue sources in order to ensure balanced
    budgets.
        Question. What is the District's plan for continuing the capital
    projects deferred in the fiscal year 2003 budget?
        Answer. The capital projects deferred in fiscal year 2003 represent
    two categories:
        (1) projects that have been completed with funds still available or
    have been dormant for a number of years; and
        (2) projects that are still priorities of the District but were
    deferred due to a lack of available funding and a need to lower the
    District's debt per capita. The first category of projects was an
    exercise in cleaning up the District's Capital Improvement Program. As
    for the second category of projects, the District is looking for other
    sources of funding to continue these projects. If no other funding can
    be identified, the District will revisit including them in upcoming
    budget formulation processes as funding becomes available.
        Question. Has the City engaged in a long-term planning process for
    capital improvements?
        Answer. The District is in the process of evaluating its capital
    budget over a 20-year planning process in order to develop long-term
    replacement schedules for its infrastructure and equipment. This task
    will be done in conjunction with the development of condition
    assessments on all District facilities. It is anticipated this will be
    a two year process and will be tied to the development of the budget
    module in the ASMP project in an effort to improve the planning process
    of the Capital Improvements Program.
                               special education
        Question. Is the School Board planning to access the Medicaid
    Reform Fund? If so, is development of the required savings underway?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget includes $27 million accruing
    to the city's Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund earmarked for use by the
    District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) as reimbursement for special
    education related services, predominantly expenses related to Medicaid.
    The DCPS fully intends to access these dollars and is in the process of
    developing the cost savings plan required for drawing down the funding.
        Question. In reviewing the savings plan, will the Special Education
    Task Force consult with administrators in other districts or best
    practices experts?
        Answer. As one of its guiding principles, the Special Education
    Task Force will look to best practices within the school system as well
    as in other jurisdictions to inform its decision making. In addition,
    DCPS has consulted with McKinley and Company and more recently, Harvard
    University in developing the Seven Point Plan for Special Education
    Reform to incorporate best practices as well as address the specific,
    and often unique, circumstances in the District.
                       charter school facilities funding
        Question. I would like to include for the record a detailed summary
    of the Charter School Credit Enhancement Fund, including the following
    information:
      --current balance of the fund
      --source of those funds (local budget, Federal appropriation)
      --amount and recipient of any loans disbursed and status of those
            loans
      --number of applications received for loans
        Answer. The current balance of the Credit Enhancement Fund is
    $1,433,500, which remains from a $5,000,000 federal appropriation.
    Seven applications have been received for Credit Enhancement Funding.
    The following schools have received awards in the following amounts:
      --Capital City Public Charter School--$500,000
      --The New School for Enterprise and Development Public Charter--
            $500,000
      --The Integrated Design and Electronics Academy--$426,000
      --Arts and Technology Academy Public Charter School--$546,000
      --Meridian School--$500,000
      --Southeast Academy for Scholastic Excellence (through the Charter
            School Development Corporation)--$574,000
                        child and family services agency
        Question. Please list the per diem rate for all types of placements
    (emergency, group home, foster home, kinship, etc.). Please provide a
    range, from the highest rate to the lowest with a description of the
    reasoning for that rate.
        Answer. The Consent Order that governs the Child and Family
    Services Agency (CFSA) as it reemerges from Federal Court Receivership
    and moves through it probationary period explicitly states that rates
    have to increase as required by the Modified Final Order (MFO). The MFO
    states the board rates have to meet a level consistent with the USDA
    standards concerning the actual cost of raising a child and utilizing
    specialized rates as necessary. As the USDA standards increase so then
    must the DC rates for foster and kinship care in order to support the
    needs of children, and the families that care for them.
        Often in order to support the needs of children and families CFSA
    contracts with vendors. To ensure that contracts reflect performance
    goals and the needs of children and families, we are currently engaged
    in an overhaul of our contracting system. Toward that end, we have
    enlisted national technical assistance that includes help in designing
    a rate-setting process. There is a new internal process of preparing
    new solicitations for release in the spring of 2003 for all currently
    contracted services. Our current vendors have already been informed
    that extensions and option years will be exercised only through March
    31, 2003. The rates summarized below are prior to this reform.
        The schedule below provides the range of rates for the various
    types of care provided to children in placement with CFSA. As the rates
    increase, the level of care required also increases.
        Family Settings.--The range of rates for family settings is $23.93
    per day to $200.00 per day. Our most inexpensive care is for children
    placed in traditional foster homes, kinship care homes and subsidized
    adoption. These are family settings where the basic needs of the child
    are met in a family home environment. In addition, where warranted, we
    will provide services outside the home such as therapy, mentoring etc.
    The mid-level rates encompass therapeutic foster homes, specialized
    infant care homes and homes for medically fragile children who require
