[Senate Hearing 108-304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Courts
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, CHAIRMAN OF THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE D.C. COURTS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
Today I am convening the first fiscal year 2004 budget
hearing for the District of Columbia. Just 3 weeks ago, the
President signed the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations
bill into law. That bill contained, of course, the fiscal year
2003 District of Columbia appropriations bill along with the
other ten remaining appropriations bills.
Senator Stevens deserves high praise for completing these
bills after taking the Chairman's gavel on January 15. He has
recently expressed his desire and his intent to complete Senate
action on all 13 appropriations bills by the August recess.
With that charge, we are forging ahead in this subcommittee
to review the fiscal year 2004 budget submissions of each
Federal agency, as well as Mayor Williams' budget priorities. I
want to take this opportunity to commend Senator Landrieu, who
will be joining us in just a moment, our subcommittee's Ranking
Member and the former chairman of this subcommittee, for her
past leadership as the Chairman of the committee, and to
recognize her very hard work to make life better for the
residents of the District of Columbia.
Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
to do many things on this subcommittee, but particularly to try
to protect the interests of children in this city. And I am
sure that we will continue to reach across the aisle in that
endeavor. It is a real pleasure to work with Senator Landrieu.
We have operated this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. She
did that when she was the Chairman; and I intend to continue to
do that during the time that I am chairman.
Today, as we begin our fiscal year 2004 hearings, I would
like to share some Federal funding priorities that I currently
see for our Nation's Capital. First, I intend to ensure that
the requirements of the Family Court Act, which Senator
Landrieu and I sponsored, continue to be aggressively pursued.
In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, we appropriated a
total of $48 million to support the Family Court. Today we are
anxious to hear how the Court has used its fiscal year 2002
funds and how it is planning to use its recently appropriated
fiscal year 2003 funds.
Having focused for the past 2 years on the Family Court,
this year we intend to turn our attention to an agency with
which the Family Court frequently interacts, the Child and
Family Services Agency. This is the agency, of course, that is
responsible for helping children in the District obtain
permanent homes. We plan to hold a series of hearings over the
next few months to determine the status of the foster care
system in the city and to explore ways to improve adoption
opportunities for youngsters in this system.
And let me just say that we have a series of hearings that
are planned. We will take whatever time that is necessary
during the next several years to fully understand and explore
what is going on in this system. This will be the No. 1
priority of the subcommittee for the next 2 years. And we will
take the time, and we will put the energy into it, whatever is
necessary.
In addition to pursuing the Family Court's objectives and
improving the foster care system, I want to ensure that efforts
to construct the biodecontamination and quarantine facilities
at Children's Hospital and Washington Hospital Center continue
to proceed. In last year's budget, Senator Landrieu and I
prioritized this and set aside money to work in this area.
In the event of a biological, chemical, or high-yield
explosive attack, these two hospitals will provide critical
care to children and adults living in and visiting our Nation's
Capital. They must be equipped to deal with the consequences of
terrorist attacks. We provide resources to begin this activity.
We provided resources to begin this activity in fiscal year
2003. And we must make sure that we continue this work.
We also would like to build on the $50 million fiscal year
2003 Federal investment in the city's combined sewer overflow
project. This multi-year project will revamp a system that was
constructed at the end of the 19th Century, and which overflows
50 to 60 times every year, dumping raw sewage into the
Anacostia River. Given the demands the Federal Government
places on this system, we clearly have a responsibility to
contribute to its much-needed renovations. If we can share the
cost of this project with the city, we would shorten the
completion time from 40 to 15 years.
By cleaning up the river, we would expedite the city's
proposed waterfront development initiative. This development
would ultimately provide recreational and commercial
opportunities for D.C. residents and visitors.
Clearly, there are many worthy activities which will place
demands on the always limited resources in the D.C.
appropriations bill. So today we will begin to discuss those
funding needs by listening to testimony from the District of
Columbia Courts and the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency. Under the Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997, of course, the Federal Government is
required to finance the District of Columbia Courts and CSOSA.
As I mentioned earlier today, I want to hear how the Family
Court has used its fiscal 2002 funds and how it is planning to
use its recently appropriated fiscal year 2003 funds. And as we
discussed, these have been two very top priorities for both
Senator Landrieu and myself.
We would also like to learn what progress the Court is
making in meeting its objectives of: (1) implementing one
family, one judge; (2) hiring experienced and qualified
judicial officers; (3) providing training for judges and all
staff; (4) ensuring accountability of attorneys, judges, and
staff; (5) providing better technology to cases; (6) initiating
alternate dispute resolution; and (7) providing better
facilities to provide a safe, family-friendly environment.
The Courts have requested $193 million for fiscal year
2004. This is $32 million more than fiscal 2003 enacted levels
and $30 million more than President Bush's budget request. I
would like to hear from our witnesses how the Courts plan to
use these additional resources and how this increase will
contribute to the success of the Family Court, as well as the
operations of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals.
We are particularly interested to learn how the Courts'
facilities plan will be implemented and the time line, the time
line for completion of these important Capital projects. These
Capital projects will play a key role in providing a safe,
family-friendly environment, as required by the Family Courts
Act.
The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency has
requested $166.5 million for fiscal year 2004, which is an
increase of $11 million over fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
the same as the President's budget request. Again, we would
like to hear how these additional resources will be used to
further the agencies' mission and goals.
Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral
remarks. Copies of your written statements will be placed in
the record in their entirety.
Let me now turn to the Ranking Member of the committee, a
person who I have enjoyed serving with and the former chairman
of this committee, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking
forward to working with you and starting out this year. And I
welcome our witnesses this morning from our Federal agencies,
particular the D.C. Courts, the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency. You all represent the core of the
District's appropriations bill and the center of our attention
this morning.
As you all know, the subcommittee and the whole Congress
exercises a distinct function given the unique position of the
District, not being a State and having a special designation as
a district. We take that responsibility very seriously. And
even with our limited resources, we are going to do our very
best in that regard.
I would just like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, if I
could, to briefly review some of the accomplishments of last
year and then talk about one or two specific areas of promise
that I see in the year ahead.
First of all, I think the Chairman and I worked very well
together to help the District to secure emergency preparedness
funding in this very difficult time. Every study we have shown
and both of our experiences on other committees, particularly
my experience as the former chair of the Emerging Threats
Subcommittee of Armed Services, leads me to believe that the
District is, unfortunately, the No. 1 target in the United
States for terrorism. The District of Columbia and New York
continue, unfortunately, to hold that designation. And so this
committee takes very seriously our responsibility in terms of
continuing to try to support the District in its defenses
against terrorism and standing up its emergency preparedness.
Strengthening public schools and working with the District
to promote more school choice through charters is something I
believe that we made a major step and accomplishment in last
year, particularly with the Chairman's help supporting our
children and families and standing up this Family Court, as we
now engage to see where we stand in that effort. That was truly
an accomplishment, one we are proud of and one we look forward
to continuing to work on as we strengthen the child welfare
system in the District as it experiences great challenges, as
does almost every major city, and in many communities in the
United States.
I also think, as the Chairman just mentioned, of our
efforts, as much as we can be supportive, of revitalizing
neighborhoods, particularly the Anacostia region with the
revitalization of the river. And it is going to take a strong
Federal commitment to help the District in that endeavor. But
as the Chairman outlined, the economic benefits to this region
are pretty substantial and quite exciting.
So I am happy to be working in those four areas. I want to
say publicly that I share the Mayor's goal of trying to
increase this city's population. I would imagine that every
mayor in the country would like to achieve the same, to have
every city growing in its population, as opposed to decreasing.
And I share his view that one of the keys to growth of a city
is the strength and dynamic nature of a school system. And I
look forward to working with him through this committee,
perhaps, Mr. Chairman, piloting some real creative
opportunities to encourage middle-class families to stay in the
District. We can use the schools as a real centerpiece to
neighborhood revitalization and economic development, as I
think is appropriate and, along those lines, continuing to
strive for excellence in all of our schools, and really want to
commend the school board for their work in beginning their
attempts at reforming special education.
I mentioned our support of the Family Court. That
commitment remains strong. And I would just like to say,
though, on a more pointed note that I was concerned about--and
I think the Chairman shares this concern--about the difference
in the originally requested amount for the Courts and then the
amount that we are considering today. The request for Capital
construction was two-thirds less funding from the first
documents that we saw until the hearing today.
I think that in order for us to continue to build
confidence in the Congress about the Courts' ability to go
through this reform plan, to stand up these new buildings, that
we have to be very careful.
I am committed to working with you, as I have in the past
as the Chairman of this committee, to ensure that every child
in the District has access to justice before the court, and
families are strengthened, not made more fragile by the system.
I am committed to addressing the resources and management
issues of the Family Court, so that we can continue to build
confidence in our reform efforts.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest of my
remarks for the record and thank you for conducting this
hearing and I think that we have made quite a few
accomplishments in the areas that I outlined and look forward
to a very promising year to come.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
I would like to welcome the witness from our Federal agencies, the
D.C. Courts and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
(CSOSA). You are really the core of the D.C. Appropriations bill and
the center of our attention. This Subcommittee exercises the ``State''
oversight function for the District, similar to how other cities and
States interact.
The D.C. Appropriations bill, under my chairmanship last year and
continuing with Mr. DeWine, has charted a course to support targeted
investments in the District. Congress is partnering with the District
by enhancing security and emergency preparedness; strengthening schools
and education standards; supporting Family Court and child welfare;
revitalizing neighborhoods. These three areas support the D.C. Mayor
Anthony Williams' goal to increase the population of the city by
100,000 people in the next 10 years. People want good schools and
dynamic, safe neighborhoods.
ENHANCING SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 the Federal Government
committed over $250 million to equipping and training D.C. first
responders, creating a first-rate emergency response plan, and
effective evacuation plan. Last year, Senator DeWine initiated an
effort to preparing area hospitals to respond to bioterrorism, and I
look forward to continuing this year.
STRENGTHENING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION STANDARDS
The first accomplishment from fiscal year 2003, and most important
in my mind, is the Federal investment in strengthening successful
charter schools in the District and supporting school choice ($17
million). The District is now increasing access to critical financing
to help create great facilities. Now we must look to reforming
management of schools and providing more technical assistance for
facilities and best practices.
This year I would like to explore with Chairman DeWine a
partnership with the District to create ``community building charter
schools''. These schools would be a model for educational advancements
and really be a community center for the neighborhood.
supporting the family court in the district and reforming child welfare
I am proud that this Committee ensured that the District received
sufficient funding for the new Family Court. In fiscal year 2002 $23.3
million was appropriated and fiscal year 2003 followed up with $29.6
million for new staff and capital improvements. I do have some
questions as to how the Courts have implemented the Family Court Act
with these funds, but it is clear Congress has vigorously supported
this new court.
This year, I understand Chairman DeWine is interested in working on
child welfare. I support this endeavor and believe we can use the
District as a model for reforming the broken systems in so many other
States (e.g. California, New Jersey). Recently, I was discussing how
States are adhering to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and
the District of Columbia was mentioned as a model for an excellent
plan. Now, we must work on implementation and adequate resources.
REVITALIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS
In fiscal year 2003 we invested in clean-up of the Anacostia River
and development of parks and recreation ($55 million). The development
of the waterfront spurs economic development and revitalizes
neighborhoods, like SW Waterfront and former D.C. General Hospital
campus. I will continue to make a priority of cleaning the river,
creating beautiful parks and recreation opportunities, and revitalizing
communities.
In this hearing we will discuss the budget requests of the D.C.
Courts and CSOSA. I am very concerned about the Courts' ability to
budget and manage its resources. The Courts originally requested $293.2
million for fiscal year 2004; then 2 days before the hearing, the
Courts and GSA determined that two-thirds less funding than originally
requested for Capital Construction would be necessary. The Courts'
revised request reduced the Capital Construction request from $145.6
million to $46.9 million. The total revised request is $194.5 million.
The Senate has fought for additional funding for the Courts, especially
to improve facilities. I am concerned that the Courts do not know what
they need and don't know how to support the request. This approach is
not helpful.
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 Family
Court Reform and does not suffer the fate of too many children that
have been failed. Committed to addressing resource and management
issues of the Family Court and ensure funding is expended well.
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, 8,000 defendants at any given time. I
commend CSOSA for reducing caseloads from over 100, before the
Revitalization Act, to current levels of 56 cases under general
supervision. Additionally, I encourage the investment to reduce
caseloads further to 50 cases per officer in fiscal year 2004. I am
also interested in the specific steps the agency is taking to
minimizing recidivism, such as the drug treatment options and the
Faith-based Initiative.
I am particularly happy to see that the Public Defender Service is
continuing your rigorous training program for court-appointed
attorneys. I look forward to hearing about representation your agency
provides to juveniles with disabilities in the delinquency system. We
would appreciate your views on how the special education system serves
delinquent juveniles.
I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to your
testimony. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.
Let me introduce very briefly our first panel. Judge Wagner
is the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
and Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration.
Accompanying Chief Judge Wagner for questions is Ms. Anne
Wicks, Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts. We welcome both of
you today. Thank you very much.
The Honorable Rufus King is the Chief Judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. Accompanying Chief Judge
King for questions today is the Honorable Lee Satterfield,
presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia. We welcome both of you.
We have received your written testimony. We would ask you
just to summarize. And we would ask both of you to confine your
opening statement to 5 minutes and just summarize what you
think is the most important thing for us to know. As I have
said, we do have your written statement, and we will take that
into consideration. And then we will go to questions.
Thank you very much.
Judge Wagner.
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER
Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.
I want to first of all thank you for allowing us the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request of
the District of Columbia Courts. I am appearing as Chair of the
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration which submits the
budget and is responsible for that by statute.
Of course, I can only highlight what it is that we want to
do. But I think a backdrop is important. Unquestionably, we
live in a new environment facing new challenges to our Nation,
our Nation's Capital, and our court system. But whatever
challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of
justice remains crucial to our way of life in America.
The District of Columbia Courts are committed to meeting
these new challenges. We have been steadfast in our mission,
which is to administer justice fairly, promptly, and
effectively. At the same time, we have been enhancing our
security systems and emergency preparedness activities in order
to protect all people who come in our courts and to ensure
continuity of operations in a challenging environment.
We are undergoing significant changes to meet the
challenges of new technologies and working to provide the
Courts of the jurisdiction with a sound infrastructure. The
Courts are committed to continued fiscal prudence and sound
fiscal management. Through our strategic goals, the Courts do
strive to provide fair, swift, and accessible justice, enhance
public safety, and ensure public trust and confidence in our
justice system.
I wish to mention that we do appreciate the support that
this subcommittee has given us, which makes possible the
achievements of our goals for this community.
To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year
2004, the D.C. Courts submitted a request for $293 million for
Court operations and Capital improvements. I hasten to add that
we have alerted you that there may be a need to revise the
Capital improvements request because of new developments with
the General Services Administration.
The original amount of our capital budget included the
estimated full project costs, because we were originally
informed by our partners, GSA, that full funding was required
at the beginning of the projects. It is our understanding that
this has been altered, the acquisition approach has been
altered, thereby changing the cash flow requirements for the
next fiscal year.
It was only this past Monday that we were informed that we
may no longer require full construction funding in fiscal year
2004. Therefore, it is important for the Courts to have an
opportunity to confer with GSA officials and determine the
impact of these changes on the cost and the schedule of these
projects in order to provide this subcommittee with the best
information available. It would be helpful if you would permit
us a very brief period to do that and then to get back to you
on this particular aspect of our budget request.
To build on past accomplishments and to support essential
services to the public in the Nation's Capital, investment in
technology, security, infrastructure, and strategic management
are essential priorities in 2004. Only by investing in these
critical areas will we be in a position to ensure that
information technology is capable of meeting today's demands
and that the type of security necessary to protect our citizens
and our institution are in place and that our facilities are
safe, healthy, and reasonably up to date.
The D.C. Courts operate within four separate buildings in
Judiciary Square. Maintenance and modernization to these
buildings is quite costly. And the Courts' capital budget has
not been adequate to meet these needs in the past. Fundamental
costs to bring these facilities up to par have been quantified
in a recently completed building evaluation report prepared for
the Courts by the General Services Administration. The capital
budget request would include funds to meet these needs.
The capital budget request does reflect the significant
research, analysis, and planning incorporated in the D.C.
Courts' first-ever master plan for the D.C. Courts' facilities.
In the master plan process, GSA analyzed the Courts' current
and future space needs, particularly in light of the
significantly increased space needs of the Family Court.
