[Senate Hearing 108-304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-304
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2765/S. 1583
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND OTHER ACTIVITIES CHARGEABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART AGAINST
THE REVENUES OF SAID DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
District of Columbia
District of Columbia Courts
Foster Care System
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
85-917 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Dietrich
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Page
District of Columbia:
Courts....................................................... 1
Superior Court............................................... 13
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency............... 27
Public Defender Services..................................... 32
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Foster Care System............................................... 53
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
District of Columbia: Courts..................................... 133
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 153
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
District of Columbia............................................. 209
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.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
FOSTER CARE SYSTEM
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
Today, on what fittingly is being recognized as the
National Day of Hope for Abused Children, we are convening the
first of what will be a series of hearings regarding the foster
care system in our Nation's capital. I am honored to have, as
our lead witness, Congressman Tom Davis, Chairman of the House
Committee on Government Reform.
Chairman Davis and I share a long-standing concern and
commitment to children in our home States, in the District, and
across our Nation, as of course has Senator Landrieu. Chairman
Davis has held several oversight hearings regarding the
receivership of Child and Family Services Agency, commonly
referred to as CFSA. In addition, Chairman Davis and I worked
closely together to get the D.C. Family Court Reform Act of
2001 signed into law.
As the new chairman of the House Committee on Government
Reform, Chairman Davis has elevated the oversight of the
District of Columbia to the full committee. He truly has
demonstrated his concern for and commitment to our Nation's
capital.
Chairman Davis requested that the GAO review CFSA's
performance and progress. And in our hearing today, we will
examine and discuss the preliminary findings of that review,
some of which are very disturbing. Our witnesses will describe
the problems that have led to the current crisis in the
District's foster care system and what CFSA has been doing and
is doing to protect the lives of the District's children.
Let me commend Congressman Davis for requesting this GAO
review. It was a great step, something that is long overdue,
and has provided this committee and this Congress and the
District of Columbia some very, very important information.
Candidly, this is not the first time that this Congress has
looked at this issue, nor the first time that this committee
has looked at this. This is not the first time that we, as a
subcommittee, have heard testimony from witnesses describing
the sorry state of the District's child welfare system. This is
not the first time we have discussed the errors and the
unbelievable lapses in judgment and the unquestionable and
inexcusable breakdowns in the system, breakdowns that have led
to the loss of at least 229 children's lives between 1993 and
the year 2000.
In fact, in a hearing all too similar to this one today, a
hearing that we held in March 2001 about the state of foster
care in the District, a hearing that this subcommittee held, we
listened to vivid and tragic testimony detailing the complete
collapse of the child welfare system in the District of
Columbia. And at that hearing, I made it very clear that
protecting the health and welfare of the District's children is
our number one priority and how that, too, should be the number
one priority of the District of Columbia.
We put the CFSA on warning and said that enough was enough
and that we were not going to allow blatantly irresponsible
acts of incompetence to continue anymore. Further, we explained
how this subcommittee has a responsibility, an obligation, to
review the District's resource needs and budget proposals with
close Congressional scrutiny. We have an obligation to ensure
that any dollars that flow into the child welfare system are
used for the proper protection of the children involved.
So the question is: What has changed in these past 2 years?
The preliminary GAO findings would suggest that very little has
in fact changed. But before we get to the specifics of the GAO
report, I would like to make something very clear. Whether we
are talking about a child here in the District of Columbia or
one in Cincinnati or one in Richmond or New Orleans or anywhere
in the United States, I think we all would agree that every
child in this country deserves to live in a safe, stable,
loving and permanent home with loving and caring adults. Yet
the reality is that tonight more than half a million children
in this country will go to bed in homes that are not their own.
And many of these children are tragically at risk.
I first learned about this nearly 30 years ago in the early
1970's, when I was serving as an assistant county prosecutor in
my home county in Ohio, Green County, when I was a young county
prosecuting attorney. One of my duties was to represent the
Green County Children's Services in cases where children were
going to be removed from their parents' custody. I witnessed
then that too many of these cases drag endlessly, leaving
children trapped in temporary foster care placements, which
often entail multiple moves from foster home to foster home to
foster home for years and years and years.