    more services on a daily basis than a traditional home setting can
    provide. The highest rates are paid for severely emotionally disturbed
    children or children with severe medical problems often requiring
    skilled nursing care but also in a single family setting.
        Congregate Care.--The next tier of rates involves the more
    traditional group home settings. These rates range from $140.00 per day
    to $400 per day. The most extreme rate is for a child with numerous
    chronic medical problems who is in a vegetative state requiring
    intensive 24/7 nursing care. These are congregate care facilities for
    children who need more intensive care or are unable for any number of
    reasons to stay in a family setting. These settings include traditional
    group homes, residential treatment facilities and congregate care
    facilities for children with severe medical conditions.
        Our experience in caring for these children is that the number of
    children requiring care with a strong mental health or physiological
    component is increasing, thereby creating a need for more of the high
    cost services.
        Question. Please provide a breakdown of the range of per diem rates
    paid into high, medium and low categories. What percentage of all the
    rates paid does each category represent?
        Answer. The numbers are as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of   Percent of
                                                      dollars        days
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Low...........................................           41           77
    Medium........................................           48           20
    High..........................................           11            3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        One trend which has become apparent (see recent Washington Post
    articles) is that the emotional and physical/medical needs of the
    children coming into care are more acute. We would expect that the
    medium and high cost of care figures would increase rather than
    decrease as a result of this.
                              parks and recreation
        Question. How does the Department determine funding or improvements
    for each park? Is it based on public usage?
        Answer. The Department of Parks and Recreation proposes capital
    projects to the D.C. Office of Budget and Planning for inclusion in the
    annual budget of the city, based upon:
        (a) Safety and health concerns/remediation
        (b) Citizen in-put and request
        (c) Staff assessment and recommendations
        (d) Cooperative interaction with the D.C. Planning Office
        Question. How are the maintenance needs of each park determined?
        Answer. Parks are assessed twice yearly by a certified safety
    inspector as he basis for identifying and addressing maintenance needs.
    Additionally, facilities with staff on the premises are inspected daily
    for health and safety concerns and those findings are forwarded to the
    agency's Risk Manager for follow-up and resolve. Citizens, ``friends-
    of'' groups, volunteers, and our custodial, trash-hauling, and skilled-
    labor staff, who routinely visit sites at a minimum of once a week,
    provide additional assessments.
        Question. How many public/private or non-profit partnerships does
    the Department have in effect currently? What are the Department's
    plans for expanding this type of partnership?
        Answer. Currently the Department has public/private or non-profit
    partnerships with: City Lights School, Sacha Bruce Public Charter
    School, Time-Dollar Institute, Garfield Terrace Resident Council,
    United Planning Organization, Wish List of Washington, DC, Stoddert
    Soccer, Babe Ruth Baseball, Barney House Senior Program, Advisory
    Neighborhood Commission 3G, Associates for Renewal in Education,
    Elementary Baseball, Anacostia Museum, Corcoran Gallery, Historical
    Preservation Society, Kaboom, and the Washington Bullets (the legal
    incorporated name for the Washington Sports Group. Additionally, we
    continue to work in collaboration with: Little League Baseball, Jabbo
    Kenner Tackle Football League, our ``Friends of'' groups and the many
    neighborhood-based one time only partnerships, which are realized to
    the benefit of the community at large.
                  emergency preparedness: management of funds
        Question. The D.C. Subcommittee provided $216 million in the fiscal
    year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act and the fiscal year 2002 Defense
    Supplemental Appropriations Act. In addition, the fiscal year 2002
    Supplemental Appropriations bill, currently awaiting the President's
    signature, includes $44 million for D.C.
        I want to ensure that the District has the proper equipment and
    support to make the Capital secure. Has the District identified any
    funding gaps that were not originally funded but there is a critical
    need to fill?
        Answer. As you know, the President failed to support the $5.1
    Billion Supplemental Package that contained the $44 million referenced
    above. This obviously leaves the District with a gap that we previously
    had expected would have been filled. The $44 million in the fiscal year
    2002 Supplemental contained funding for the following:
      --$12 million for public safety expenses related to security events
      --$5 million for Unified Communications Center
      --$6 million for Containment facilities and Bioterrorism activities
            at Washington Hospital
      --$10 million to Children's National Medical Center for quarantine &
            decontamination facilities
      --$8 million to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for a
            regional transportation back-up operations control center
      --$1.75 million to Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for
            support of the Regional Incident Communications and
            Coordination System.
      --$1.25 million to Water and Sewer Authority for remote monitoring of
            water quality.
        These items continue to be high priorities for the District and we
    will therefore continue to seek these resources to ensure the security
    needs in the Nation's Capital are adequately met. We also believe that
    the Forensics Laboratory is a very high priority for the District. Both
    the Forensics Laboratory and the Unified Communications Center are very
    large capital projects that we hope we can continue to work with you