The key element for meeting the Courts' space needs is the
restoration of the Old Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of
Appeals, which would move out of the Moultrie Building, thereby
making additional space available in the Moultrie Courthouse
for the Superior Court to accommodate the Family Court and
other operations.
I will only mention, and I will not even develop it, but
just to say that in addition to our master space plan, on which
we are prepared to answer questions, I should mention that our
funding is directed toward enhancing public safety, investing
in information technology, and investing in accurate and
complete trial records. And you have the exact amounts that we
are requesting for this. In addition, we have requested funding
for attorneys who provide legal services to the indigents to
increase their hourly rate to $90.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I will conclude now, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu. We
have long enjoyed, at the District of Columbia Courts, a
national reputation for excellence. We are proud of the Courts'
record of administering justice fairly, accessibly, and in a
cost-efficient manner. Adequate funding for the Courts'
critical priorities in 2004 is essential if we are to continue
to provide high-quality service to the community in the future.
We do look forward to working with you throughout the
appropriations process. And thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you today. We will be prepared to answer your
questions on the items that you mentioned.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request of the District of
Columbia Courts. 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 and Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals. As you know, the Joint Committee is the policy-making body
for the District of Columbia Courts. By statute, its responsibilities
include, among others, general personnel policies, accounts and
auditing, procurement and disbursement, management of information
systems and reports and submission of the annual budget request to the
President and Congress for our court system. We are a two-tier system
comprised of the D.C. Court of Appeals, our court of last resort, and
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court of
general jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative
support functions for our Courts is provided by what has come to be
known as the Court System.
On behalf of the D.C. Courts, the Joint Committee has submitted a
detailed request for the budgetary resources essential to the
administration of justice in fiscal year 2004. My remarks this morning
will summarize the request and highlight our most critical priorities.
With me this morning are Chief Judge Rufus King III, the chief judge of
our trial court and a member of the Joint Committee, and Ms. Anne
Wicks, the Executive Officer for the Courts and Secretary to the Joint
Committee. We are prepared to answer questions concerning the budget
request for the courts, along with Judge Lee Satterfield, the presiding
judge of our new Family Court.
INTRODUCTION
Unquestionably, we live in a new environment, facing new challenges
to our Nation, our Nation's capital and our court system. Whatever
challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of justice
remains crucial to our way of life. The District of Columbia Courts are
committed to meeting these new challenges. We have been steadfast in
our mission, which is to administer justice fairly, promptly, and
effectively. At the same time, we have been enhancing our security
systems and emergency preparedness activities in order to protect all
of the people who come to our courts and to ensure continuity of
operations in a challenging environment. We are undergoing significant
changes to meet the challenges of new technologies and working to
provide for the courts of this jurisdiction a sound infrastructure. The
Courts are committed to continued fiscal prudence and sound fiscal
management. 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. We appreciate the
support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes possible the
achievement of these goals for this community.
To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2004, the
D.C. Courts submitted a request of $293 million for court operations
and capital improvements. In addition, the Courts request $44,701,000
for the Defender Services account. The operating budget request
includes: $9,271,000 for the Court of Appeals; $85,800,000 for the
Superior Court; and $52,520,760 for the Court System. Our original
submission for capital improvements was in the amount of $145,621,000.
This amount included the estimated full project costs because we had
been advised by the General Services Administration (GSA), our partner
for capital projects, that full funding was required at the beginning
of the projects. It is our understanding that the GSA has altered its
construction acquisition approach, thereby changing the cash flow
requirements for the next fiscal year. It was only this past Monday
that we were informed that GSA may no longer require full construction
funding in fiscal year 2004. Therefore, it important for the Courts to
confer with GSA officials and determine the impact of these changes on
the cost and schedule of these projects in order to provide the
Subcommittee with the best information available. It would be helpful
if you would permit us a brief period for that purpose.
The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in
fiscal year 2004. To build on past accomplishments and to support
essential services to the public in the nation's capital, investment in
technology, security, infrastructure, and strategic management are
essential priorities. Only by investing in these critical areas will
the Courts be in a position to ensure that information technology is
capable of meeting today's demands; that the type of security necessary
to protect our citizens and our institution are in place; and that our
facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably up-to-
date. Focus on these capital areas is particularly critical now to meet
each of these needs and to ensure that the quality of justice is not
compromised.
The Courts' fiscal year 2004 request is a fiscally responsible
budget that continues to build on our achievements. We are particularly
proud of our progress with a number of initiatives. These include:
--Implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
fiscal year 2001 (enacted in January 2002). To date, the Courts
have developed a detailed implementation plan, hired nine new
magistrate judges, initiated space improvements, and
transferred the cases of more than 3,000 children to Family
Court judges committed to achieving permanent family
placements;
--Initiation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)
project, a major capital investment, which will ensure
coordinated and efficient case processing and enhance court
operations. The IJIS project received a favorable GAO review
which included several useful recommendations currently being
implemented by the Courts;
--Increased access to justice through community-based initiatives,
including the Criminal Division's Community Court and the
Domestic Violence Unit's satellite intake office in Southeast
Washington. I believe Chief Judge King will be providing more
information on these very important court community efforts.
--Development of the first Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities,
which outlines the Courts' space requirements and provides a
blueprint for optimal space utilization, both short-term and
long-term;
--Recognition of sound fiscal management practices, by receiving from
an independent audit firm, an ``unqualified'' opinion for the
third year in a row in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-133
(Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit
Organizations);
--Continued enhancements to the Courts' management of the Defender
Services account, through expeditious processing of payments to
attorneys representing indigent defendants, major revision of
the Courts' plan for the provision of indigent defense, and
assumption of responsibility for issuing payment vouchers to
CJA attorneys from the Public Defender Service to enable
accurate estimation of the Courts' future fiscal obligations;
--Conclusion of an independent study of staffing levels by Booz,
Allen and Hamilton that provides data to facilitate the most
effective deployment of limited staff as well as a software
tool to assist in the determination of necessary staffing
levels; and
--Expansion of court-wide strategic planning, business process re-
engineering, and implementation of key aspects of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to ensure that
the Courts address critical priorities and issues in a
strategic manner to achieve specific and measurable results.
CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET PRIORITIES
To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community
and the demands confronting the District's judicial branch, adequate
resources are essential. The most critical issue facing the D.C. Courts
is sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' critical space
shortage and deteriorating infrastructure. Unless addressed, the
functional capability of the Courts will decline and the quality of
justice in the District of Columbia will be compromised. The Courts'
fiscal year 2004 request addresses these requirements by:
Investing in Infrastructure.--The D.C. Courts operate within four
separate buildings in Judiciary Square. Maintenance and modernization
to buildings of this age are quite costly, and the Courts' capital
budget has not been adequate to meet these needs. Fundamental costs to
bring these facilities up to par have been quantified in a recently
completed Building Evaluation Report prepared for the Courts by GSA.
The capital budget request of the Courts includes funds to meet these
needs.
The Courts' capital budget also reflects the significant research,
analysis, and planning incorporated in the D.C. Courts' first-ever
Master Plan for D.C. Courts' Facilities. In the master plan process,
GSA analyzed the Courts' current and future space needs, particularly
in light of the significantly increased space needs of the Family
Court. A key element to meeting the Courts' space needs is the
restoration of the Old Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals,
thereby making additional space available in the Moultrie Courthouse
for the Superior Court to accommodate the Family Court and other court
operations.
The restoration of the Old Courthouse is projected to total $84
million. The centerpiece of the historic Judiciary Square area, the Old
Courthouse is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia.
Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and Francis Scott Key
practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his part in the
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The architectural and
historical significance of the Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881,
led to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
structure is uninhabitable in its current condition and requires
extensive work to meet health and safety building codes. Restoring this
historic landmark will meet the urgent space needs of the Courts and
preserve its rich history for future generations.
The Courts' capital budget also includes a total of $52.3 million
for the Moultrie Courthouse Expansion, additions planned for the south
side (C Street) and Indiana Avenue entrance of the courthouse. The C
Street addition will complete the facilities for the Family Court,
providing a separate courthouse entrance for the Family Court, child
protection mediation space, increased Child Care Center space, and safe
and comfortable family-friendly waiting areas. The addition also will
permit the consolidation of Family Court related operations, to include
the Social Services Division (the District's juvenile probation
operation) and District government social service agencies that provide
needed services to families and children in crisis. A portion of the
addition will meet critical space needs for Superior Court operations.
Enhancing Public Security.--The main courthouse, the Moultrie
Building, is one of the busiest in this city. It is reported that as
many as 10,000 people come into this building daily. In order to
address issues affecting the security of these thousands of individuals
in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Courts request $1,025,413
to finance additional operational security measures, and $6,500,000 in
capital funding to finance facility security improvements.
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 of making available appropriate
data to the judiciary, the District's child welfare and criminal
justice communities and the public, the Courts request $4,163,347 in
operating funds in fiscal year 2004 for IT infrastructure enhancements
and operational upgrades and implementation of the disciplined
processes GAO recommends for the IJIS project. In addition, the Courts'
capital budget request includes an additional $11 million to continue
implementation of IJIS courtwide.
Expanding Strategic Planning and Management.--To support long-range
strategic planning and targeted organizational performance measurement
and assessment at the Courts, $615,000 is requested for an Office of
Strategic Management. This request would enable the Courts to build on
the current strategic planning effort by coordinating enterprise-wide
projects and enhancing the performance measurement capability of the
Courts. The funds would finance performance management software,
training of personnel, and staff to collect and analyze performance
data, prepare reports, and perform strategic planning, and coordination
function.
Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
and retain highly qualified employees and address the projected
retirement of a large proportion of our most experienced personnel (25
percent of the Courts' workforce, and 50 percent of those in top
management positions, are eligible to retire within the next 5 years),
$675,000 is requested for succession planning, leadership development,
and additional employee benefits.
Serving the Self-Represented.--To enhance equal access to justice
for the more than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to the
courthouse each year, $1,212,000 is requested for staff and space to
establish a self-representation service center. This initiative would
use best practices and build on plans for informational kiosks, funded
in fiscal year 2003, and very limited pro bono services currently
available.
Investing in Accurate and Complete Trial Records.--The Courts'
fiscal year 2004 request includes $1,624,000 to improve the production
of the record of court proceedings. Accurate and complete court records
are critical to ensure a fair trial and to preserve a record essential
for appeal to the highest level. The request includes $880,000 to
enhance the Courts' digital recording capabilities in the Courts' 80+
courtrooms and $744,000 for 12 additional court reporters.
Strengthening Defender Services.--In recent years, the Courts have
devoted particular attention to improving the financial management and
reforming the administration of the Defender Services accounts. For
example, the Courts significantly revised the Criminal Justice Act
(CJA) Plan for representation of indigent defendants and issued
Administrative Orders to ensure that CJA claims are accompanied by
adequate documentation and that highly qualified attorneys participate
in the program. The Courts have assumed from the Public Defender
Service responsibility for issuing vouchers to attorneys. This will
enable the Courts to estimate more accurately program obligations and
project budgetary requirements. The Courts request $88,000 in the
fiscal year 2004 operating budget to build on these initiatives and
exert greater management control over Defender Services.
In the Defender Services account, the Courts have requested
additional funds to increase the hourly rate for attorneys who provide
legal services to the indigent. The first rate increase for attorneys
in nearly 10 years, to $65/hour, was implemented in March 2002. In
fiscal year 2004 the Courts request an increase from $65 to $90 an
hour, to keep pace with the rate paid court-appointed attorneys at the
Federal courthouse across the street from the D.C. Courts.
Slightly over $16 million of the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for
Defender Services was financed from the account's unobligated balance.
Accordingly, the Courts request restoration of the base appropriations,
as well as additional funding to finance the attorney compensation
increase in fiscal year 2004.
APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE CHANGES
In the fiscal year 2004 budget submission, the Courts request two
language provisions to enhance their ability to serve the public in the
Nation's Capital. First, the Courts request limited authority to
transfer funds among our four appropriations to enhance financial
management of the Federal Payment appropriation. 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.
Second, the request includes language to permit the Courts to appoint
and compensate counsel in adoption cases to protect the rights of
parents and children, to facilitate a careful examination of factors
designed to ascertain the best interests of the child, and to ensure
the finality and permanency of the adoption.
CONCLUSION
Mister Chairman, 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. Adequate funding for the Courts' fiscal year
2004 priorities is critical to our success, both in the next year and
as we implement plans to continue to provide high quality service to
the community in the future. We look forward to working with you
throughout the appropriations process, and thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request of the
Courts.
Chief Judge King, Judge Satterfield, Anne Wicks, and I would be
pleased to address any questions.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. We will hold our questions until
Judge King has a chance to give his statement.
Judge King.
D.C. Superior Court
STATEMENT OF RUFUS KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ACCOMPANIED BY LEE SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge King. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeWine and
Senator Landrieu. I appreciate the opportunity to join Chief
Judge Wagner in presenting the D.C. Courts' 2004 budget request
to the subcommittee and to review some of the Courts'
accomplishments in the last year. At the outset, let me thank
both of you and the subcommittee as a whole for your generosity
with your time, your consideration, and the necessary funding
for a number of shared objectives. It is a pleasure to have
such a positive working relationship with the committee.
I want to underscore all that Chief Judge Wagner said about
the Courts' needs, especially regarding capital. To function
effectively, and especially to implement the Family Court Act
in a manner both timely and consistent with its highest
purposes, the Court needs to have adequate facilities and a
level of information technology that supports its efforts.
I will review just very briefly a couple of things the
Court has done. And then I will be happy to answer questions.
On October 30, the Superior Court officially opened the
first satellite Domestic Violence Intake Center in the Nation.
This center allows domestic violence victims to seek protection
in their own neighborhood without saddling us with the
crippling cost of operating a duplicate court, by use of video
technology. We can video transmit the appearance to the
courthouse where the judge can act on the petition for a
temporary protective order.
Having reviewed with Court officials the very promising
community courts in Manhattan and in Red Hook, New York, we
have opened two such courts in the Superior Court, the first
for minor misdemeanors and traffic cases. It takes all of those
cases and seeks to resolve them at a first court appearance,
reducing drastically the need for indigent defense funds for
additional court resources and police overtime due to excessive
court appearances.
The other community court is one that is based in the Sixth
Police District in Anacostia. It serves to address all of the
misdemeanors arising in that jurisdiction with some very few
exceptions. The Court has partnered with the D.C. Department of
Employment Services, the Pretrial Services Agency, and others
to fashion remedies which, again, address the causes, the
underlying issues and causes, that bring people before a
criminal court. That project, which is operating now on a pilot
basis, is showing early promise of being very successful.
In the Family Court, the Court has hired all of the new
magistrate judges that were specified in the act. We have
sought appointment of the three additional judges. They are now
pending before the Senate. Judge Satterfield, working with
Court officials and stakeholders, has overseen the transfer of
more than 3,000 neglect and abuse cases back to judges within
that court. He has established new rules, procedures, and
attorney practice standards, which I signed into effect several
weeks ago. He set up attorney panels for abuse and neglect
cases, so that that bar will now be regulated and reviewed more
carefully, held numerous training sessions for judges and
magistrate judges, and a cross-training for judges, attorneys,
social workers, and others involved in the Family Court
operations.
We have opened the Mayor's Services Liaison Center to
increase coordination of services to children and families and
make them more readily available. We have trained new judges
and will continue to train new judges. And we have met all
deadlines for reporting to Congress which are required under
the act.
We have begun implementing a policy of one family, one
judge. A Family Court judge handling a neglect or abuse case of
one family member also handles all cases involving that family
relating to abuse, neglect, custody, guardianship, termination
of parental rights, civil/domestic violence, post-adjudication
juvenile cases, and adoption cases filed after June 2002. All
other family matters involving that family will be heard by the
same judge or team at the conclusion of the second phase of
implementation, which is now in progress.
The conversion to an integrated justice information system
has advanced on schedule. We now are working with a contractor
with the first segment set to go live in the Family Court in
July of this year. That system will be compatible with all of
the other city agencies, so that we can operate effectively
with them. I have with me today Mr. Ken Foor, our IT director,
in case there are any questions that go beyond my competence.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Family Court Act presents the Court with a rare
opportunity to bring about better results for children and
families in the District of Columbia, an opportunity that we at
the Court enthusiastically welcome.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you both for the
opportunity to testify here today. We will be happy to answer
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rufus King, III
Good afternoon Chairman DeWine and Senator Landrieu. I appreciate
the opportunity to join Chief Judge Wagner in presenting the D.C.