It would appear that children in this city, in our Nation's
capital, are at even more risk because of the systemic
dysfunction within the District's child welfare bureaucracy.
Let me explain.
Over 10 years ago, the District's child welfare system was
considered among the worst in the Nation. In 1989, the American
Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against the
city, LaShawn A. v. Barry. And they argued that the District
was failing to protect neglected and abused children.
In 1991, the case went to trial where the Court ultimately
found the District liable. Following this decision, the parties
involved in the case developed a remedial action plan. The
Court used this plan as the basis for its modified final order,
which required the District to correct the vast deficiencies in
its child welfare system.
By 1995, however, little had changed, prompting U.S.
District Judge Thomas F. Hogan to install a receiver to oversee
the system and appoint a court monitor to review the District's
performance. On June 15, 2001, the receivership ended. And
responsibility was transferred to a newly established Cabinet-
level Child and Family Services Agency. The order terminating
the receivership created a probationary period that would end
when the District demonstrated progress on a series of
performance indicators.
Today, the court monitor will present her findings and
testify as to whether or not to end the probationary period for
CFSA. It is my understanding that the court monitor will
recommend ending that probationary period. I will say bluntly
that from reading the GAO's testimony, which will be presented
shortly, I have some grave concerns about CFSA's abilities. I
am curious to see how the court monitor's recommendations
comports with the disturbing picture that GAO's findings paint.
For example, the GAO has determined that CFSA is not, is
not, meeting the most crucial requirements of the Adoption and
Safe Families Act. This law, which I helped sponsor and which
has been in effect since November 1997, includes a number of
very specific provisions that require States to change policies
and practices to better promote children's safety and adoption
or other permanent options, or other permanency options.
In fact, since this law has been in effect, adoptions have
increased nearly by 40 percent nationwide. According to the
GAO, though, while some improvements have been made, the CFSA
has not adopted some key policies and procedures for ensuring
the safety and permanent placement of children. Furthermore,
caseworkers have not consistently implemented or documented
some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted. In
fact, CFSA is not meeting the Adoption and Safe Families Act
standards in the following ways:
Number one, initiating proceedings to terminate parental
rights for children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22
months; number two, notifying parents of reviews and hearings;
number three, requiring mandatory annual permanency hearings
every 12 months for a child in foster care.
Another troubling finding that the GAO will elaborate on
further is the District's inability to track its children in
foster care. In fact, data is not even available for 70 percent
of the District's children in foster care. This is true even
though the District has invested resources in a new automated
information system that has been operational for over 3 years.
How can we track these children and determine their well-being
when they are not even entered into this automated system? How
can the court monitor be sure that CFSA is meeting its
standards if CFSA cannot even electronically track the children
in its own care?
I am very interested to hear the testimony of Anne
Schneiders, chairman of the National Association of Counsel for
Children, who has said that children wait for months, for weeks
or months, before foster care placement is available. Some
older children wait at group homes or even overnight at CFSA
offices. They are often placed in whatever home has a vacancy,
irrespective of the needs of the child or the preference of the
family.
In addition to the new GAO findings, other studies and
newspaper investigations paint equally disturbing pictures. For
example, according to a recent study by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, District children were in foster
care an average of 65 months before they achieved a permanency
plan. That is over 5 years in foster care before a plan is even
determined.
And, of course, none of us can forget the tragic and
troubling accounts detailed in the September 2001 Washington
Post's Pulitzer Prize winning investigative series on the state
of the District's child welfare system. But even after that
series ran, the Post identified additional cases of abuse and
neglect. In a December 2001 story, the newspaper reported that
at least 10 children under District protection died between
June 2001 and December 2001, and that in one case an infant
died of starvation after a city social welfare worker failed to
visit his family for 7 months.
Then, an August 2002 story reported that it took the CFSA
nearly 3 months to remove an 11-year-old mentally retarded
child from a District group foster care home after he reported
being sexually abused by a 15-year-old fellow resident. In this
particular case, the District social worker learned of the
incident on April 9, 2002, but did not actually report it until
July 2, 2002. And furthermore, when police finally interviewed
the 11-year-old boy, they found out his 12-year-old roommate
also had been sexually assaulted.