    on, to secure adequate resources.
                        anacostia waterfront initiative
        Question. The Committee supports the objectives of the Anacostia
    Waterfront Initiative and understands this is a long-term process. What
    are the key first steps that the city has identified as necessary to
    revitalize the waterfront and how does the city plan to address these?
        Answer. The District is currently in a transition phase between the
    initial community-based planning that was coordinated by the D.C.
    Office of Planning and the coordination of the implementation efforts
    to realize the revitalization goals established by the Draft AWI
    Framework Plan. Please note that there is virtually no project which is
    being completed without some form of participation or coordination by a
    District government agency. The primary District agency stakeholders
    are:
      --Office of the Mayor
      --Office of Planning
      --District Department of Transportation
      --District Department of Parks and Recreation
      --District Department of Health, Environmental Health Agency
        Immediate next steps for implementing the goals and objectives of
    the AWI fall into three primary categories:
      --Existing Projects: Existing projects or initiatives requiring next
            step actions.
      --Strategic Planning: Strategic planning with regard to long-term
            funding and agency coordination.
      --Catalyst Projects: Capital improvements of ``catalyst projects''
            which will help initiate site-specific development plans and
            which will encourage private development projects.
                          existing project priorities
        South Capitol Gateway Improvement Project.--This project is
    currently funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation for a total
    of $500,000. The goal of the project is to complete a feasibility study
    which charts the reconstruction of the South Capitol Street corridor
    from the Suitland Parkway to the Capitol. The study includes the
    feasibility of constructing a new river crossing to replace the
    existing Fredrick Douglass bridge. Nest step actions include initiation
    of the NEPA process for transportation improvements ($500K) and
    detailed urban design guidelines to be developed as part of area-wide
    zoning reform actions. ($300K)
        Riverwalk Demonstration Project.--This project is currently funded
    by the U.S. Department of Transportation for a total of $400,000. The
    objective of this project is to implement small sections of the
    Riverwalk, while researching state-of-the-art low impact development
    design techniques. A total of about 400 feet of trail will be
    constructed as part of this project. Next step actions include
    additional demonstration segments of the Riverwalk in strategic areas
    where the trail can be easily implemented. While the overall cost of
    the Riverwalk is estimated to total approximately $25 to $30 million,
    individual strategic segments can be implemented on a stand-alone
    basis. Strategic segments include: Connection from Kenilworth Park to
    Maryland ($1M), Barney Circle to RFK ($1M) and the Tidal Basin Gateway
    ($1.75M) which includes improvements of connections to the Southwest
    Waterfront from the Tidal Basin, inclusive of a pedestrian footbridge
    to Hains Point from a location adjacent to the Washington Marina.
                               strategic planning
        Long-term Agency Funding Strategy.--A number of comparable efforts
    nation-wide have created implementing entities such as land trusts and
    development corporations in order to restore underutilized river or
    park environments. The Presidio Trust is but one example. A detailed
    economic analysis must occur in order to coordinate and optimize the
    various funding mechanisms that already exist and determine which
    funding mechanisms need to be created to attempt to capture the private
    value being created by extensive public investments along the river.
    ($150,000)
        Long-term Agency Coordination.--A complementary strategic planning
    effort needs to explore the existing impediments to project approvals.
    Streamlining of the various required agency approvals is necessary for
    two important reasons: reduce and better coordinate the redundancies in
    Federal and District approvals process; and, introduce a more
    transparent and comprehensible approvals process for the public to
    understand, in order to eliminate ``surprise'' projects and reduce the
    overall amount of litigation being pursued by neighborhood and
    environmental advocacy groups. The creation of a ``community design
    center'' might be part of this strategy, a location where proposed
    projects could be jointly reviewed by the public and agency
    representatives. ($150,000)
                               catalyst projects
        The following catalyst projects are public infrastructure or public
    park projects which have been identified in specific site planning
    efforts conducted by the Office of Planning. These first-step projects
    seek to create a dramatically new image for specific sites along the
    river, at a relatively small scale, in order to change the perception
    of the Anacostia Waterfront from that of a forgotten wasteland' to that
    of a public amenity. These projects have been specifically identified
    to set neighborhood benchmarks for design and construction, which will
    set the tone for subsequent private development projects.
        Southwest Tidal Basin Gateway.--This project (identified earlier in
    the Riverwalk Demonstration) seeks to create a superior pedestrian
    connection between the Southwest Waterfront and the National Mall at
    the location of the Tidal Basin. The District Department of
    Transportation is currently completing a detailed pedestrian access
    study to the Fish Wharf, which would become the basis for the
    improvements. Widening of sidewalks, construction of a pedestrian
    bridge and the introduction of designated bicycle lanes constitute the
    scope of this project. This project seeks to help address the imbalance
    of visitation to the Tidal Basin and the Southwest Waterfront. The
    project would also significantly leverage private funds committed as a
    component of the Mandarin Hotel project and recent appropriations for
    the Washington Marina. This segment of the waterfront is a key element
    of the Potomac National Scenic Heritage Trail, a regional multi-purpose