Courts' 2004 budget request to the subcommittee and to review some of
the Superior Court's accomplishments over the past year. At the outset,
let me thank the subcommittee as a whole, and especially the Chairman
and the Ranking Member, for their support of the Courts, our employees,
and those we serve. You have been generous with your time, your
consideration and the necessary funding for a number of shared
objectives. It is a pleasure to have such a positive working
relationship.
I want to underscore all that Chief Judge Wagner said about the
Courts' needs, especially regarding capital. To function effectively,
and especially to implement the Family Court Act in a manner consistent
with its highest purposes, the court needs to have adequate facilities
and a level of information technology that supports its efforts.
I would like to review some of the accomplishments of the Superior
Court over the past year. We established a first-of-its-kind satellite
domestic violence intake center; set up a community court to handle all
minor misdemeanor and traffic cases; established a pilot community
court for the Sixth Police District to address a broader range of
crimes in a more holistic manner; and moved ahead aggressively to
implement the Family Court Act. There is still a lot to be done in all
these areas, but we have made great strides in making the Superior
Court a more open, responsive, effective organization.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTAKE CENTER
On October 30, the Superior Court officially opened the first
satellite Domestic Violence Intake Center in the Nation, in partnership
with police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and victim advocates. The
Center allows domestic violence victims to petition for a Temporary
Protection Order (TPO) via web-camera to a judge in the courthouse; the
judge then issues the TPO by fax. The Center is located in Southeast,
where more than 60 percent of those alleging domestic violence reside.
Victims are thus able to take the initial step towards protecting
themselves--obtaining a TPO--in a location that is close and
convenient. We hope that by encouraging more victims to come forward
more quickly it will help prevent further violence.
COMMUNITY COURT FOR MINOR MISDEMEANORS AND TRAFFIC CASES
One of the goals of the Court's Criminal Division has been to
address certain types of cases more comprehensively with less focus on
processing of cases. Along with other court leaders, I visited and was
impressed with New York's Manhattan and Red Hook Community courts.
There and elsewhere across the country courts have modified criminal
proceedings to see that services were provided, that community service
was done in an effort to see the community ``paid back'' for the damage
done to it, and to engage the court in an effort to reduce recidivist
behavior. Criminal Division Presiding Judge Noel Kramer spearheaded
this effort, working with prosecutors, police, defense attorneys,
service providers, and the Downtown Business Improvement District.
Together these groups established a courtroom in which defendants
charged with ``quality of life crimes,'' such as panhandling or
possessing an open container of alcohol, are given very real diversion
opportunities on the first day--alcohol education, for instance--and
possibly some community service, in exchange for which their case is
dropped. This approach has sharply reduced the need for police
appearances in the courtroom, more efficiently used indigent defense
resources, and resulted in many fewer continuances of cases. The
result: in our first year we saw a drop in the number of abscondances
(no shows at court hearings, which lead to bench warrants) of over 50
percent in traffic cases and nearly 45 percent in minor misdemeanors.
THE 6D COMMUNITY COURT
In addition to her work with the D.C./Traffic Community Court,
Judge Noel Kramer has also established on a pilot basis a community
court. In consultation with the Metropolitan Police Department, and the
U.S. Attorney's Office, the Court established a community court where
Judge Kramer hears all phases--from arraignment to disposition--of all
misdemeanors arising in the Sixth Police District. Judge Kramer and I
as well other court officials have been to numerous crime-prevention
and neighborhood meetings in the community to learn more about the
concerns residents have, get ideas for how best to address the crime
problems, and make them aware of what the court is doing. Judge Kramer
has partnered with the D.C. Department of Employment Services, the
PreTrial Services Agency and others to fashion diversion opportunities
that provide an accused with alternatives to a life of crime and drugs.
So far her work has received much praise--from all those involved in
the criminal justice system and from the residents of 6D.
FAMILY COURT IMPLEMENTATION
Judge Satterfield has led the Family Court through significant
changes and overcome some significant obstacles in implementing the
Family Court Act of 2001. The Family Court has overseen the transfer of
more than 3,000 neglect and abuse cases back to judges within that
court; establish new rules, procedures, and attorney practice
standards; set up attorney panels for abuse and neglect cases; held
numerous training sessions for judges and magistrate judges and a
cross-training for judges, attorneys, social workers and others;
received input from relevant stakeholders; opened the Mayor's Liaison
Center to increase coordination of services to children and families;
trained new judges; and met all deadlines in reporting to Congress as
required by the Act.
We have transferred substantially all the neglect and abuse cases
that were in review status with judges outside the Family Court to
judicial teams in the Family Court. All other cases will be transferred
in time to meet the Act's guidelines. We have begun implementing a
policy of ``one family/one judge''. Phase I is fully implemented, so
that the Family Court judge handling a neglect case of one family
member also handles all cases involving that family relating to abuse,
neglect, custody, guardianship, termination of parental rights, civil
domestic violence, post-adjudication juvenile cases, and adoption cases
later than June 2002. The next phase will be to consolidate all other
Family Court cases involving a family before that same judge, including
divorce, mental health, pre-adjudication juvenile, and paternity and
child support before the neglect judge or judicial team.
The Family Court Act presents the Court with a rare opportunity to
bring about better results for children and families in the District of
Columbia. We at the court welcome this opportunity and are doing our
best to implement the Act according to its letter and its spirit.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you both for the opportunity
to testify before you today. I am joined by my colleague Judge Lee
Satterfield and we would both be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
Senator DeWine. Judge King, thank you very much.
Judge Wagner, your news about the capital expenditure in
the request is certainly disturbing. That is quite a shock. The
progress in regard to the Family Court has always been
predicated on several things, and one has been the capital
restructuring and additional space. And we have always been
told that, and everyone has always understood that. And now you
are telling us that there is going to be apparently a major
delay in that. So I am quite shocked by this, frankly, and
very, very deeply disappointed. Maybe you can clarify what is
going on. I am not sure that I fully understand what in the
world is going on here.
Judge Wagner. Senator, there is----
Senator DeWine. This is like a bomb that was just dropped.
I mean, do we have to bring in GSA and you and have a hearing
together?
Judge Wagner. Senator, first of all, let me say that there
are two plans. One is an interim plan, which is essential
because the major construction projects are multi-year
projects. Secondly, the interim plan is on schedule. I think
that Chief Judge King has photographs of the space as it is
planned on an interim basis; and so that the Family Court is
separate, as you had envisioned it.
Long term, we had to go through a master plan phasing
schedule. We are, as you know, working with a partner, which is
the General Services Administration, which does these Federal
buildings. That master plan phasing schedule is subject to a
number of things that have to be done, including, I guess, the
procurement processes to secure, first of all, the design,
negotiate the award, plan a construction schedule, go through
your National Capital Planning Commission.
Now on Monday, it was just this past Monday that we learned
that the approach to securing funding for the project might be
different. That is, that you would not have to secure all of
the funds in advance in order to go forward with alerting the
public that you are interested in procuring services. And we
were told that they would first want to get the design.
But neither Judge King nor I have had an opportunity to sit
down and talk with the officials at GSA to get a better
understanding of how this will impact the long-term plan,
which, by its very nature, is necessarily long term, because it
does involve moving parts of our court which presently exist to
other buildings on a temporary basis or on a long-term basis
while they work on the various buildings in Judiciary Square.
Chief Judge King might like to add something.
Senator DeWine. Judge.
Judge King. Two things: One, we are not going to delay
implementation of the family bill. What will be determined by
the outcome of our discussions with GSA and ultimately this
committee is whether we do it in the facilities that I think
all of us had in mind, or whether we are going to be operating
in borrowed courtrooms and even temporary space somewhere that
we have to do it. We will keep on schedule in implementing the
substantive provisions of the act.
That being said, we do have a longer-term plan. And if it
would be of interest to you, I could step to the drawings and
show you some things, just to show you how we plan to try to
move the project along. That is at your pleasure. If not, I
would be happy to just----
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu said she would like to see
that. That would be fine.
Judge King. I would be happy to do that.
Senator DeWine. Now let me just tell everyone, as far as
our total time, we have a lot of ground to cover. We need to be
out of this room by 10 minutes after 11:00. So we have 1 hour
and 5 minutes.
Judge King. I will take that as an indication to spend at
least 45 seconds.
Let me first--you are all, no doubt, by this time, familiar
with the general map of the justice campus. You have it right
there. If I might approach, that might----
Senator DeWine. That will be fine.
Judge King. I do not know if that is ever done. That is the
way we do it in court.
Senator DeWine. That will be fine.
Judge King. I would ask to approach.
Senator Landrieu. Approach the bench.
Senator DeWine. Keep in mind you have an audience out there
who might like to see some things as well though.
Judge King. I will make it--if I can show you on your map
there. The current facilities are in the Moultrie Building.
Perhaps you could maybe even track it there. We are moving part
of our operations, the landlord-tenant and small claims
operation, to Building B. That is underway now. They are now
doing the demolition there and beginning the construction. I
think that will be occupied by October of this year.
When that is done, the space that is vacated in the
Moultrie Building will then be used to add three additional
courtrooms and four hearing rooms to round out what we need in
the Family Court. Although we do not have any detailed designs
at this point, the architects have given us a sort of
suggestion of the type of building we might look for for that.
Again, at the end of the long corridor on the JM level in the
Moultrie Building will be an entrance way, sort of a pavilion
and an information center, which you can see across here, where
all the clerks who would address any issue in Family Court will
be located. So there will be one place that people come to do
that. This is another view from that clerk station, looking
back across to the one we just saw here.
I will put these up on the outside over here.
This is another here which shows the children's wing there,
which will provide a children-friendly area, a whole host of
things. And then over on the other side here will be the
referral center where people can go for a referral for
services.
Farther along, the additions in space to the Moultrie
Building that you heard about in Judge Wagner's testimony, this
is a--again, it may not look exactly like this, because this is
not a published diagram. They have not designed it this way.
This is a quick computer mock-up of how it might look, the kind
of things they are talking about doing with the building.
So those are in the interim--the schedule is to have the
construction on the Moultrie levels done and occupy them by
October of 2004. And that will allow us to begin operating. The
final construction of this, which will bring all of the
functions back together, it is going to take a little longer.
It is estimated at 2005 or early 2006.
We are now operating in courtrooms outside the facility. As
it is now, we have to operate in courtrooms in different
buildings in order to----
Senator DeWine. Well, I wonder if we could get back to--and
I appreciate that, Judge. I wonder if we could get back,
though, to the 2004 capital request, and what does this new
information do to your capital request? It is my understanding
that this is going to push it back; this new information is
going to push back your construction date. And it is going to
change, dramatically change, your numbers.
Judge Wagner. Mr. Chairman, what I am informed is that the
change that was mentioned on Monday will change the dollars,
when the dollars are needed. It does not actually change the
construction schedule. This is what I am informed. But again,
neither of us have had an opportunity to sit down with the GSA
officials. And that is what we would like you to give us an
opportunity to do.
The second thing I want to make sure that is clear is that,
as Chief Judge King said, the Family Court construction is
fully on schedule. And major renovation on the JM level will be
completed by the fall of 2004. So if we get an opportunity to
sit with GSA, we are going to provide you with a full and
complete presentation on the impact that the change in the
funding stream----
Senator DeWine. Okay. Well, I am hearing two things. I am
hearing one thing is that you need to get back to us, which is
fine. And we need that, you know, sooner rather than later,
because we need the dollar figures as far as what your request
is.
Judge Wagner. Exactly.
Senator DeWine. But I am also hearing from Judge King that
this will change your plan with the Family Court. I thought I
heard Judge King say that we will stay on the same schedule
with the Family Court. Basically, we will move in a different
direction. We will fulfill the obligation of the Family Court.
Instead of doing it the way we wanted to do it with basically a
more permanent long-term plan, we are going to go in another
direction.
Now is that not what I heard, Judge King?
Judge King. No. If I gave that impression, I perhaps
misspoke. We will keep schedule by doing temporary arrangements
that will allow us to continue to move. We do not plan to
change the ultimate direction.
Senator DeWine. Well, but temporary arrangements always
cost money.
Judge King. That is exactly true.
Senator DeWine. That is always a waste of money.
Judge King. That is exactly true.
Senator DeWine. And we do not have--you do not have the
money to waste is the problem.
Judge King. That we have, of course, no control over. The
two sources of----
Senator DeWine. Well, maybe we do.
Judge King. The two sources of difficulty that we see is:
If we delay the access to funds, it can have--it can lead to
two sources of delay. First, the--putting out the bids for the
actual construction has to be done when it is known that there
is money available. Otherwise you cannot really work the
market, as I am told. And you cannot really--you cannot have a
solid bidding process.
The other thing is that a lump sum that seems unpalatable
now is going to get worse if, by not putting funds into the
project this year, you wait until next year when other parts
come due. So it is sort of like if you have a gas bill due
today and you do not pay it and you wait until next month, now
you have two gas bills to pay. And it is just a bigger lump.
So we are watchful about those processes. But what I wanted
to assure you is that we will do the best we can however this
funding issue is resolved. We will keep the schedule to operate
the Court. Obviously, I would like to have all the money on
schedule and be able to do exactly what----
Senator DeWine. Well, I am going to turn this over to
Senator Landrieu at this point. It seems to me that, out of
necessity, we are going to have to have another hearing on the
capital issues.
So, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There seems to be some confusion, and maybe it is
warranted. But let me just review what was my understanding.
And maybe there was a different view by the Chairman or maybe
by the panel. But I thought that we were in the beginning of
engaging on a master construction plan, one that would use the
current building that everyone is in for the Family Court and
move some of the judges to the Old Courthouse, the other judges
to that building because it is empty, and it is a beautiful
building and most certainly worthy of being preserved. But it
takes a long time. And so we were always going to have some
sort of temporary transition time.
The problem is that there were some dollar figures
associated with that, and they have seemed to change. And there
is some confusion. And maybe that is because the GSA decided
recently that not all the money was necessary up front, which
actually, Mr. Chairman, is good news, if we can spread it out
over several years instead of having to come up with such a
large chunk in the beginning.
Now I had expressed a year ago the concern that I did not
think that the Chairman and I, after putting so much effort
with you and with your help and your full cooperation and your
great skill, having to reform the Family Court, we did not want
it to basically be the last to come on line. We wanted to make
sure that the reforms that we had helped to implement would go
into effect as soon as possible, whether in temporary quarters
or whether in the current quarters while construction was
ongoing. In other words, we did not want the Family Court to be
last on the totem pole.
Am I hearing that what I have outlined is still pretty much
the direction that we are going in, right, or has that changed?
Because if that has changed, then I am as confused as the
Chairman is.
Judge Wagner. Well, I think that that is the direction we
are going in. And secondly, the interim plan is designed to
mesh with the long-term plan and minimize waste. On the time
schedule for the overall, the long-term plan, the Moultrie
Court expansion would be the first--well, would be nearly the
first online in terms of the permanent planning. There is a
chart over there; and I am not sure if you can see it.
Senator Landrieu. We have it. We have it here.
Judge Wagner. But we----
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And it indicates that the
modernization of the Old Courthouse with the garage would be
first and then the interim building plan for the Moultrie you
said, maybe then the traffic piece will be completed, then the
Moultrie Building comes on. And it will be maybe substantially
completed by 2007.
Judge Wagner. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Now, of course, we would all like to see
that pushed up, if possible. But I understand the complications
of dealing with permitting and sites and designs and selection
of architect.
Judge Wagner. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. It just takes a very long time. But while
that is all going on, I think what Senator DeWine and I are
saying is: Let us make sure the reforms of the operations of
the Court, the cases, the intensive case management is
happening in whatever space Judge Satterfield has available.
And I think we would like to help you, you know, along that
route, realizing it's complicated. The final point I want to
make on this is: if that is our understanding, then I think
that nothing substantially has changed, except the good news
that we do not need all the money up front, and we can spread
it out, which I think is very, very good.
But the other point is--and I realize that the designs that
you showed us are not final. But I will express this once more
publicly, how important I think it is for this Family Court to
take the opportunity that is not quite afforded to other Family
Courts, whether it is in Cleveland, Ohio, or New Orleans,
Louisiana, where we are both familiar with this current state
of our Family Courts; but to take the opportunities of the
advantage that is just inherent in being the Family Court of
the District, to become a real showplace for the Nation. Why?
Because almost every lawyer in the country comes to the
District once a year. Why? Because almost every judge in the
country comes here. Almost every judge comes here, for various
reasons.