These kinds of reports make us all sick. And the CFSA needs
to understand we are not going anywhere, none of us are going
anywhere. This committee is not backing off in any way until
these children are protected. We have made the welfare and
safety of these children our top priority.
And as chairman of this subcommittee, I am going to
continue to have hearings. And we are going to keep digging for
facts and findings. And we are going to do everything we
possibly can to save these children.
Now I recognize that the District's child welfare system
did not collapse overnight. And we are well aware that it will
not be fixed overnight. However, 1 month, let alone 65 months,
or 5 five years is a very long time in a child's life. It is an
eternity for a child. How many more months and years can we ask
these children and teens to wait until they have a safe and
loving home?
PREPARED STATEMENT
When we look at the District's child welfare system in its
totality, we must not view its reform in a vacuum. The reform
of this system is about a lot of things. This is about, we
know, resource needs. This is about proper management of those
resources and the services provided. It is also, of course,
about accountability. And ultimately, and most importantly, it
is about putting the safety and the health and well-being of
thousands of children first, above all else.
I know that Chairman Davis shares these concerns and is
standing ready and willing to work together to make life better
for these children. I thank him for requesting the GAO report.
And I look forward to hearing his testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine
Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today, on what
fittingly is being recognized as the National Day of Hope for Abused
Children, I am convening the first of what will be a series of hearings
regarding the foster care system in the District of Columbia.
I am honored to have as our lead witness, Congressman Tom Davis,
Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. Chairman Davis
and I share a long-standing concern and commitment to children in our
own home States, in the District, and across the Nation. Chairman Davis
has held several oversight hearings regarding the receivership of the
Child and Family Services Agency, commonly referred to as CFSA. In
addition, Chairman Davis and I worked closely together to get the DC
Family Court Reform Act of 2001 signed into law.
As the new Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform,
Chairman Davis has elevated the oversight of the District of Columbia
to the full committee. He truly has demonstrated his concern for and
commitment to our Nation's capital.
Chairman Davis requested that the GAO review CFSA's performance and
progress, and in our hearing today, we will examine and discuss the
preliminary findings of that review--some of which are very disturbing.
Our witnesses will describe the problems that have led to the current
crisis in the District's foster care system and what CFSA has been and
is doing to protect the lives of the District's children.
But candidly, this is not the first time we've done this. This is
not the first time that we, as a subcommittee, have heard testimony
from witnesses describing the sorry state of the District's child
welfare system. This is not the first time we've discussed the errors,
and the unbelievable lapses in judgment, and the unquestionable and
inexcusable breakdowns in the system--breakdowns that have lead to the
loss of at least 229 children's lives between 1993 and 2000.
In fact, in a hearing--all too similar to this one today--a hearing
that we held in March 2001 about the state of foster care in the
District--we listened to vivid and tragic testimony detailing the
complete collapse of the child welfare system. And at that hearing, I
made it unequivocally clear that protecting the health and welfare of
the District's children is my No. 1 priority--and how that, too, should
be the No. 1 priority of the District of Columbia. I put the CFSA on
warning and said that enough was enough--that we were not going to
allow blatantly irresponsible acts of incompetence to continue any
more. Furthermore, I explained how this subcommittee has a
responsibility--an obligation--to review the District's resource needs
and budget proposals with close congressional scrutiny. We have an
obligation to ensure that any dollars that flow into the child welfare
system are used for the proper protection of the children involved.
So, what has changed in these past 2 years? The preliminary GAO
findings would suggest that very little has, in fact, changed. But,
before we get to the specifics of the GAO report, I want to make
something very clear.
Whether we are talking about a child here in the District, or one
in Cincinnati, or in Richmond, or in New Orleans, or anywhere else in
America--every child deserves to live in a safe, stable, loving, and
permanent home, with loving and caring adults.
Yet, the reality is that tonight, more than a half-million children
in this country will go to bed in homes that are not their own. Many of
these children are at risk. I first learned this nearly 30 years ago in
the early 1970's when I was serving as an assistant county prosecutor
in Greene County, Ohio. One of my duties was to represent the Greene
County Children Services in cases where children were going to be
removed from their parents' custody. I witnessed then that too many of
these cases drag on endlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary
foster care placements, which often entail multiple moves from foster
home to foster home to foster home--for years and years and years.