    trail being coordinated by the National Park Service. ($1.5M)
        Near Southeast Canal Blocks Park.--This project seeks to transform
    three parcels of land (which were formerly a component of the historic
    Washington Canal) into a significant new park. The cost of the park has
    been estimated to be $5M including soft costs. The immediate importance
    of creating this park include:
        The need to facilitate public access from Captol Hill to the
    Southeast Federal Center and its proposed waterfront park and the
    Riverwalk trail system;
        The need to create a community destination and public open space
    which will help realize the goal of creating a mixed-use and mixed-
    income neighborhood in the Near Southeast. The new park would provide
    an essential common ground' for the variety of public and private
    residential development projects which are being planned for the area,
    the most significant of which is the Capper Carrollsburg Hope VI
    project which is funded to construct approximately 1,500 units of
    housing;
        The need to instill a community pride-of-place in this neighborhood
    by taking advantage of the significant historical heritage of the
    Washington Canal and commemorating its historic existence in the form
    of a park. The site has also been identified by NCPC as a potential
    site for a monument of national importance.
        The ideal opportunity to institute state-of-the-art storm water
    runoff mitigation and low impact development measures as a component of
    neighborhood-wide development projects. The added significance of the
    former Canal is that upon its abandonment, it was reutilized to serve
    as the location for the main trunk line of the District's combined
    sewer system.
        The need to implement this public open space in a timely manner in
    order to properly leverage the ongoing real estate development projects
    into a veritable neighborhood.
        Kingman Island restoration.--This project is a partnership that
    includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District, and the
    National Park Service has led to the restoration of 42 acres of
    wetlands on Kingman Lake, one of the islands in the Anacostia. Habitat
    restoration work is also underway on Kingman Island, whose title was
    transferred to the District in December 2000. These projects foreshadow
    the large-scale environmental restoration projects necessary to
    reconstruct the river's riparian systems.
        Riverwalk Connection from Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens to Maryland-
    Bladensburg Waterfont Park.--This project (described earlier in the
    current projects) has been planned in partnership with the Maryland
    Department of Transportation and the National Park Service. The project
    seeks to leverage the commitment that M-DOT has made to construct the
    Anacostia Riverwalk from the Bladensburg Park to the DC-MD line (2.3
    miles). The segment in question is the element connecting from the DC-
    MD boundary to the parking lot at the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens and
    Kenilworth Park Recreation Center (0.4 miles). The estimated costs for
    the project total $1.5M. A detailed engineering feasibility study has
    been completed by the Office of Planning and is available for review.
        Overall public infrastructure.--The total estimated cost of the
    infrastructure projects needed to create appropriate access to the
    waterfront, prepare currently underutilized land for development and
    provide the necessary public amenities for the impending waterfront
    development is approximately $2 Billion.
        Question. Please detail what steps the District is taking to create
    immediately recognizable benefits on the waterfront, in conjunctions
    with the long-term infrastructure building to prevent further
    degradation of the river.
        Answer. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) process is being
    coordinated by the DC Office of Planning, which has recently issued the
    AWI's preliminary recommendations for a first round of public comment
    and is working toward releasing the complete AWI Draft Framework Plan
    this fall.
        However, AWI was never intended as a planning exercise only. The
    AWI partnership has been at work, coordinating actions ``on the
    ground'' and yielding exciting new results for the neighborhoods along
    the river. The following represents a snap shot of current public
    sector projects, which are catalyzing the transformation of the shores
    of the Anacostia and the Washington Channel by providing important
    infrastructure and environment improvements.
                           upper reaches of the river
        The District, the National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland
    Department of Transportation (M-DOT) have signed an MOU to extend the
    Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail from the Kennilworth Aquatic Gardens to
    the recently constructed public marina and park in Bladensburg,
    Maryland.
        The U.S. Soccer Federation, together with NPS and DC Sports and
    Entertainment Commission (DC-SEC) have received funding to start design
    of recreational fields in Kenilworth Park.
        The District Department of Transportation (D-DOT) is revising
    designs for the Kenilworth Freeway at Nannie Helen Burroughs NE to
    create a pedestrian and bicycle gateway to Kenilworth Park and Aquatic
    gardens. This link will connect the District's largest park and trail--
    Watts Branch--to the waterfront park system.
        Langston Golf Course is in the design phase to build and a new club
    house.
                          middle reaches of the river
        The District Department of Transportation (D-DOT) is completing
    reconstruction of the Benning Road bridge to include wide sidewalks and
    a new pedestrian gateway to Kingman Island.
        The D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DC-PR), the DC
    Environmental Health Agency (DC-EHA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (US-ACE) are restoring natural habitat to Kingman and
    Heritage Island and constructing additional wetlands along the Island's
    shoreline.
        The US-ACE and the NPS are ``daylighting'' Popes Branch and Ft.
    Dupont Creek. These projects will take the streams out of below-grade
    storm sewers to flow at-grade through Anacostia Park thereby creating
    habitat and visual interest in the park.
        The DC-SEC has brought the Cadillac Grand Prix racing event to the