Almost all the case workers come here, either for
conferences or on the course of their career several times. I
would like this Family Court, and I think the Chairman shares
this view, to be a real showcase of what a state-of-the-art
Family Court should look like.
Now the pictures shown to me, and I do not mean to micro-
manage this, but I want it, in my vision, to be a place where,
first of all, families feel welcomed, and families feel safe,
and families do not feel intimidated; to think about the
customers that we are serving.
I do not think it necessarily should look like a college
campus or a Supreme Court or a cold vision. I think it should
be as warm and as inviting and as unintimidating and as
empowering to the families that enter it as possible. That is
all I am going to say about it. I am going to leave it up to
the professionals to do it.
But since we are the ones supporting the funding for it, I
think that, having talked to some of the judges around the
country and some of the caseworkers, et cetera, they would want
me to express how strongly they feel about a place where
children do not feel intimidated and where they get the
immediate idea that ``The Government is on our side to try to
make the best decisions for this child.'' And that is what I
would like the architecture to communicate.
I am finished.
Senator DeWine. Let me just say this, because I want GSA to
clarify exactly what they are going to do and what they are
going to require and what they are not going to require,
because I am not aware that GSA has changed their policy in
regard to having all the money up front. They have not told me
that. They have not told my staff that. Now maybe that is a
change in plans and change in policy.
But what they have told us is that they have to have all
the money up in 2005. So we will see. They told me that, God
bless them. And that would be good. But we will move on.
Judge King. It does not change--and I think we should be
very clear, it does not change our goal or our plan to
implement the bill in the best way we know how and----
Senator DeWine. Yes. Well, it makes it a lot easier for us
if we do not have to have all the money in 1 year, I can tell
you that.
Judge King. Right. Of course. And I would say that----
Senator DeWine. But we will find out.
Judge King [continuing]. What Senator Landrieu just said,
as well as any of us could say it, is what the goal is, what we
consider the goal to be. For example, we have initiated
discussions with the school system to set up a program for
kids' art to be available to the courthouse so that we can
decorate the family areas with art from the D.C. schools. But
we are going to be looking at all those kinds of details to
make it feel family-friendly.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Another hearing, capital.
CHILDREN ADOPTIONS
Let me move to another area. Lashawn v. Williams requires
that legal activity to free a child for adoption should be
initiated within 30 days after the child's permanency goal has
been determined to be adoption. However, in the September 2002
monitor's report on the progress of the District's Child and
Family Services Agency, the performance standard of legal
activity to free children for adoption not only was not met,
but the percentage of children who did receive timely
initiation of legal activity decreased from 65 percent in May
2001 to 59 percent in May 2002. Let me ask you what you think
is the source of this shortcoming.
And let me also ask, as judges, you are in the position to
hold child welfare workers in contempt for not doing their job.
Let me ask what your plans are to ensure these children can be
offered up for adoption in a timely manner. Where are we?
Judge Satterfield. I think I can answer that.
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Judge Satterfield. Let me answer that question for you
regarding the adoptions. Part of the slowdown in adoptions last
year was due to the wonderful tax credit that is going to be
provided to families this year. At the end of last year, we had
a number of parties who wanted us to slow the process down so
that they can benefit from an adoption agreed issue and the tax
credit that will be provided.
Senator DeWine. Now how are we doing this year then?
Judge Satterfield. Well, I think we are going to be on
target to meet what we have met in the past. I am going to
have--I do not have the exact numbers from what we have done
from January to March. I can get that for you. But I know that
the slowdown from last year was partly due to that. I only say
partly because there are other problems that exist in that
process, some of which you are trying to address in the Family
Court Act with the ICPC, Interstate Compact Act, always
presents a problem.
A lot of our cases are children who are placed with
families in Prince George's County, Maryland. And we have
substantial problems sometimes getting that process and getting
those approvals. We have instances where the city is going to
provide adoption subsidies to families, but the determination
as to whether they are in ICPC status is based on the financial
ability of the family to take care of the child absent the
adoption subsidy that was going to be provided. And that slows
those cases down.
We are working with the agencies so they can better locate
parents who are missing, so that we can move the process along
in their diligent search. And then the FBI clearances--and I
understand why the FBI is quite busy now--have presented a
problem with a slowdown. And that is what the agency is trying
to work on, to get better access to the FBI clearances and
faster access. All those contribute to that.
Senator DeWine. I understand all that. But your first
reason I am not sure is valid, because the question is not how
many adoptions. The question was whether legal activity to free
a child for adoption should be initiated within 30 days after
the child's permanency goal has been determined. That is not
something that the parent does, the prospective parent, is it?
Judge Satterfield. Well, no.
Senator DeWine. The agency does that.
Judge Satterfield. Well, to initiate the adoption
proceeding has to be done by the petitioner, the lawyer. The
judges require that they go forth with the adoption once the
goal of adoption has been made in the case. And then they
monitor that process to make sure that that is carried out by
having frequent hearings to make sure that is done.
Senator DeWine. Well, I am not going to play lawyer with
you, but I am not satisfied with the answer. But all right.
Senator Landrieu. Can I just follow up?
Senator DeWine. Go ahead.
Senator Landrieu. Let me just add something that might
clarify it, because Senator DeWine will remember because he was
such a strong supporter of what we tried to fix in Congress
which was the unintentional, but serious, consequence of
passing an adoption tax credit that basically was available for
infant adoptions, but not for special needs adoptions.
And for 2 years in Congress, we struggled to make it clear
that our intention was to provide the $10,000 tax credit for
special needs. And we worked very hard, I must say, in the
Senate in a bipartisan way. But that effort was stopped in the
House.
So I share your pain, because I can most certainly
understand a family on the verge of adoption needing and being
entitled to the credit that we intended them to get. But
because of our--I would not say it was a mistake. It was
unfortunately intentional on the part of some members of
Congress to not have those go into effect at the same time. It
put a--it caused that situation to exist.
Luckily since January of this year, it is finished because
they are all--now there are tax credits for all adoptions, not
just for infant adoptions, but for special needs adoptions,
domestic, and international. So that problem should be erased.
The other problem I want to share your pain with--and,
Senator DeWine, some of this is the Court and under their
control, but some of it is the way the Federal law is, which I
think needs to be changed and actually, I am working on a bill
right now to change these laws, because the subsidies in the
funding are not following the decisions of the Court as
streamlined as is necessary. The Federal funding structures are
really inhibiting the faster placement of children through
adoption. And it would take me a long time to actually explain
that. But just trust me, because I have studied it enough.
So part of it is our problem, and let me just admit that.
And then part of it, I think, is, you know, lack of resources
and perhaps some management, some management issues. But I will
say for the record that I am hoping to lead an effort--and I
know that the Senator will be supportive--of trying to get
these funding streams basically lined up. So if a judge makes a
decision--and I will just finalize this: If a judge says in
this country, ``Reunification is what we want for this child,''
the funding follows that decision.
If the judge says temporary foster care, the money follows
that. If the judge says adoption is the permanency plan, then
the Federal funding follows it. But we are a long way from
getting to that point to where we are today. It is going to
take some time, but we are working on it.
Senator DeWine. Let me just say that Senator Landrieu is
absolutely right. There is a lot that we have to do. I do not
want to belabor the point, Mr. Satterfield. But all I was
saying, and it is a minor point, all I am saying is, the
initiation to release a child to be eligible for adoption is a
different thing from the filing of the adoption procedure. That
is all I am saying. That is a responsibility of the Court. It
is not the responsibility of the parent. It is the action to
make the child eligible for adoption.
Judge Satterfield. Can I respond? As I understand your
question, you are talking about the filing not of adoptions,
but of terminations.
Senator DeWine. That is correct. And your answer to me was,
``We did not do that because the parents did not want us to
move ahead because they wanted to get this tax credit.'' And I
am saying that is your responsibility to make the child
eligible for adoption. And that is not a correct answer.
Judge Satterfield. I did not understand your question, and
I am sorry for that. But as I understand, your question now is:
What are you doing in terms of filing a termination----
Senator DeWine. Why did you not file it?
Judge Satterfield [continuing]. Of parental rights----
Senator DeWine. Right.
Judge Satterfield [continuing]. In order to do that? I
thought we were talking--so I did not understand the question.
That is why I gave the answer to a question I thought you
asked, but obviously you did not.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Okay.
Judge Satterfield. But in terms of terminating parental
rights, there has been an increase in the Court in the filings
of terminations of parental rights, because the Government
agency, the Office of Corporation Counsel, now recognizes that
it is their responsibility to do that in those cases that
warrant it, and they are filing those cases. We have
consolidated those cases with a neglect judge handling the
case. We expect that number to go up. And we are addressing
that number.
We are monitoring the Office of Corporation Counsel to make
sure that they file those motions. And we are doing that in our
review hearings with them.
Senator DeWine. So the figures that I cited, of course, are
old figures in the sense that they were up to May of 2002.
Judge Satterfield. Well, I think you cited some----
Senator DeWine. What you are telling me is the figures are
better now.
Judge Satterfield. Well, they are going to be better
because they were not filing any of those motions in the past,
and now they are starting to file those motions. Part of the
reason they did not file those motions is that it was more
efficient for us to do the terminations through the filing of
the adoption case, because it avoided certain appellate
circumstances and the delay in appeals. But now they are
complying with the statutory mandate and filing those motions a
lot more quickly than they used to, because they were not being
filed by the office at all.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Anything else you want to get into?
Senator Landrieu. I think I will pass on the questions. I
have gotten explanations for what I was concerned about. Well,
maybe just one. I wanted to go back, because I know we are
short on time.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Judge King, you said something about a new intake system
for domestic violence. Would you take a minute to elaborate on
that? Because I think it is a very important issue. And so many
of our jurisdictions around the country are really making some
great strides in terms of reaching out to victims of domestic
violence and realizing that it itself is a core of many of the
problems, in terms of fragile families and child self-esteem.
And of course, the abuse experienced directly by the victim in
most instances, in 99 percent of the cases, is the woman.
So could you just give me a one minute explanation of
exactly what you are talking about, to make it easier for the
victims to show that they are truly victimized, give the courts
expedited either video or testimony so that either restraining
orders can be issued or action taken against the abuser?
Judge King. Yes, I would be happy to. Just very quickly, we
are in our sixth year of operating the domestic violence unit,
which, when it was organized, was a model in the Nation with
two or three others. It brings all of the cases that are
related to a domestic violence issue in before one judge and in
one branch of the Court.
What we found at the time, was that it reduced the number
of places that a victim had to go to tell her story, usually
hers, from 19 down to 1. So we made a major accomplishment in
simplifying that process. We have advocates and advisors
available to them at an intake center at the courthouse.
What we found was that a large number of the victims and
those complaining of domestic violence were in Anacostia, which
meant that they have to take a bus and a cab, and it is
expensive and difficult. And they have to make childcare
arrangements and so on. So we opened a satellite unit, which
has some of the staff. It gets prohibitively expensive unless
you are in New York, where you have a million people everywhere
you look. But we have some of the staff there to handle the
intake, to do some of the advising, to give them a sense of
what they can and what they need to do.
And also, we have a teleconferencing set up so that they
can go to a studio in--it is actually located in the Greater
Southeast Hospital facility. They go to a studio there, go on
the television. A judge sitting at the courthouse can confer
with them just as we are doing now, just with a camera, and can
sign a temporary restraining order and fax it back to them. So
they can go to their neighborhood location, pick up the order
and leave and get it served.
We have even had the good fortune of having that turn out
to be a convenient place for police officers to get warrants
signed. So they are piggy-backing on the domestic violence
operation, which means that there is, without any expense to
anybody, there is pretty good security supplied there, because
police officers are coming and going to get warrants signed.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me just briefly commend you for
that. I just think it is just an extraordinary step, and will
do what I can. And I know that our committee will support your
efforts, because it is a very serious epidemic in this society.
And it is not just limited to certain neighborhoods. It is
throughout the city.
And as you noted, resources are limited. We could not do
this everywhere. But I just cannot tell you how much I
appreciate that and look forward to learning more about it so
that we can support it.
It is one of the goals of my public career to get the legal
system in this country to support the victim and not the abuser
from the moment that it starts to the moment that it ends. And
whether it is helping the victim, you know, to stay in the
home, to protect the children, and have the abuser suffer the
consequences of abuse--and too often, our legal system and our
court system puts the burden on the one who is abused, which
makes no sense whatsoever. The burden should be on the abuser.
So I will look forward to working with you. And also,
counseling the abusers for those who can be rehabilitated. Not
in every case are we successful, but we should, of course, try
to reach out to the abusers as well appropriately.
Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Well, we thank you all very much. And we
look forward to continuing to work with you, particularly in
regard to the Family Court. And we will try to have a hearing
sometime that is convenient for you all, sometime within the
next 2 weeks, where we can bring GSA in and bring you in and
see where we are.
Thank you very much.
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR
Senator DeWine. Let me invite our second panel to come up.
And as you are coming up, I will introduce the second panel.
The Honorable Paul Quander is the Director of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Mr. Ronald Sullivan
is the Director of the Public Defender Service for the District
of Columbia.
We welcome both of our witnesses and thank them for joining
us here today. We have received their written testimony. We
would invite them both to summarize their testimony and spend
maybe about 5 minutes each, if you could. And we will start
with whoever wants to start and invite you to go ahead. And
then we will have the opportunity to have some questions. You
can flip a coin or whatever.
Mr. Quander. We just did.
Senator DeWine. All right. Very good.
Mr. Quander. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.
Senator DeWine. I am not sure that is on. Push the button,
and if it lights up, it is on.
Mr. Quander. All right. We will try it again. It is on now.
Senator DeWine. All right. Very good.
Mr. Quander. Good morning, Chairman DeWine. And good
morning, Senator Landrieu. I am Paul Quander, the Director of
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of
the fiscal year 2004 budget request of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, or
CSOSA.
As you know, CSOSA includes the Pretrial Services Agency,
PSA, which provides supervision for pretrial defendants. The
Community Supervision Program supervises convicted offenders on
probation, parole, or supervised release. Our fiscal year 2004
request reflects our desire to continue implementing the
initiatives we have previously presented to you. We strive to
allocate resources strategically and effectively so that we can
achieve the greatest possible benefit to public safety.
At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 15,000
offenders. PSA supervises or monitors approximately 8,000
defendants. With both populations, our highest priority must be
to close the revolving door that leads too many people through
repeated incarcerations and periods of supervision. Through
accountability, intermediate sanctions, treatment, education,
and employment, we are striving to increase the percentages
more every year by reducing re-arrest and recidivism among our
population. In the 6 years since CSOSA's establishment as
trustee and the 3 years since certification as an independent
Federal agency, we have achieved a number of significant
milestones. With fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
resources, we expect to meet our target caseload of 50 general
supervision offenders per community supervision officer. We
have opened 6 field units to locate our offices in areas of the
city with high concentrations of offenders, including our
newest office at 25 K Street, Northwest.
Since fiscal year 2000, we have increased by 116 percent
the number of offenders drug-tested every month. We have placed
over 3,500 defendants and offenders in contract treatment in
fiscal year 2002. Our multi-denominational faith community
partnership embraces more than 25 member institutions. And our
volunteer mentor program has matched more than 80 returning
offenders with individuals who are committed to helping them
stay out of prison.
Our fiscal year 2004 CSOSA requests direct budget authority
of $166,525,000 and 1,357 full-time equivalent positions. Of
this amount, $103,904,000 is for community supervision
programs. $34,411,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency. And
$25,210,000 is for the Public Defender Service. The District of
Columbia Public Defender Service transmits it budget request
with CSOSA's.
CSOSA's fiscal year 2004 budget request represents an 8
percent increase over fiscal year 2003 funding. Most of that
increase is attributable to adjustments to base that will
enable the Community Supervision Program to fully fund
community supervision officer positions to be filled in fiscal
year 2003. These positions are essential to achieving our
target caseload ratio. The Community Supervision Program
increase also includes funding to implement our Reentry and
Sanctions Center Program, which is based on our current
Assessment and Orientation Center, or AOC.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million and an
authorization for 89 positions to expand the AOC located at
Karrick Hall on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital. In
September 2002, CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the District
of Columbia for the continued use of Karrick Hall. The planning
work is completed, but renovation has been delayed pending
approvals required by the District Government.
