[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
-