    RFK campus for the first time and is currently reconstructing the
    parking lots north of RFK, while introducing state-of-the-art storm
    water run-off technologies to the RFK parking lots.
        St. Colettas School is in design for the first building to be
    constructed on Reservation 13 since the Master Plan was completed in
    March. The design architect is Michael Graves.
                                  poplar point
        The NPS, DC-EHA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) are funded to daylight Stickfoot Creek and
    remediate soils on Poplar Point.
        The Advantage Charter School is nearing completion on Howard Road.
                                 near southeast
        The Marine Barracks project has broken ground at 7th and L Streets
    SE. The project will be the new home for the U.S. Marine Corps Band and
    practice facility as well as a ball field to be shared with
    neighborhood residents.
        The $35M HOPE VI grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD) has been leveraged by the D.C. Housing
    Authority (DC-HA) by approximately 9:1. Over 1,500 new units of housing
    will be created with a guaranty of 1:1 public housing unit replacement
    to create a new mixed-use, mixed-income waterfront neighborhood.
        The D-DOT will break ground on three important projects this
    summer, including the recontruction of 8th Street Barracks Row, the
    extension of M Street and the Riverwalk demonstration project.
        The Navy is in the final stages of constructing a beautiful new
    waterfront park, which includes innovative elements such as Low Impact
    Development measures as well as a design approach which will address
    force protection and security while also allowing continuous public
    access to the water's edge.
        The U.S. Department of Transportation will be relocating to the
    Southeast Federal Center. This $1.7 million building will bring an
    additional 7,500 federal employees to the neighborhood.
        The GSA has completed construction of a new seawall at the
    Southeast Federal Center and has issued an RFP for the development of
    the remaining 44-acres of prime waterfront land. D-DOT has
    reconstructed all of the streets surrounding the SEFC, upgrading the
    quality of public spaces in preparation for development.
        The D.C. Office of Planning has rezoned the land known as Buzzard
    Point permitting residential uses to be introduced to this prime
    waterfront land.
        Pepco, the District, NPS and the Navy have partnered with the Earth
    Conservation Corps and the National Geographic Society to create the
    Mathew Henson Center, a new environmental learning center in the former
    PEPCO pump house.
        In a similar partnership, D-DOT has made a building beneath the
    11th Street bridges available to the Capitol Community Rowing Center, a
    non-profit boat house to serve the Anacostia River rowing community.
                               washington channel
        The District has entered into a public-private partnership to re-
    introduce 4th Street SW through the site known as Waterside Mall in
    order to create a new retail town center for the Southwest
    neighborhood.
        D-DOT and Federal Highways are commencing the rehabilitation of the
    10th Street overpass which will include the redesign of the urban
    streetscape of L'Enfant Plaza. The goal will be to create a more
    hospitable urban realm between the Smithsonian Institution and the
    Washington Channel Waterfront.
        The National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) has taken
    control of the Gangplank site and procured the services of a new marina
    operator.
        The District has issued a $46 million tax-revenue bond for the
    Mandarin-Oriental hotel on the Portals Site, providing a key amenity at
    the gateway between the Tidal Basin and the Washington Channel.
        The US-ACE and the District Department of Housing and Community
    Development are completing a marina and site improvements, which will
    restore historic structures, create more marina capacity and improve
    parking at the Washington Marina and the Fish Market.
        Together, these projects demonstrate the first-step commitment to
    reclaim Washington's waterfront for the benefit of neighborhoods, the
    City and the region. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan
    will build on these first steps to chart the course towards achieving
    full clean-up of the River's water; easy access to its shores; creation
    of a great new parks network; introduction of cultural destinations and
    the strengthening of all the neighborhoods along its shores.
                                 public health
        Question. Do you believe the needle exchange program operated by
    Prevention Works is an effective program for reducing the spread of
    HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B in the District?
        Answer. Yes, we believe the needle exchange program operated by
    Prevention Works is an effective program for reducing the spread of
    HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B in the District.
        Individuals may become infected with HIV, the virus that causes
    AIDS, and Hepatitis B and C when sharing needles used to inject drugs.
    Both HIV and Hepatitis B and C are incurable and can be fatal;
    consequently, primary and secondary prevention is crucial to avoiding
    transmission. Needle exchange programs can be an effective part of a
    comprehensive prevention strategy to reduce the incidence of HIV and
    Hepatitus B and C.
        In the District of Columbia, there are an estimated 9,720 Injection
    Drug Users (IDUs). Of particular note is that sharing of contaminated
    needles is the primary route of HIV infection among African American
    women in the District. Prevention Works, as well as all other HIV and
    viral hepatitis prevention programs targeting injection drug users, are
    of paramount importance considering the District's large population of
    IDU's, many of whom are indigent with limited access to health care and
    treatment services.
        I hope these responses answer the questions you have posed. Please
    feel free to contact me if you should require additional information.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you all very much for being here,
    that concludes our hearings.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 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