The Assessment and Orientation Center provides a
residential placement for high-risk defendants and offenders
with extensive criminal histories and severe substance
problems. Among offenders who complete the program, re-arrest
decreased by 74 percent in the year following completion. Since
its inception, almost 900 defendants and offenders have
benefitted from this program. This program is targeted directly
at the 30 percent of our population who are most likely to
recidivate. And so we believe it is essential to achieving our
public safety mission. We request $3,104,000 to expand the
Assessment and Orientation Center to a full-fledged reentry and
sanctions center bringing one additional unit online for a
total of 39 beds.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Pretrial Services Agency also has one new initiative
focusing on enhanced supervision. Since the D.C. Department of
Corrections closed their Community Corrections Center Number 4,
additional defendants are being released to the community and
are being monitored by Pretrial Services officers. The impacts
of this have been considerable. To mitigate the stress this has
placed on the Pretrial Services general supervision staff, the
Pretrial Services Agency requests $224,000 to provide vendor
management of the agency's electronic monitoring program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have at the appropriate time.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Quander, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
2004 budget request of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia, or CSOSA. As you know, CSOSA
includes the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), which provides supervision
for pretrial defendants. Convicted offenders released into the
community on probation, parole, or supervised release are supervised by
the Community Supervision Program (CSP).
Today marks my first appearance before you as CSOSA's appointed
Director. In my first 6 months with the Agency, I have come to
appreciate both the complexity of what we are trying to accomplish and
the level of support we have received from Congress as we build our
capabilities. We greatly appreciate the increased resources we have
received since the Revitalization Act was passed in 1997. Our fiscal
year 2004 request reflects our desire to continue using those resources
effectively and strategically to fully implement the initiatives we
have previously presented to you.
At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 15,000 offenders;
PSA supervises or monitors approximately 8,000 defendants. To CSOSA,
these individuals present the dual challenges of community corrections:
reducing risk to public safety while, at the same time, helping
thousands of our city's residents to turn their lives around through
drug treatment, educational services, and job placement. We believe
these challenges complement each other; we strive not only to hold
offenders and defendants accountable for their actions, but to provide
opportunities that assist them in developing a different, more
successful way of life.
While more than 85 percent of arrests in the District of Columbia
did not involve offenders under our supervision, our highest priority
must be to close the ``revolving door'' that leads too many people
through repeated incarcerations and periods of supervision. To achieve
that priority, CSOSA allocates resources to four strategic objectives,
or Critical Success Factors: Risk and Needs Assessment, Close
Supervision, Treatment and Support Services, and Partnerships. Slightly
less than one quarter of our budget is allocated to Risk and Needs
Assessment, about one quarter to Treatment activities, and half to our
front line Close Supervision activities. Partnership activities receive
5 percent of funding. We believe that success in these four areas will
enable us to achieve our mission of public safety and service to
criminal justice decision makers.
In the 6 years since CSOSA's establishment as a trusteeship, and
the 3 years since certification as an independent Federal agency, we
have achieved significant progress toward realizing these objectives.
Our milestone achievements include the following:
--Both the Community Supervision Program and the Pretrial Services
Agency have implemented automated case management systems that
will greatly improve data quality and officer effectiveness.
--We have implemented comprehensive risk assessment for offenders and
are now expanding our case planning protocol to include uniform
needs assessment.
--With fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 resources, we expect to
meet our target caseload of 50 general supervision offenders
per officer.
--We have opened six field units to locate our officers in areas of
the city with high concentrations of offenders, including our
newest office at 25 K Street. A seventh field location at 800
North Capitol Street will come on line in the next few months.
--Since fiscal year 2000, we have increased by 116 percent the number
of offenders drug tested every month.
--We have placed over 3,500 defendants and offenders in contract
treatment in fiscal year 2002.
--We are particularly pleased that our partnership activities have
expanded to include the city's faith institutions. Our multi-
denominational Faith Community Partnership embraces more than
25 member institutions, and our volunteer mentor program has
matched more than 80 returning offenders with individuals who
are committed to helping them stay out of prison.
--We continue to explore ways to partner with the Metropolitan Police
Department so that offenders are known to the police and our
Community Supervision Officers are a visible public safety
presence in the city's Police Service Areas. We are
particularly proud of joint supervision by MPD and CSOSA
officers who together make visits to offenders at their homes
and workplaces. These ``accountability tours'' demonstrate to
the community, the offender, and the offender's significant
others that the police and CSOSA are collaborating to enforce
supervision and prevent criminal activity.
--We are also exploring ways in which offender and defendant
accountability can be enforced through technology, such as
using Global Positioning System-based electronic monitoring, to
maintain ongoing knowledge of the offender's location in order
to improve the enforcement of stay-away orders.
For fiscal year 2004, CSOSA requests direct budget authority of
$166,525,000 and 1,357 FTE. Of this amount, $103,904,000 is for the
Community Supervision Program; $37,411,000 is for the Pretrial Services
Agency, and $25,210,000 is for the Public Defender Service. The
District of Columbia Public Defender Service transmits its budget
request with CSOSA's. The Director of PDS, Ronald Sullivan, will
present it in a separate statement.
CSOSA's fiscal year 2004 budget request represents an 8 percent
increase over fiscal year 2003 funding. Most of that increase is
attributable to Adjustments to Base that will enable the Community
Supervision Program to fully fund Community Supervision Officer
positions to be filled in fiscal year 2003. These positions are
essential to achieving our target caseload ratio.
The Community Supervision Program increase also includes funding to
expand our Close Supervision capabilities. In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA
received $13 million and an authorization for 89 positions to expand
the Assessment and Orientation Center into a full Reentry and Sanctions
Center. Located at Karrick Hall on the grounds of D.C. General
Hospital, the Assessment and Orientation Center provides a residential
placement for high-risk defendants and offenders with extensive
criminal histories and severe substance abuse problems. The program has
proven very effective in increasing the likelihood that these
individuals will go on to complete supervision successfully. Among
offenders who complete the program, rearrests decreased by 74 percent
in the year following treatment. Since its inception, almost 900
defendants and offenders have successfully completed the program.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center will increase the availability of
this successful program for the offenders most likely to commit new
crimes. We believe that through strategic intervention with this high-
risk population, we can achieve a significant decrease in recidivism.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center will also increase CSOSA's capacity to
implement intermediate sanctions for offenders and defendants who abuse
drugs while under supervision, and for whom less intensive options
might not be effective. Meaningful intermediate sanctions and increased
availability of sanction-based treatment are among our most potent
weapons in the fight to reduce recidivism.
In September 2002, CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the District
of Columbia for the continued use of Karrick Hall. Although renovation
work has been delayed pending approvals required by the District
government, we request $3,104,000 to expand the Reentry and Sanctions
Center to operate one additional unit, for a total of 40 beds. We will
also continue to request funding for the program from the Office of
National Drug Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
initiative, which has provided $1.3 million per year.
The Pretrial Services Agency also has one new initiative focusing
on enhanced supervision. Since the D.C. Department of Corrections'
closure of Community Correctional Center No. 4 in 2002, more high-risk
defendants are being released to the community and must be monitored by
Pretrial Service Officers. The impact of this has been considerable.
Officers must devote more time to every aspect of these cases and must
increase the number of face-to-face contacts with these defendants.
This increased contact is difficult to maintain with caseloads at their
current levels. To mitigate the stress this has placed on the General
Supervision staff, the Pretrial Services Agency requests $224,000 to
provide vendor management of the agency's electronic monitoring
program.
We at CSOSA are proud of our progress as a Federal agency. We
believe that our program model, which applies national best practices
to the unique needs of the District of Columbia, will improve the
safety of our city and increase the resources available to the
offenders and defendants who live here. As we mature as an Agency, I
have every confidence that we will be able to present an impressive
record of accomplishments. I believe our success will make CSOSA a
national leader in the field of community supervision and a unique
model for other jurisdictions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Public Defender Services
STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR
Senator DeWine. Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Landrieu.
On behalf of the Public Defender Service for the District
of Columbia, or PDS, I thank you for the opportunity to address
you in support of PDS's fiscal year 2004 budget request. As you
know, the Public Defender Services provides constitutionally
mandated legal representation to indigent people facing a loss
of liberty in the District of Columbia.
PDS is the local defender in our Nation's Capital. And it
is also a national standard-bearer. Throughout its 30-year
history, PDS has maintained its reputation as the best public
defender office in the country, local or Federal. We have been
able to maintain this reputation because of PDS' innovative
approaches that are applied by some of the most talented
lawyers and support staff in the country. PDS is an agency that
this Congress, this committee, and this community can be proud
of.
PDS generally is assigned the most serious resource-
intensive and complex cases in the District. With the 100
lawyers on staff, PDS typically represents about 60 percent of
the most serious felony charges; and the majority of juveniles
facing serious delinquency charges. And consistent with a 2003
initiative, we now represent nearly 100 percent of all people
facing parole revocation. The majority of people--we also
represent the majority of people in the mental health system
who are facing involuntary civil commitment.
With this backdrop, I will address our fiscal year 2004
budget request. For fiscal year 2004, PDS requests $25,210,000
and 218.5 FTE and direct budget authority, which includes a
request for .5 or only one-half new FTE and $100,000 to support
our only new initiative, the Appellate Assistance Response
Initiative. The number of constitutionally mandated appellate
cases opened by PDS has increased by 50 percent since 1997,
while the numbers of attorneys providing these services has
remained constant. In order to continue providing this
constitutionally mandated service, PDS respectfully requests
that this subcommittee approve its very modest budget
initiative.
Let me offer a brief example of how the work that we do
makes a difference in the lives of real people. Recently, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals contacted PDS after
affirming convictions in a two-person appeal. The Court was
concerned because the briefs of one of the persons--and I will
call her Jane to respect her privacy--looked like it was a
verbatim replica of the other appellant's brief, even though
the two had conflicting interests.
PDS's Appellate Division accepted Jane's case, convinced
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reopen the case,
wrote new briefs for Jane, who all along maintained that the
conviction was wrong, and, through PDS's advocacy, demonstrated
that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction.
Jane was acquitted. Justice was done.
In another important Appellate Court matter, PDS advanced
the position that it is improper and unconstitutional for the
Government to exclude people from juries on the basis of
religion alone, as religious freedom, in our view, reaches the
core of what it means to be an American. Significantly, with
the new Executive Branch administration, the Government advised
the DCCA that it has changed its position and now agrees with
PDS. Religion is an improper basis upon which to exclude
jurors. We await the Court's decision.
In other matters, PDS has recently increased the
sophistication of its practice. And in light of this
subcommittee's interest in and commitment to the children of
the District of Columbia, I am proud to announce that we have
added services at our organization, such as the special
education advocacy for our juvenile clients. We are the only
institutional provider, the District of Columbia Special
Education Services. And given the disturbing correlation
between educational deficiencies and delinquent behavior, this
is a much-needed service.
Utilizing the resources from our fiscal year 2003 DNA
initiative, we have just litigated an admissibility issue
involving a novel and complex DNA matter. Before ruling, the
judge in this matter said--and he was referring to PDS and the
United States Attorney's Office, and I quote, ``I want to say
at the outset that you are to be highly commended. These are
some of the most impressive pleadings I have seen in my years
on the bench. It is a credit to both your institutions that you
have been able to marshal all of this in a way that reminds me
of two Wall Street firms going at it. I am sure you all are
making $500 an hour.''
And for the record, I will not object if this committee
decides to compensate us thusly.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This judge's recognition is consistent with PDS' model that
we provide better services than money can buy. With your
support of our appellate initiative and our fiscal year 2004
budget request, I can assure the members of this subcommittee
that PDS will continue to look for new and inventive ways to
make each tax dollar we receive build a more fair and effective
criminal justice system.
My time has expired. I would like to thank you for your
time and attention to these matters. And I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.
Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., and I am the Director of the Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you
today in support of the agency's fiscal year 2004 budget request. The
agency thanks you for your support of our programs in previous years.
As a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ``Revitalization Act''), PDS
was established as a federally-funded, independent District of Columbia
agency. In accordance with the Revitalization Act, PDS transmits its
budget and receives its appropriation as a transfer through the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) appropriation. PDS
provides constitutionally-mandated legal representation to people
facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia who cannot afford
a lawyer. In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of Columbia
Courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally-mandated
legal representation to people who cannot pay for their own attorney.
Under the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Act (CJA), the
District of Columbia Courts appoint PDS generally to the more serious,
more complex, resourceintensive, and time-consuming criminal cases. The
Courts assign the remaining, less serious cases and the majority of the
misdemeanor and traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350
preselected private attorneys (``CJA attorneys''). Approximately 100
lawyers on staff at PDS are appointed to represent: a significant
percentage 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.
In less than 1 week, defense attorneys and others from around the
country will mark the 40th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright,\1\ the
landmark Supreme Court case that held that a fair trial in non-Federal
criminal cases includes the right to an attorney for those who cannot
afford one. PDS, like so many other public defender offices, owes its
existence to that case. PDS, however, is unique. It is the local
defender office for our Nation's capital, and it is the national
standard bearer; throughout its history PDS has maintained its
reputation as the best public defender office in the country--local or
Federal. PDS is an agency this Congress and the District of Columbia
can be proud of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That reputation is no accident. From its beginning in 1971 as the
Legal Aid Society, PDS' mission has been to serve as a model public
defender organization in providing defense representation to the
traditionally underserved indigent population. That mission has led PDS
over the past 30+ years to enhance and improve the representation it
offers to its clients. 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 people with mental illness 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 have learning disabilities
and require special educational accommodations under the Individuals
with Disabilities in Education Act. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et. seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDS' mission has also led the agency to expand the resources it
provides to the criminal justice community at large in the form of
training for other District of Columbia defense attorneys and
investigators who represent those who cannot afford an attorney and in
the form of support to the District of Columbia Courts. In addition,
the mission has spurred PDS to develop innovative approaches to
representation, from instituting measures to address the problems of
clients returning to the community who have been incarcerated to
creating a one-of-a-kind electronic case tracking system. As PDS'
recently chosen Director--one who previously had the honor of serving
as a staff attorney and later as general counsel at PDS--I intend to
maintain PDS' tradition of fulfilling the promise of that landmark
Supreme Court case by ensuring qualified counsel for the accused in the
Nation's capital while continuing to prepare the agency for the
challenges it faces in the 21st century.
Our sole fiscal year 2004 requested initiative, the Appellate
Assistance Response Initiative, is part of that effort. For fiscal year
2004, PDS requests $25,210,000 and 218.5 FTE in direct budget
authority, which includes a request for .5 new FTE and $100,000 to
support this new initiative. This modest increase in personnel
resources and funding is requested in recognition of the President's
emphasis on spending for national security.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST
Appellate Assistance Response Initiative
PDS applies throughout the agency its innovative approach to
providing defense representation to individuals who are unable to pay
for their own attorneys, including in its Appellate Division. PDS has
become an established resource for the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals as the Court has increasingly relied on PDS' Appellate Division
for assistance in matters of unusual importance or complexity. PDS
renders this assistance through amicus curiae, or ``friend of the
court,'' briefs while it continues to provide constitutionally-mandated
appellate representation to individuals. PDS not only serves the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals in this way, but also the
District of Columbia Superior Court; PDS has even appeared as amicus
curiae in the United States Supreme Court. The Superior Court also
turns to PDS with requests for amicus curiae briefs on complex or
unusual issues that arise in collateral proceedings such as ineffective
assistance of counsel claims.
In part due to the consistent demand for PDS expertise as amicus
curiae to the benefit of the criminal justice system, in the 5 years
since the passage of the Revitalization Act, the number of
constitutionally-mandated appellate cases opened by PDS has increased
by 50 percent while the number of attorneys providing these services
has remained unchanged. Furthermore, PDS appellate attorneys have
additional responsibilities that place demands on their time. Attorneys
in the Appellate Division devote a significant amount of time to
training both PDS and non-PDS lawyers. Appellate Division attorneys
organize and present material for the ``appellate track'' of the
Criminal Practice Institute conference, they conduct several sessions
in the yearly summer training series for the CJA bar, and they organize
internal training sessions for PDS attorneys. The caseload increase,
the requests for amicus curiae briefs, and the training work combined
have stretched the Appellate Division's capacity, straining its ability
to effectively meet the needs of PDS clients and the Court of Appeals
at current funding levels. In order to continue providing
constitutionally-mandated appellate legal representation to individuals
who cannot afford an attorney and to the District of Columbia Courts,
PDS seeks .5 FTE and $100,000 in increased support.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In fiscal year 2003, in addition to handling a variety of criminal,
juvenile, parole, mental health, and other legal matters, the agency
was very successful in instituting changes to improve the overall
quality of the District of Columbia justice system through new
approaches to client service, through litigation, and through very
successful collaborations with other criminal justice and social
service organizations. PDS' success in these areas was recently
recognized by the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, an
organization that exists to make pro bono legal representation
available to those who can least afford the services of an attorney.
The Legal Aid Society selected PDS as one of its two honorees for
2003 ``who have demonstrated unswerving dedication and achievement in
providing access to all persons, regardless of income, to
representation before the District of Columbia courts and agencies.''
Almost all past honorees, who include Justice Thurgood Marshall, the
Honorable Eric Holder, Jr., and Charles Ruff, have been individual
attorneys. Significantly, this year the Legal Aid Society decided to
select an agency for this honor instead. This award pays tribute to
PDS' effort to ensure that each and every client receives
representation at the highest level of professional competence. This
goal has always been--and will continue to be--the lodestar that guides
this agency.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 INITIATIVES
In fiscal year 2003, Congress passed as a bill, and the President
signed into Law, a new program increase for PDS totaling 6 positions, 6
FTE, and $874,000 in support of two new initiatives. PDS' DNA Sample
Collection Act initiative received 2 positions, 2 FTE, and $427,000.
The agency's Parole Revocation Defense Initiative received 4 positions,
4 FTE, and $447,000. The enacted law was further amended under H.J.
Res. 2 to decrease the total funding available in fiscal year 2003 in
support of these new initiatives by a rescission of .65 percent, or 2
positions, 1 FTE, and $149,955.
DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION RESPONSE INITIATIVE
As anticipated when PDS submitted its fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the District of Columbia Council passed the Innocence
Protection Act, which requires the government to retain all evidence
containing DNA material to assist in establishing or refuting post-
conviction claims of actual innocence. This Act, along with the
District of Columbia's DNA Sample Collection Act and the Federal DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act,\3\ has led to an increased need
within the District of Columbia criminal justice system for expertise
in the use of DNA as evidence. To implement its fiscal year 2003 DNA
Sample Collection Response Initiative, PDS is generating the internal
and external training necessary to develop attorneys with the knowledge
and skills to engage in cutting edge litigation involving the ever-
changing landscape of DNA evidence. A Superior Court judge deciding a
PDS matter that involved some of the most controversial and technically
sophisticated scientific issues of this type recently acknowledged the
value to the criminal justice system of expert litigators. The judge
thanked the agency for its extraordinary pleadings and the caliber and
stature of the expert witnesses who had been presented to the court.
The judge also noted that the quality of the parties' advocacy and
pleadings was on par with that of Wall Street firms charging $500 per
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Both of these Acts require that the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency collect DNA samples from D.C. Code offenders for
comparative analysis by the FBI in unsolved crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our recent investment in this rapidly developing area, combined
with the commitment of the team of PDS lawyers involved in this effort,
has taken the agency to the forefront of this field. We are already
leveraging this expertise to share it with our colleagues on the CJA
attorney panel. Thanks to the added assistance of Federal grants, PDS
has committed to planning and hosting a free forensic science
conference for court-appointed defense attorneys in the District of
Columbia in June of this year. The conference will provide the most up-
to-date knowledge concerning the use of forensic evidence to conference
participants. We have already obtained appearance commitments from a
number of nationally recognized speakers.
As has been PDS' custom, we will continue to develop the agency's
expertise in new scientific methods and then seek to promptly
disseminate and share that expertise to the benefit of all persons
charged with offenses in the District of Columbia who cannot afford an
attorney.
PAROLE REVOCATION DEFENSE INITIATIVE
PDS' Special Litigation Division has handled an average of 75
parole revocation cases per month in the first 4 months of fiscal year
2003. This is consistent with the estimate of 70 to 100 cases per month
PDS estimated in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, and it represents
a 50 percent increase in the number of the Division's new case
referrals from the same period last year. This underscores the need for
the additional resources provided by the fiscal year 2003 budget. The
Division continued to provide constitutionally-mandated parole
representation in nearly 100 percent of all parole revocation cases
involving D.C. Code offenders before the U.S. Parole Commission, a
service PDS assumed responsibility for providing after the
Revitalization Act was passed. The Division has recruited students from
local law schools to represent District of Columbia parolees at their
revocation hearings in order to leverage the agency's existing
resources and provide litigation training to the students. The
students, whose work is supervised by PDS attorneys, have relieved some
of the strain on the agency's resources.
COMMUNITY RE-ENTRY INITIATIVE
In fiscal year 2002, PDS received 10 positions, 9 FTE, and
$1,019,000 in support of its Community Re-entry Initiative. PDS, ever
exploring new, effective methods to meet the needs of its clientele,
has established a Community Re-entry Project to help smooth the path
that leads incarcerated individuals back into the community and to
support them upon their arrival. The Project, PDS' sole fiscal year
2002 initiative, continues to make great strides toward becoming fully
functional. In fiscal year 2003, the Project \4\ focused on addressing
the needs of children involved in the District of Columbia's juvenile
delinquency system. The Community Re-entry Project developed a program
to monitor the progress of children placed through the juvenile
delinquency system in residential facilities and to provide support to
prepare them for returning to their home communities. The Project also
developed a ``Street Law'' program for children placed in the District
of Columbia's juvenile detention facility to improve their decision-
making; this program will be expanded to include children placed in
District of Columbia group homes. The Community Re-entry Project is
also working with local public and private school students to develop
peer mentor relationships between those students and children placed in
the juvenile detention facility; the relationships will provide
additional resources upon the children's return to their home
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For children, the Community Re-entry Project operates as PDS'
Juvenile Services Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, working with local Hispanic families, the Community Re-entry
Project assists in making resources available in their own
neighborhoods to children returning from the District of Columbia's
juvenile detention facility. The Project creates links between the
returning children and a local neighborhood collaborative to identify
and provide community support resources. The Project will expand this
program by replicating it with other neighborhood collaboratives
throughout the city to develop a network of support resources for
children being released from the facility. The Project is developing an
anti-truancy program in collaboration with the District of Columbia
public schools system, the D.C. Bar, and the District of Columbia
Superior Court to address truancy issues in recognition of their
observed correlation with delinquent behavior.
PDS will continue to develop the Project this year by addressing
the needs of adults for re-entry services and support. The Project has
established contact with some social services organizations and is
seeking others to assist in easing the transition from incarceration to
release with educational, employment, training, counseling resources
and other effective tools to increase opportunities for success and
decrease chances of recidivism.
GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Criminal Justice System Reforms
In accordance with PDS' many efforts to find new, effective means
of implementing its mission to provide representation to those in the
District of Columbia criminal justice system who cannot afford an
attorney, PDS' Appellate and Special Litigation Divisions have
litigated cases that have direct impact on services and processes of
other local and Federal Government entities within and outside of the
criminal justice system that affect our clients. PDS' successful
advocacy in such cases has led to the equitable provision of public
services to all recipients--not just PDS clients--ensuring that the
rights of all people are protected and that critical support services
necessary for incarcerated individuals' successful transition back into
the community are available.
Ensuring adequate representation.--The District of Columbia Court
of Appeals solicited PDS' assistance after observing questionable
behavior by a non-PDS appellate attorney in that Court. A woman and her
codefendant had separately appealed their convictions for unauthorized
use of a vehicle, each arguing that the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction. In reviewing the coappellants' cases, the Court
noted that the woman's brief, filed by the appellate attorney, was an
almost verbatim replica of the earlier filed brief of the woman's
coappellant. After affirming both convictions, the Court contacted PDS
and appointed the agency as the woman's new appellate counsel. The
Court accepted PDS' argument that the first appellate attorney's
performance was so deficient and prejudicial as to be tantamount to the
complete absence of counsel on appeal, and allowed the woman to pursue
her direct appeal again. In briefing the direct appeal, PDS pursued the
same sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument advanced before. However, for
the new brief, PDS was able to distinguish legal and factual arguments
applicable to the woman's case that had been obscured by the first
appellate attorney's approach of apparently copying the coappellant's
brief. The Court held that the woman was entitled to a judgment of
acquittal, as a direct result of PDS' involvement.
Support for the District of Columbia Family Court's authority.--PDS
has been at the forefront of litigation designed to ensure that judges
of the newly created Family Court in the District of Columbia maintain
the ability to exercise the responsibility and power Congress
envisioned when it created that Court and sought to guarantee the
existence of a cadre of judges with expertise in matters pertaining to
children. Specifically, PDS has been involved in extensive litigation,
both in the Superior Court and in the Court of Appeals, with the
District of Columbia to resolve whether the Department of Human
Services (DHS), a District of Columbia executive branch agency, or
Family Court judges should have the power to determine what facility is
best suited to meet the needs of troubled youth. According to DHS, once
a judge determines that a delinquent child should be committed to DHS,
the judge loses all authority to determine what institution or facility
best meets that child's needs. PDS' position is that Congress has
invested judges, in particular the specially trained Family Court
judges, with the power and responsibility to determine those placements
and not simply to hand the children to DHS and hope for the best.
Fairness in jury selection.--PDS has been advancing the position
for several years that striking a prospective juror on the basis of
that juror's religious affiliation is unconstitutional in the same way
that striking a juror on the basis of race or gender violates the
Constitution. In our view, striking a juror on the grounds of religious
affiliation alone--without a demonstrated basis that the juror's
religious affiliation will interfere with the juror's ability to be
impartial--violates the Equal Protection Clause and the First
Amendment's Religion Clauses. Following the most recent change in
administration, the Federal Government switched its position and
notified the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that it now agrees
with PDS that it would be unconstitutional to strike a juror on the
basis of religious affiliation alone. If the Court agrees, this will be
an important step in protecting religious liberty.
Excessive detention.--PDS assisted a client who had been held at
the District of Columbia Jail for a parole hearing based on a new
criminal charge that was subsequently dismissed. Because the jail
failed to act on the U.S. Parole Commission's detainer after the
dismissal, the client waited unnecessarily for over a year to be
brought before the Commission for his parole hearing. PDS' Special
Litigation Division sought relief in Federal court; shortly before a
hearing in the case, the client's illegal detention was terminated, and
he was released from the jail.
Rehabilitation of youthful offenders.--PDS challenged the failure
of the Bureau of Prisons to comply with a requirement of the District
of Columbia's Youth Rehabilitation Act that individuals sentenced under
the Act be housed separate from adults. One of the Bureau's prison
facilities placed each of 29 youthful offenders from the District of
Columbia with an adult cellmate. Shortly after the PDS challenge was
filed, each of the 29 was sharing a cell with another youthful
offender.
Timely parole hearings.--PDS pursued a class action case
challenging the United States Parole Commission's failure to provide
timely preliminary and final parole revocation hearings for District of
Columbia parolees locally and throughout the country. The parties
recently negotiated and signed a consent decree that mandates such
timely hearings for the hundreds of affected individuals. The case was
resolved after a Federal court agreed that the U.S. Parole Commission's
procedures were unconstitutional and ordered the Commission to make
critical reforms.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLABORATION PROJECT
Just as PDS explores new ways to ensure that it provides quality
representation to its clients, PDS explores new opportunities to
collaborate with others who seek to improve service to our clients or
to the criminal justice system. An example, in addition to the
collaborative work engaged in by the Community Re-entry Project as
described above, is the OPTIONS Mental Health Treatment Program,
developed by PDS to assist individuals in the criminal justice system
who can benefit from the intervention of mental health professionals.
OPTIONS continues to serve people with mental illness in
collaboration with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the
District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the Pretrial Services
Agency, the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health, and the
District of Columbia Superior Court. 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. No similar service
existed before PDS created this program, however, the need for it was
significant.
During its year-and-a-half existence, the program has been
incredibly successful, assisting nearly 150 people with mental illness
by providing counseling, medication, housing, and other critical social
services. The participants in the OPTIONS program are individuals 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. In recognition of its positive impact, this
pilot program has now been fully incorporated into the Department of
Mental Health and will be a permanent fixture in the District of
Columbia criminal justice system to better serve people with mental
illness.
OTHER PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS maintained its strong emphasis on providing representation in
novel ways to people who cannot afford attorneys by continuing to
implement and build on effective strategies it has already developed.
PDS' special education work continues to serve the children who become
involved in the juvenile delinquency system, PDS' long-standing mental
health practice assumed new responsibilities, and PDS added new topics
to its existing training program.
Special Education Services.--One of the areas into which PDS has
more recently expanded in an effort to meet more of the needs of its
clientele is special education advocacy. PDS' Civil Legal Services Unit
was established to address issues facing children in the delinquency
system that often hinder the child's successful re-integration into the
community. The centerpiece of the Unit is the team of attorneys who
specialize in advocacy under the federal Individuals with Disabilities
in Education Act (IDEA),\5\ which mandates special accommodations in
public schools for children who cannot be adequately educated in a
traditional classroom setting due to a learning disability or other
challenge. The Unit's attorneys ensure that children receive an
appropriate diagnostic assessment and work with the school system to
secure alternative educational programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental health representation.--Toward the beginning of fiscal year
2003, PDS' Mental Health Division began providing representation in all
cases brought under a new District of Columbia statute providing for
the involuntary civil commitment of individuals found not competent to
stand trial due to mental retardation.\6\ The agency took on this
responsibility while continuing to play a significant role in
representing individuals with mental illness who are subject to civil
commitment proceedings in the Superior Court. During the first few
months of fiscal year 2003, the Division has been assigned
approximately 60 percent of the emergency hospitalization cases filed
in the Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Civil Commitment of Citizens with Mental Retardation Amendment
Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 14-199 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training.--PDS continues its tradition of providing in-depth
training courses for court-appointed CJA attorneys in order to ensure
that all counsel are qualified to handle the cases to which they are
appointed and to promote the maximum economic efficiency in providing
legal representation to people who cannot pay for an attorney.
--PDS coordinated and presented ``Hot Topics in Education and
Community-based Services for Children with Disabilities,'' a
training program for attorneys who represent children in
juvenile delinquency proceedings. PDS has developed an
expertise in this area, and is the only such resource in the
District of Columbia.
--The Superior Court has adopted standards for selecting attorneys
for membership on a panel the Court will look to for
appointment to cases in the juvenile justice system. This
parallels the process put in place by the Court for adult
cases. PDS is developing training materials and programs to
help attorneys obtain the requisite qualifications and skills.
--The Public Defender Service produced the Criminal Practice
Institute Practice Manual, a 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 38th annual Criminal
Practice Institute training conference, a 2-day event involving
seminars by nationally-known speakers, law professors, legal
scholars, local judges and criminal justice practitioners.
Approximately 100 participants attended the 2002 conference
along with PDS staff.
--As it has done for the past 3 years, PDS has already begun to plan
for its annual Summer Series. This is a series of weekly
evening seminars in May, June, and July that are provided free
of charge to CJA attorneys covering matters specific to
practice in the Criminal and Family Divisions of the Superior
Court.
--After adopting an investigator training proposal from PDS, the
Superior Court implemented a mandatory training requirement for
all CJA criminal investigators. Senior PDS investigators and
PDS staff attorneys prepared the training materials and
coordinated the training sessions on all aspects of criminal
investigation. As of the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003,
over 120 investigators have been trained and certified, and PDS
has already planned training for an additional 20 investigators
in the coming month. PDS will then turn its resources toward
providing the annual training required of investigators to
maintain their certification from year to year. This program is
designed to ensure that now, and in the future, there are
sufficient qualified investigators to assist CJA attorneys.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS' emphasis on innovation is not limited to its program-related
work. The agency continually reviews its practices and procedures to
improve its operational functions. Particularly now that PDS is a
federally-funded agency, it seeks to reach a corresponding level of
sophistication in the administration and execution of its
responsibilities. Recent improvements made by PDS provide the necessary
infrastructure to support our programs and our program staff and
increase the potential for greater efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out PDS' mission.
Information Technology.--PDS is developing its own case tracking
software that provides comprehensive case management functionality for
PDS attorneys, staff, and management. PDS demonstrated the software at
a conference for defense attorneys, and other public defender
organizations across the country have contacted PDS to express an
interest in obtaining the software for their own use.
Government Performance and Results Act.--PDS made significant
progress in developing a 5-year strategic plan similar to the plans
required of Federal executive agencies under the Government Performance
and Results Act. The PDS management staff is reviewing the draft 5-year
plan, the related 1-year performance plan will follow shortly, and PDS
expects to present a performance-based budget request to Congress for
fiscal year 2005.