    Altman, Andrew, Director, District of Columbia Office of Planning   274
        Prepared statement...........................................   275
    Ashby, Cornelia, Director of Education, Workforce and Income
      Security, General Accounting Office............................   153
        Prepared statement...........................................   160

    Cane, Robert, Executive Director, Friends of Choice in Urban
      Schools........................................................   144
        Prepared statement...........................................   147
    Chavous, Kevin P., Chair, Committee on Education, Council of the
      District of Columbia...........................................   122
        Prepared statement...........................................   123
    Cline, Michael, Coordinator of Emergency Management for Virginia.     1
    Cooper-Cafritz, Peggy, President, District of Columbia Board of
      Education......................................................   101
        Prepared statement...........................................   106
    Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia...   246
        Prepared statement...........................................   248

    DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:
        Opening statement............................................   105
        Prepared statements..........................................5, 155
    Dolan, Jacqueline, California Partnership for Children...........   201
        Prepared statement...........................................   201

    Fraidin, Matthew, Legal Director, The Children's Law Center......   191
        Prepared statement...........................................   192
    Friedman, Dr. Julia, Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Research
      and Analysis, and Chief Economist, District of Columbia........   253

    Gandhi, Dr. Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of
      Columbia:
        Letter from..................................................   267
        Prepared statement...........................................   254
    Golstman, Susan, a child-friendly courthouse architect, prepared
      statement......................................................   217
    Graham, Carolyn, Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families,
      Government of the District of Columbia.........................   116
        Prepared statement...........................................   117

    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, statement of......................   240

    Johnson, Jerry N., General Manager, District of Columbia Water
      and Sewer Authority............................................   285
        Prepared statement...........................................   286
    Jones, Cynthia, Director, Public Defender Service, District of
      Columbia.......................................................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67