Criminal Law Database.--PDS added to its website a criminal law
database that is the most comprehensive, publicly available research
tool on District of Columbia criminal law in the country. It allows
local practitioners and members of the public to find information about
every existing D.C. Code offense, including the potential sentence. The
database also contains an explanation of the District of Columbia's
preventive detention statute, information on the immigration
consequences for non- citizens in the criminal justice system, a
description of the possible parole consequences for a parolee charged
with a new offense, a parole ``salient factor score'' calculator,
information about juvenile practice in the District of Columbia, a list
of recently decided appellate cases, and a variety of important
criminal justice links.
Investigative staff increases.--Since fiscal year 2001, PDS has
more than tripled the number of full-time staff investigators--
including five who are fluent in Spanish to serve the growing number of
Spanish-speaking clients--and developed a comprehensive professional
training program. Every PDS lawyer who handles felony cases now has a
full-time staff investigator to assist with case preparation. This
allows attorneys to reduce their involvement in time-consuming tasks
that could be performed by non-attorneys and focus more on doing purely
legal work.
Each of the above reforms and successful collaboration projects has
contributed to a better, more efficient criminal justice system and has
improved the quality of services provided to people who cannot afford
an attorney in the District of Columbia justice system. They serve as
examples of the manner in which PDS identifies new ways of serving
clients on its own and in successful collaboration with others, all
consistent with PDS' goal of providing representation by qualified
attorneys to those it is dedicated to serve.
CONCLUSION
The right to a qualified attorney for people who cannot afford one
is simple and basic, so much so that it has easily woven itself into
American culture and into the public's consciousness. PDS has been in
the forefront of defining what it means to satisfy the requirements of
that right--not only defining it, but also meeting and exceeding that
standard. As PDS has matured as an agency, it has increased the
sophistication of its practice, adding services such as its special
education advocacy and its community re-entry programs, which have the
additional benefit of potentially reducing recidivism. PDS has thereby
helped to raise the level of practice of the defense bar in the
District of Columbia, ensuring that PDS can live up to one accurate
description of the agency's work: ``better representation than money
can buy.''
I respectfully request your support of this initiative, and I would
like to thank the members of the Committee for your time and attention
to these matters and for your support of our work to date. I would be
happy to answer any questions the Committee members might have.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Good. You both are right on
time. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.
Mr. Quander----
Mr. Quander. Yes, sir.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Am I pronouncing your name
close enough?
Mr. Quander. You are. It is right on point.
Senator DeWine. Right on point. Thank you.
You talked about a 50-to-1 ratio.
Mr. Quander. Yes.
OFFENDERS
Senator DeWine. How does that compare with what is the
national norm or the--I do not want to say the national
average, because that is probably not what our goal should be.
But what is recommended in your field, in your profession?
Mr. Quander. In our field, I believe the----
Senator DeWine. Excuse me. But considering the nature of
the offender that you are dealing with.
Mr. Quander. Well, the general population, general
supervision, the national recommended goal is essentially 50 to
1. We are very close to reaching that goal. Right now, we are
in the area of 56 to 1 for general supervision.
I had the opportunity recently to read an article from a
newspaper in Annapolis, and the article spoke of the Maryland
system. And in their system for parole and probation, they are
averaging in excess of 116 cases per supervision officer. The
article concluded by saying that that is nearly impossible to
supervise individuals the way that the Court or that the
citizens want.
We are trying to reach that goal. And we think we will be
able to reach that goal with the appropriations for 2004 so
that we can provide all the services that we need to provide.
That is the general population.
For specialized individuals, such as sex offenders,
domestic violence, traffic and alcohol, mental health, that
ratio needs to be lower, needs to be in the area of 35 to 1.
Senator DeWine. And where are you with the specialized
population? I missed that in your testimony. I am sorry. I know
you said it.
Mr. Quander. In the specialized population, roughly we are
averaging about 44 to 1. It is a little closer to, I think, 35
to 1 or 37 to 1 in the sex offense area.
Senator DeWine. And let me just say, as a former prosecutor
and also someone who, as lieutenant governor of the State of
Ohio, one of my responsibilities was to oversee our prison
system, that the special population worries me more than the
other population. And I guess I would be very interested in
seeing what this committee could do to help you target that
special population and work with you, Senator Landrieu, to try
to get those special population numbers to where you want it to
be.
Mr. Quander. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. I wonder if we could maybe dialogue with
you on that.
Mr. Quander. I would like to do that.
Senator DeWine. I know you want to stay within the
President's budget, and we do, too. But that worries me. And
you are a little off there. And maybe we could talk about what
it would take over the next couple years to move towards
hitting that goal of 35 or whatever you think is the right
number. You are close to it in the sex offenders, you say----
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. But maybe work towards the
other. And I would ask our staff to work and set that as a goal
of our committee. Because we are dealing with the safety of the
people of the District of Columbia and the visitors to the
District of Columbia. And I think it is very important.
Mr. Quander. Yes. I would welcome that. One of the things
that I would like to share with you is that what we are doing
with that special population, and the reason their caseload is
lower and why it needs to be lower is that we spend more time
actually monitoring, supervising, having them come in, testing,
all of those things. And actually, we are piloting a global
positioning system.
Senator DeWine. Really?
Mr. Quander. And we are going to pilot it for the sex
offenders, so that we will attach a bracelet, and we will be
able to monitor where that individual is. We will be able to
know if he has gone into a specific area where he is not
allowed to be.
I have had an opportunity to go down and to take a look at
the system that is used by the Florida Department of
Corrections, along with our associate director, Tom Williams.
And we have had members of our staff actually utilizing it,
wearing it, moving throughout the city. So we are getting close
to piloting it. And we are looking at piloting it on a special
group of the sex offender population.
Senator DeWine. Well, you know, if there is a target
population that is likely to re-offend, it is your target
population. And you are the one who--you target them. You
figure out who they are. You do it based on your expertise. We
do not do it; you do it. And it seems to me that once you do
that, that you need to have whatever the assistance is that you
need to try to monitor that population and monitor them
correctly. And we ought to try to give you the assistance that
you need. You are the professional. Your people are the
professionals. And we ought to try to give you the help that
you need to do that within budget constraints. But we ought to
try to bend over backwards to try to give you the help that you
need. And we are going to try to do that. So----
Mr. Quander. Thank you. We would greatly appreciate it.
Senator DeWine. So our staff will work with you and maybe
over the next couple of years try to do some things that could
be of help. Thank you.
Mr. Quander. Very well. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. First of all, let me thank
both of you for stepping up to the positions that you have been
asked to serve in with such enthusiasm. And I understand, Mr.
Quander, that you are the first official first-time director of
this very new Federal agency.
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And we are joined today by the interim
leader, Mr. Ormond. Are you here, Mr. Ormond?
Mr. Quander. Yes, he is.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you for the work that you have done
over the last couple of years to get us to this point.
Mr. Ormond. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR/PRETRIAL DEFENDANTS RATIO
Senator Landrieu. And of course, our committee takes very
seriously this responsibility because we basically are a direct
appropriator to these Federal agencies. And while, again, we do
not have the staff and do not ever intend to micro-manage it,
we want you to know that we want to be a good resource to both
of you to accomplish the goals that you have outlined and to
share with us, because we share with you much of your vision.
I understand that you all--Mr. Quander, you have a
population of about 16,000 convicted offenders who are released
into this community on probation, parole, or supervised
released. That would be annually, 16,000 a year?
Mr. Quander. Yes, roughly about 15,000.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. And then you supervise on an annual
basis about 8,000 defendants pretrial.
Mr. Quander. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. And you do that all for a budget request
of this year $166.5 million.
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And Senator DeWine had asked, and I want
to just be clear for the record, what is our ratio that we are
at today in terms of probation supervisors to the convicted
offenders? What is the ratio between the supervisor and the
pretrial defendants?
Mr. Quander. Certainly. It----
Senator Landrieu. And what are our goals?
Mr. Quander. The ratio as far as probation and parole and
general supervision currently stands at 56 to 1. Our goal is 50
to 1. In the specialized areas that I mentioned, the sex
offense, mental health, domestic violence, and traffic and
alcohol, our current ratio, I believe, is in the area of 44 to
1. And what we are trying to get is to the area of 35 to 1.
In pretrial services, the Pretrial Service officers, I
believe their current caseloads are averaging in excess of 100,
maybe 110. And I believe they want to be in the area close to
where we are, in the area of like 50 or 60 to 1. Part of the
2004 appropriations request will allow the Pretrial Services
Agency to contract out for vendor services for the electronic
monitoring program, which will allow them to use the staff that
are currently doing that to bring down the caseload.
Our agency, CSOSA, is also assisting with authority,
reallocating positions, 10, to help them as they try to reduce
their caseload and get it down to a much more manageable level.
Senator Landrieu. We would like to work with you on that.
We would like to keep these caseloads at a level where actually
good work can be done, and the people that are doing the work
feel as good about the work as they can, which is extremely
difficult and very challenging work. In order to accomplish
that, it is not only a reasonable ratio--and I am not sure that
50 to 1 or 56 to 1 or 40 to 1 or 30 to 1, if there is any magic
number. But I would also say that managing and minimizing the
turnover of your employees is also very important, so that you
have trained and skilled people not just moving in and out, but
retraining staff.
Could you comment a moment about your turnover in your
agency? And could you give us a snapshot? And if not today,
maybe present to this committee a snapshot of the turnover of
your agency.
Mr. Quander. I will be able to provide the exact figures in
a subsequent submission. But I can inform you of this: As a new
director, I spend a lot of time in the field talking to the
workers, the people that actually do the work day in and day
out. And the one constant, as I walk through the agency, is
that people, the employees, they still want to save the world.
Senator Landrieu. That is good.
Mr. Quander. And what they say is, you know, ``Mr. Quander,
if you can do X, Y, and Z, if you can remove this impediment, I
can do even more.''
As a director, I mean, I love to hear that because all they
are saying to me is ``Remove some of these hurdles, make my job
a little easier, I want to go out, I want to talk to people, I
want to make a difference.''
So I do not believe the turnover rate is very high. I
believe right now we may have one or two vacancies in our
supervision ranks. We have a new class that is coming on board.
So we have people, for the most part, who are very involved.
They are committed to it. It is extremely difficult for them,
because they go to bed at night and they wake up in the morning
and they open up the newspaper to see if one of their offenders
may have committed a new crime.
Senator Landrieu. Right.
Mr. Quander. So there is a lot of pressure. But when we
talk to them--and recently, Friday, we had our OMB budget
analyst and her supervisor to walk through our facilities. And
we just laid it out and gave them access to anyone they wanted.
So I think the attitude is still there. They want to work.
They just need me to provide a little support, to remove some
of the impediments.
Senator Landrieu. Well, that is very, very, very
encouraging. And we want to be helpful.
And I know I have only a minute left. But, Mr. Sullivan, I
want to say that you bring to your job a tremendous background
and accomplishments. And I am very impressed with your resume
and what you bring to the job and your vision for what you are
doing. And I hope that we will continue the good work in the
history of your agency and look forward to continued benefit to
the community.
I am going to submit, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have
actually a number of very good questions that we are prohibited
from pursuing because of our time. But I would like to have
answers to these, so that we can get a better grasp of where
you are now, where we need to go, so that we can try to be
helpful.
Mr. Sullivan. Certainly.
Senator DeWine. Very good. Well, let me thank both of you
very much. We appreciate your testimony, appreciate your
written testimony, and look forward to working with both of
you.
Mr. Quander, we will follow up with you. And we would
invite both of you, if you have specific concerns--I know you
have submitted your request, but if you have specific concerns,
to feel free to contact our staff as we prepare our budget, if
there is anything in addition.
And Mr. Quander, we will reach out to you and see what
specifically we can do to work on that particular area that I
was talking about.
Mr. Quander. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Can I just say one more thing?
Senator DeWine. Yes, sure, Senator Landrieu.
FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE
Senator Landrieu. I just wanted to mention that there is
some opportunity with this new faith-based initiative that is
moving its way through Congress in a very bipartisan way and
with the President's commitment to involve the District. I
think there is a real opportunity for the work that both of you
all supervise to try to engage the power of the faith-based
community in this community to help and become a real vibrant,
dynamic partner in this work.
Some churches are more inclined than others. Some have more
experience than others. Some have better success rates than
others. But I really challenge you all to think about the way,
Mr. Sullivan, you said about stretching those dollars to use
the faith-based and volunteer community to accomplish some of
our goals.
So I will have a question for the record in that line and
look forward to your responses.
Mr. Quander. If I can just say one thing: We are actually
up and running with that. We have 25 faith-based organizations,
churches, that are already signed up. We have in excess of--we
have 80 offenders who have actually been matched with the
faith-based institutions. So we have one of the few programs
that has moved from the drawing board to actual practice. We
have mentors who are coming in on a regular basis. So we are up
and we are running. We just celebrated our first anniversary in
January. And we are moving forward. So----
Senator Landrieu. Well, that is great. We will see if these
churches really work, you know.
Mr. Quander. No doubt.
Mr. Sullivan. Similarly, PDS has done the same. Our
community defender office has a relationship with a church that
we send our juvenile clients to.
Senator Landrieu. I think it is an untapped resource in
many ways. So I commend you all for that. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT AND ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator DeWine. Senator Strauss has submitted a prepared
statement. It will be included in the record.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this
Subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, and an attorney who practices in the family court division of
our local courts I would like to state for the record that I fully
support the fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the District of
Columbia Courts, Defender Services, and the Offender Supervision
Agency. As an elected Senator for the District of Columbia I stand by
the Court System of District of Columbia. It is vital that the District
of Columbia Court System be fully funded in the amount asked for today.
I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today
and know that they and their staffs have worked hard on their budget
proposals. I know that the fiscal marks that they are testifying in
support of today are what they need in order for the D.C. Court System
to continue to operate at full capacity. Since, as the District of
Columbia Senator, I myself can not vote on this appropriation I am
limited to merely asking you to support their proposals.
The citizens of the District of Columbia deserve a judicial system
of the highest quality. Unlike citizens of any other jurisdiction, we
lack the legal rights to make these funding decisions internally.
Unless the D.C. Courts are fully funded by the Congress, they will not
be fully funded. Our Judges should be selected locally, not by the
President. The D.C. voters recently expressed their preference for the
principle of a locally elected prosecutor, instead of a Federal U.S.
Attorney to prosecute local crimes.\1\ This is not just an issue of
simply providing funds but it is an issue of justice. The District of
Columbia should not have to look to Congress for the sole financial
support of its courts. This is just another limit on the District of
Columbia's ability to have self-government. I have made the case
against these injustices many times before many Committees of this
body. I do not intend to belabor them here today because the
unfortunate truth is that while this status quo is maintained it is
absolutely essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ D.C. Ref.: Establishment of an office of the District Attorney
for the District of Columbia. On November 5th, 2002 85,742 or 82
percent voted in favor while 18,558 or 17 percent voted against.
Source: District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, I wish to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing. The political reality is that the voters of Ohio
or Louisiana will not hold the D.C. Court system high on their list of
legislative priorities. For you to take the time and effort to convene
this hearing suggests that duty and principle, not politics, in this
regard motivate your efforts.
Just like in any other jurisdiction, fully funding the District of
Columbia Courts is a critical step in maintaining law, order, and
justice. It is vital to our community that our court system has
adequate resources for the aforementioned reasons. In addition to the
aforementioned reasons, in this day and age of heightened alerts due to
security risks.
The District of Columbia Courts' fiscal year 2004 request is a
fiscally responsible budget that continues to build on past
achievements to meet current and future needs. Some of the needs that
will be met by the budget proposal submitted by the D.C. Courts are
enhancing public security, investing in human resources, investing in
information technology, expanding strategic planning and management,
and strengthening services to families.
Moreover, having stated the importance of fully funding the
District of Columbia Court System, I would like to emphasize the
importance of fully funding the Court's Defender Services line item. In
order to provide adequate representation to families in crisis we need
to fully fund Defender Services. All of this Committees good work on
Family Court reform is in jeopardy with out the resources to back it
up. The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
most vulnerable citizens--its children, as well as provide countless
other, more mundane yet important, legal functions common to every
jurisdiction. The safety of children should not and will not be
compromised due to political agendas or simple lack of funding.
Although the budget provides training for new attorneys, experienced
advocates best serve these children. We are in danger of losing our
most experienced child advocates due to budget cuts.
Once again this year the D.C. Court System asked for an increase in
the hourly rate paid to attorneys that provide legal services to the
indigent including those attorneys that work hard to represent abused
and neglected children ad guardia and ad litems in Family Court. The
first fee increase in nearly a decade was implemented in March of 2002
when it was increased to the present rate of $65 per hour. In the
fiscal year 2004 request the Courts recommend an incremental increase
from the current $65 an hour to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per
hour. The reason that this adjustment is so important, is that the
Federal court-appointed lawyers, literally across the street already
get paid $90 an hour to do very similar work. Therefore, the disparity
in pay between the two positions creates a disincentive amongst the
``experienced'' attorneys to work for Defender Services in D.C. Court.
I call on this Subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive.
It was unfortunate that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill that
came out of Conference and was signed into law by the President did not
include this raise that this Committee, and full Senate rightly
included into their mark up of the bill. I urge this Subcommittee to
fully fund the requested increase in the defender services line item in
the bill for fiscal year 2004 just like they did for fiscal year 2003,
and then fight vigorously to defend that mark if a conference becomes
necessary.
Senator Landrieu, you have stated that the District of Columbia
Family Court should be a ``showcase'' for the whole country. I firmly
agree with that statement and add that as an attorney who practices
regularly in the D.C. Family Court, I believe that it is, thankfully,
on its way toward being that ``showcase''. However, there is continued
need for improvement. I know that this Subcommittee has been firmly
committed to the D.C. Family Court. On behalf of my constituents I
thank you for all your hard work and dedication and I look forward to
your continued cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in
this Subcommittee for the D.C. Family Court. In particular, I commend
Senators DeWine and Landrieu for all the great work that they have done
on this important issue. Both of them have treated the D.C. Family
Court as if it were a court in their own States.
As a District resident, I look forward to the day when the District
of Columbia does not have to look to Congress for the financial support
of its courts. This is just another limit on the District of Columbia's
ability to govern itself. However, if the status quo remains then it is
absolutely essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court system.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding
this important hearing. I urge this Subcommittee to take the budget
proposals submitted today into strong consideration. Finally, let me
take this opportunity to thank Matt Helfant of my staff for his
assistance in preparing this statement. I look forward to further
hearings on this topic and I am happy to respond to any requests for
additional information.
______
Questions Submitted to the District of Columbia Courts
Questions Submitted by Senators Mike DeWine and Mary L. Landrieu
CAPITAL QUESTIONS
Question. How much is allocated in fiscal year 2003 for the Old
Courthouse?
Answer. For fiscal year 2003, $7 million is allocated for the Old
Courthouse.
Question. For the underground garage?
Answer. Because NCPC required an urban design master plan for
judiciary before commencing work on the underground garage, the
underground garage has been included in the overall Old Courthouse
restoration project, as had been envisioned by earlier studies for the
project. GSA has advised the Courts that the advantage of separating
the garage, which was saving time by using a design-build contractor,
was negated by the master plan requirement.
Accordingly, the $7 million allocated for the Old Courthouse will
finance design for both the garage and the restoration. We expect the
garage to be first in the construction phase of the overall project.
Question. How much was provided in the Fiscal Year 2003 Mil Con
bill for the Military Court's share of the garage?
Answer. Our understanding from the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (CAAF), is that $2.5 million was appropriated for construction
costs of the garage in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the CAAF has paid
GSA $850,000 for their share of the design costs. The costs of the
garage have been divided between the D.C. Courts and the CAAF based on
the share of parking spaces to be allocated to each.
Question. How much has been provided for what could be considered
Family Court improvements (in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003)?
How much requested in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for these
purposes?
D.C. COURTS CAPITAL REQUEST TO SUPPORT FAMILY COURT ACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2002 2003 2004 Request 2005 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Request................................ $18,643,000 $16,068,000 $37,084,000 $2,830,000
Revised GSA figures............................. 18,643,000 16,068,000 11,410,000 29,294,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the costs reflect mainly
(1) implementation of the Interim Plan (detailed in the April 5, 2002
Transition Plan) to provide efficient, family-friendly facilities for
the Family Court and (2) the Integrated Justice Information System
(IJIS).
For fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, the costs reflect (1)
continuing IJIS throughout the Courthouse (which will give judicial
decision-makers the most complete information on which to base
decisions in children's cases) and (2) two-thirds of the estimated cost
of the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project, approximately two-thirds
of which will renovate or provide additional space for permanent,
state-of-the-art, family-friendly facilities for the Family Court.
______
Questions Submitted to the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency
Questions Submitted by Senators Mike DeWine and Mary L. Landrieu
Question. The funds to renovate Karrick Hall were appropriated in
fiscal year 2002, but the renovation work has not yet begun. What are
the circumstances surrounding the delay? What is your schedule for
adding additional capacity?
Answer. The use of CSOSA's renovation funds, as well as any
District funds for similar purposes, was predicated upon the Mayor's
submission to the of a Master Plan for the future use of the DC General
Hospital campus (known as Reservation 13) to the DC Council by March
31, 2002. Although the Mayor's plan was submitted by this deadline, it
only provided for CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions program to function in
Karrick Hall for an ``interim'' period. The length of that period was
not defined, and there was no provision made for the program's
permanent location.
Therefore, in the spirit of public safety partnerships and
collaborations, CSOSA initiated another planning project with the City
to identify alternatives to renovating Karrick Hall, including new
construction, and make recommendations. That additional planning effort
concluded in October 2002 that the renovation of Karrick Hall is the
only viable alternative to provide a Re-entry and Sanctions program on
the grounds of D.C. General, within the funding provided by Congress.
The time for completing the renovation work is estimated at 12 months
after construction begins. Construction is expected to begin within 6
months of City approval to proceed with the renovation. During
construction, the current program must be relocated and also allow for
expansion of one additional 18 bed unit.
Despite the findings of the joint planning effort, the City's
planning staff is still holding to the Master Plan's long-term vision
of tearing down Karrick Hall, and all of the other existing buildings
on and campus, and commercially developing much of the property along a
stretch identified as ``Massachusetts Avenue extended.'' However, the
$13 million that has been provided to CSOSA is about $10 million short
of what is required for a new building. In addition, various land
siting, planning and construction issues would require approximately 36
months to build a new building.
CSOSA is anxious to complete work on Karrick Hall and bring the Re-
entry and Sanctions program online because of its proven potential as a
tool to reduce recidivism. A study by the University of Maryland,
Institute for Behavior and Health dated May 31, 2002 found that
offenders who participated in the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA drug
treatment program, currently operated in Karrick Hall, were less likely
to commit crimes. Overall the arrest rate for Washington/Baltimore
HIDTA treatment participants dropped 51.3 percent. The Washington AOC
participants experienced a 75 percent decrease.
Question. CSOSA's annual treatment funding has increased by 100
percent since fiscal year 2000. Is this funding sufficient to meet the
demand for treatment? What is being done to ensure that these resources
are used most effectively?
Answer. CSOSA's increased treatment funding has enabled us to make
more placements and meet more demand. In fiscal year 2000, CSOSA
(including PSA) made 1,692 treatment placements. This increased to
1,875 placements in fiscal year 2001 and 3,510 placements in fiscal
year 2002. (This includes substance abuse, sex offender, and domestic
violence programming.) As funding has increased, the number of
placements has increased proportionately.
Even with the increased resources, however, CSOSA has not been able
to place all offenders and defendants who need treatment. Approximately
2,900 offenders received multiple positive drug tests in fiscal year
2002. During the same period, CSOSA placed 1,665 offenders in substance
abuse treatment. This means the Community Supervision Program can meet
approximately 57 percent of the need for substance abuse treatment.
If treatment is a condition of probation or parole, the offender's
placement receives priority. For placements made by CSOSA, an
assessment process determines what type of treatment would be most
beneficial to the offender. We have also developed in-house treatment
readiness and sanctions groups that help the offender develop the
commitment necessary to complete treatment. Approximately 600 offenders
attend these groups at any given time.
Our Reentry and Sanction Center initiative is a critical element of
our ability to use treatment resources effectively. The Reentry and
Sanctions Center will increase the availability of intensive assessment
and sanctions-based treatment for the high-risk substance-abusing
offender.
We are also in the early stages of research that should help us
refine our treatment assessment process to use resources more
efficiently. We have worked with vendors to develop a range of short-
and longer-term residential programs, as well as a transitional housing
program. Research will enable us to tell which programs have the
greatest benefit and how much treatment an offender needs to complete
before a positive behavioral change can be sustained.
Question. You have repeatedly stated that your target caseload is
50 offenders per officer in general supervision. Your testimony
indicates that you feel that target can be reached with the resources
requested last year and this year. What about high risk cases, such as
sex offenders and mental health cases? What are you doing to manage the
offenders most likely to pose a risk to public safety or to need
special services?
Answer. CSOSA has implemented several strategies to manage high-
risk cases. First, we assess the risk of every offender entering
supervision. This assessment considers the current offense, criminal
history, and community stability. Based on the results, we assign a
supervision level that determines how often the offender will meet with
his or her supervision officer. In addition, all offenders entering
supervision for at least 30 days begin a program of drug testing that
begins with very intensive testing and gradually relaxes as the
offender demonstrates abstinence.
Cases classified as needing ``intensive'' supervision are presented
to the Metropolitan Police Department at a meeting in the Police
Service Area where the offender lives. This presentation includes a
photo of the offender. These cases are also targeted for joint CSOSA/
MPD site visits--called Accountability Tours--to raise the offender's
awareness of the need to comply with conditions of supervision.
In addition to these procedures applying to all offenders, some
categories of offenders are assigned to specialized caseloads. Sex
offenders, domestic violence cases, and offenders with active mental
health issues constitute special supervision categories. These
caseloads are lower than the general supervision caseloads. At present,
the average special supervision caseload is 44 offenders per officer.
Officers managing specialized cases receive additional training in the
needs and characteristics of this type of offender. In future years,
CSOSA anticipates lowering these specialized caseloads further.
Finally, CSOSA is exploring ways in which technology can assist
officers in managing high-risk offenders. We are researching Global
Positioning System-based electronic monitoring that would enable us to
track the offender's exact location at any time. We are looking at
biometric technologies that will enable us to track the offender's
attendance at work, treatment, or other required activities.
Question. You have repeatedly stated that rearrests have decreased
since your supervision officers began working with offenders in D.C.
Halfway Houses. Where are rearrests at this time?
Answer. Our latest statistics indicate that parole rearrests were
fairly stable throughout fiscal year 2002 (approximately 95 per month).
While this is a slight increase from last year, it is still
substantially below the level experienced in May 1998, when CSOSA began
working with parolees in halfway houses. At that time, the monthly
parolee rearrest rate had reached 158.
As our ability to obtain and analyze data has increased, we have
been able to develop more accurate rearrest statistics for the entire
population, including probationers. In fiscal year 2002, 2,809
probationers were rearrested. Overall, 18 percent of the total
supervised population was arrested. This is a slight increase (2
percentage points) over fiscal year 2001.
It is important to view offender rearrest in the overall context of
total arrests. MPD arrested an average of 2,630 individuals per month
in fiscal year 2002. Of these, 328 were individuals under CSOSA
supervision. CSOSA's clients make up approximately 13 percent of MPD's
monthly arrests.
Question. How does the halfway house situation in the District
affect your officers' ability to work with offenders prior to the start
of supervision?
Answer. Halfway house placement is an important element of
successful parole supervision. It provides a transitional environment
in which the offender can begin to cope with post-incarceration stress.
He or she can obtain employment, finalize living arrangements, and
formulate a plan to address the many issues that accompany re-entry
into the community.
Unfortunately, only about half of the parolees entering CSOSA
supervision are placed in halfway houses. Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
policy limits the type of offender who is recommended for placement;
moreover, recently the BOP has moved toward strict enforcement of
sentencing rules that limit halfway house placement to no more than 10
percent of the sentence. For many parole violators and short-term
felons, this effectively eliminates halfway house placement as an
option. CSOSA has consistently recommended that the halfway house stay
be at least 90, and preferably 120, days.
At this time, that length of stay is not being achieved for most
placements. Shorter halfway house stays reduce CSOSA's ability to work
with the offender on an effective transition to community supervision.
Question. Offender reentry has received a lot of attention from the
media recently. How many offenders return to the District of Columbia?
Do you anticipate that the number of offenders returning to the
District will increase over the next few years?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002, 2,148 offenders returned from prison
to CSOSA supervision. This has held fairly constant over the past
several years. CSOSA does not project a significant increase in the 2
years for which projections have been completed. Overall, we expect an
increase of about 2 percent in the parolee population in the next 2
years.
Question. What is CSOSA doing in the area of offender reentry?
Answer. CSOSA's reentry program begins in the halfway house, where
supervision officers assess the offender and develop an interim
supervision plan that remains in effect for the first 90 days post-
release. For offenders who do not transition through halfway houses,
assessment and case planning occur at the start of supervision.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA engaged in significant efforts to begin
linking returning offenders to community-based resources. We are
working with Mayor Williams' Reentry Steering Committee on
implementation of a comprehensive city-wide reentry strategy. This
strategy will increase the returning offender's access to a wide range
of services--not just supervision and treatment, but health care, job
training, housing, official identification, and all the other services
that a returning resident would need.
Our Faith Community Partnership also connects returning offenders
to the community. Research tells us that strong, positive relationships
are essential to successful reentry, particularly during the initial
stages of the process. We approached the city's faith institutions to
provide this sort of guidance and role modeling through volunteer
mentoring. Since the initiative was first announced in January 2002,
response has been overwhelming. Over a hundred volunteer mentors have
come forward to be trained. Offenders are hearing about the program
while in prison and are asking to be part of it. We are currently
working with the Bureau of Prisons to extend the program to the Rivers
Correctional Facility in North Carolina, which houses about one
thousand District of Columbia inmates.
To date, about 80 offenders have received mentors. While the
program is still very new, we have received strong anecdotal evidence
that the participants are benefiting from the support and involvement
of mentors. We recently held a citywide assembly to commemorate the
program's first anniversary. At this event, two participating offenders
gave testimony to the positive difference their mentors have made.
In this second year of the Faith Community Partnership, we intend
to continue the mentoring component and also focus on bringing the
services of the faith community to returning offenders. Many faith
institutions provide job training, housing, family counseling, and
other resources which would greatly benefit our offenders. We are
working with our member institutions to develop referral protocols and
locate resources that can be used to increase program capacity.
Question. You testified that 85 percent of arrests in the District
do not involve offenders under CSOSA supervision, yet most crimes are
committed by repeat offenders. What is CSOSA doing to reduce
recidivism? What level of success have you achieved?
The reduction of recidivism is CSOSA's most important priority. We
recognize that our involvement in an individual's life is relatively
brief. The average term of probation lasts about 20 months; the average
parole, 5 years. An offender's criminal career can last much longer
than CSOSA's window of opportunity to end that career.
That is the main reason why our program model combines
accountability with opportunity. Accountability lasts as long as an
officer is there to enforce it. Opportunity lasts long past CSOSA's
involvement. If we can help offenders develop positive ties to the
community, they will be less likely to injure that community through
crime. If we can help offenders understand and overcome their substance
abuse, they will no longer commit crimes to support a drug habit.
The primary mechanism for enforcing accountability is sanctions. In
fiscal year 2002, over 900 instances of sanctioning were entered into
the Community Supervision Program's case management system. We have put
in place a sanctions matrix that identifies specific consequences for
non-compliant behaviors. Sanctions range from verbal reprimand to
short-term residential placement--called halfway back. We believe that
our sanctions system will contain and correct non-compliant behaviors
before they develop into full-fledged criminal activity.
Our strategic plan identifies five intermediate outcomes that
contribute to a reduction in recidivism: decreased rearrest, decreased
drug use, decreased instance of revocation, increased employment and
job retention, and increased education levels. We have begun tracking
the results of each of these intermediate steps. We are confident these
results will lead to a significant reduction in recidivism.
Question. In your testimony, you discussed CSOSA's partnership with
the Metropolitan Police Department. Does CSOSA partner with any other
criminal justice agencies?
Answer. CSOSA is an active member of the District of Columbia and
Federal criminal justice communities. We believe that collaboration is
essential to our success, and we are constantly seeking new
opportunities to work with our colleagues in the field. CSOSA
participates in the District's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
We have conducted cross-training with the United States Parole
Commission to improve staff communication between the agencies. We have
developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to place our officers in BOP-operated halfway houses, and with
the city's Department of Employment Services to obtain targeted
employment assistance. We are also collaborating with the BOP in an
effort to increase public understanding of the vital role of halfway
houses in the criminal justice system. CSOSA works continually to
improve our coordination with our criminal justice partners and to
provide a valuable public safety presence in the District of Columbia.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., Wednesday, March 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]