    Keldsen, Donald, Acting Director, Maryland Emergency Management
      Agency.........................................................     1
    Kellems, Margaret, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, District of
      Columbia:
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Statements of................................................1, 237
    King, Rufus G., III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District
      of Columbia:
        Prepared statements.........................................91, 187
        Statements of...............................................89, 171
    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:
        Opening statements.............................1, 53, 101, 153, 237
        Prepared statements............................3, 58, 103, 153, 238
        Questions submitted by.....................................219, 294
    LaPorte, Peter G., Director, Emergency Management Services
      Agency, District of Columbia...................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Luxenberg, Deborah,, Chair, Children in the Courts Committee,
      Council on Court Excellence....................................   195
        Prepared statement...........................................   196

    Ormond, Jasper, Interim Director, Court Services and Offender
      Supervision Agency, District of Columbia.......................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Statement of.................................................    60

    Rogers, Michael, Executive Director, Metropolitan Washington
      Council of Governments.........................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Rotherham, Andrew, Director, 21st Century Schools Project,
      Progressive Policy Institute...................................   137
        Prepared statement...........................................   139

    Satterfield, Judge Lee, Presiding Judge, Family Court, Superior
      Court of the District of Columbia..............................   171
        Prepared statement...........................................   189
    Schwartz, James, Assistant Chief of Operations, Arlington,
      Virginia Fire Department.......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Siglin, Doug, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, prepared statement......   291
    Strauss, Paul, Shadow Senator, District of Columbia, prepared
      statements...................................................216, 292

    Vance, Dr. Paul L., Superintendent, District of Columbia Public
      Schools........................................................   112
        Prepared statement...........................................   113

    Wagner, Hon. Annice M., Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial
      Administration in the District of Columbia.....................    80
        Prepared statement...........................................    84
    Walden-Ford, Virginia, Executive Director, D.C. Parents for
      School Choice..................................................   148
        Prepared statement...........................................   149
    White, Richard A., Chief Executive Officer, Washington
      Metropolitan Area Transit Authority............................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Wicks, Anne, Executive Officer, D.C. Courts, District of Columbia    80
    Williams, Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia:
        Prepared statements........................................243, 272
        Statements of..............................................237, 241

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Accomplishments..................................................   273
    Action, need for.................................................   273
    Additional committee questions...................................   294
    Affordability....................................................   289
    Anacostia:
        Impact on....................................................   289
        River improvement efforts, LTCP component of.................   271
        Waterfront initiative.................................287, 272, 297
            Draft framework plan.....................................   276
            Goals....................................................   276
            Memorandum of understanding (MOU)........................   276
            Vision...................................................   275
            What is the?.............................................   275
    Benefits to be gained............................................   277
    Budget:
        Priorities...................................................   241
        Reserve policy...............................................   264
    Catalyst projects................................................   298
    Charter school:
        Development of...............................................   262
        Facilities funding...........................................   295
    Child and Family Services Agency.................................   295
    Children with disabilities:
        Reform of system representing................................   263
        Representation of............................................   262
    City parks, revitalizing.........................................   281
    Coordinated actions to-date......................................   277
    Council/Mayor budget process.....................................   249
    Council period XIV...............................................   249
    Council/public citizen budget process............................   249
    Debt and capital infrastructure policy...........................   265
    District's:
        Bond rating..................................................   257
        Budget, structural imbalance in the..........................   256
    District-Federal partnership, a critical juncture in.............   246
    Economic benefits................................................   293
    Emergency preparedness: Management of funds......................   297
    Endeavor.........................................................   274
    Environmental benefits...........................................   294
    EPA permit requirements..........................................   288
    Existing project priorities......................................   298
    Federal:
        Barriers to the District's financial recovery................   245
        Origins and reliance upon the combined sewer system..........   288
    Fiscal:
        Health, overall..............................................   294
        Resolve......................................................   245
    Fiscal year:
        2002 financial outlook.......................................   255
        2003 budget request..........................................   255
        2003 financial plan..........................................   254
    Funding the initiatives..........................................   281
    Future, planning for the.........................................   284
    General authority responsibility.................................   286
    Highlights of the fiscal year 2003 budget........................   249
    History and the current state of the river.......................   273
    Key priorities, investing in.....................................   244
    Legislative achievements.........................................   247
    Long-term:
        Control plan process.........................................   288
        Recovery.....................................................   243
    Near southeast...................................................   300
    Overview.........................................................   254
    Park design, exploring...........................................   283
    Parks and recreation.............................................   296
    Partnership......................................................   290
    Pay-as-you-go funds..............................................   250
    Poplar point.....................................................   300
    Project, background of the.......................................   293
    Public:
        Health.......................................................   301
        Investment, need for.........................................   274
    River:
        Middle reaches of the........................................   300
        Upper reaches of the.........................................   299
    Sewer system, combined...........................................   287
    Special education..............................................259, 295
    Spending:
        Caps on......................................................   250
        Reducing.....................................................   244
        Responsible..................................................   242
    Strategic planning...............................................   298
    Strong authority governance & management capacity................   287
    Structural imbalance, Federal financial assistance for...........   250
    Tax parity/tax relief............................................   250
    Washington channel...............................................   301
    Waterfront:
        Access, barriers to..........................................   280
        Neighborhoods, building......................................   284
        Revitalization, examples of..................................   282
        What makes up the............................................   279

                                     Courts

    Appropriations language changes..................................    89
    City unveils plan for D.C. General site..........................    54
    Close supervision................................................    63
    Coordination with D.C. agencies..................................    97
    Court-ordered criminal justice reforms...........................    68
    Courts and the community.........................................    86
    Criminal justice collaboration projects..........................    68
    DC Courts' fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    87
    DNA sample collection response initiative........................    69
    Drug treatment...................................................    71
    Families lamenting life after Lorton.............................    55
    Family court.....................................................    93
    Fiscal year:
        2002 accomplishments.........................................    67
        2003 request.................................................    69
    Homes, shops, waterfront park, health-related offices, envisioned    54
    Increasing court-wide support staff..............................    97
    Information technology...........................................    65
    Long-term care insurance.........................................    96
    Offender population..............................................    69
    Old courthouse...................................................    86
    Parole revocation defense initiative.............................    69
    Partnerships.....................................................    64
    Performance measurement at the courts............................    85
    President's fiscal year 2003 budget, critical budget priorities
      above the......................................................    84
    Public Defender Service priorities...............................    78
    Re-entry into the community......................................    70
    Relatives find visits daunting, with prisoners all over country..    55
    Risk and needs assessment........................................    63
    September 11th...................................................    89
    Sex offender registry............................................    73
    Sound management practices.......................................    85
    Strategic planning...............................................    85
    Supervision caseload.............................................    73
    Transition back into the community...............................    75
    Treatment and support services...................................    64

                                   Education

    Charter schools..................................................   131
    Costs............................................................   141
    District's public charter schools:
        Considerations for...........................................   142
    Problems faced by the............................................   147
    Education in the District of Columbia, status of.................   149
    Facilities crisis................................................   147
    Financing, lack of...............................................   148
    Over-identification for special education........................   140
    Parental centers.................................................   135
    Public charter schools on public education in the District,
      impact of the..................................................   147
    School expenditures..............................................   111
    Special education..............................................110, 126
    Student performance..............................................   141

      PUTTING FAMILIES FIRST: THE ROAD TO REFORM OF THE D.C. FAMILY COURT

    Category:
        One..........................................................   220
        Three........................................................   221
        Two..........................................................   221
    Child sensitive courts...........................................   201
    Edmund D. Edelman Children's Courthouse, County of Los Angeles,
      California.....................................................   217
    Family Court Act.................................................   189
    Family court:
        Implementation, challenges in obtaining the necessary
          physical space and in developing a new information system
          could impede...............................................   165
        Transition plan..............................................   190
    GAO contact and acknowledgments..................................   168
    Information technology...........................................   188
    Memorandum.....................................................228, 232
    Observations, concluding.........................................   168
    Progress to date.................................................   187
    Space and facilities.............................................   187
    Transition plan and:
        Attorneys....................................................   193
        The Child and Family Services Agency.........................   193
        The court....................................................   192
        Contains most, but not all, required elements of the Family
          Court Act..................................................   162

              REGIONAL EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL

    Coordinating:
        Regional preparedness........................................    43
        School evacuations...........................................    49
    Transportation security..........................................    46
    District response plan...........................................     6
    Domestic preparedness task force.................................     5
    Emergency preparedness ``tabletop'' exercise 2002 senior leaders'
      seminar participant list--March 12-13, 2002....................    36
    Planning and training............................................    35
    Region, defining the.............................................    32
    Regional coordination............................................    18
    Security funding.................................................    17
    Transportation...................................................     6
    WMATA's emergency response role..................................    17

                                       -