It would appear that children in this city--in our Nation's
capital--are at even more risk because of the systemic dysfunction
within the District's child welfare bureaucracy. Let me explain.
Over 10 years ago, the District's child welfare system was
considered among the worst in the Nation. In 1989, the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit against the city--LaShawn
A. v. Barry--arguing that the District was failing to protect neglected
and abused children. In 1991, the case went to trial, where the court
ultimately found the District liable. Following this decision, the
parties involved in the case developed a remedial action plan. The
court used this plan as the basis for its modified final order, which
required the District to correct the vast deficiencies in its child
welfare system.
By 1995, however, little had changed, prompting U.S. District Judge
Thomas F. Hogan to install a Receiver to oversee the system and appoint
a Court Monitor to review the District's performance.
On June 15, 2001, the Receivership ended and responsibility was
transferred to a newly-established Cabinet-level Child and Family
Services Agency. The Order terminating the Receivership created a
probationary period that would end when the District demonstrated
progress on a series of performance indicators.
Today, the Court Monitor will present her findings and testify as
to whether or not to end the probationary period for CFSA. It is my
understanding that the Court Monitor will recommend ending that
probationary period. I will say, bluntly, that from reading the GAO's
testimony, which will be presented shortly, I have some grave concerns
about CFSA's abilities. I am curious to see how the Court Monitor's
recommendation comports with the disturbing picture that GAO's findings
paint.
For example, the GAO has determined that CFSA is not meeting the
most crucial requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This
law--which I sponsored and which has been in effect since November
1997--includes a number of specific provisions that require States to
change policies and practices to better promote children's safety and
adoption or other permanency options. In fact, since this law has been
in effect, adoptions have increased by nearly 40 percent!
According to the GAO, though, while some improvements have been
made, the CFSA has not adopted some key policies and procedures for
ensuring the safety and permanent placement of children.
Furthermore, caseworkers have not consistently implemented or
documented some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted.
In fact, CFSA is not meeting the Adoption and Safe Family Act standards
in the following ways: (1) initiating proceedings to terminate parental
rights for children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;
(2) notifying parties of reviews and hearings; and (3) requiring
mandatory annual permanency hearings every 12 months for a child in
foster care.
Another troubling finding that the GAO will elaborate on further is
the District's inability to track its children in foster care. In fact,
data is not even available for 70 percent of the District's children in
foster care. This is true even though the District has invested
resources in a new automated information system that has been
operational for over 3 years! How can we track these children and
determine their well-being when they are not even entered into an
automated system? How can the Court Monitor be sure that CFSA is
meeting its standards if CFSA cannot even electronically track the
children in its own care?
I am very interested to hear the testimony of Anne Schneiders,
Chair of the National Association of Counsel for Children, who has said
that children wait weeks or months before a foster care placement is
available. Some older children wait at group homes or overnight at CFSA
offices. They are often placed in whatever home has a vacancy--
irrespective of the needs of the child or the preference of the family.
In addition to the new GAO findings, other studies and newspaper
investigations paint equally disturbing pictures. For example,
according to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, District children were in foster care an average of 65 months
before they achieved a permanency plan! That is over 5 years in foster
care before a plan is even determined!
And, of course, none of us can forget the tragic and troubling
accounts detailed in the September 2001 Washington Post's Pulitzer
Prize winning investigative series on the state of the District's child
welfare system. But, even after that series ran, the Post identified
additional cases of abuse and neglect.
In a December 2001 story, the newspaper reported that at least 10
children under District protection died between June 2001 and December
2001, and that in one case, an infant died of starvation after a City
social worker failed to visit his family for 7 months.
Then, an August 2002 story reported that it took the CFSA nearly 3
months to remove an 11-year-old mentally retarded boy from a District
group foster care home after he reported being sexually abused by a 15-
year-old fellow resident. In this particular case, the District social
worker learned of the incident on April 9, 2002, but didn't actually
report it until July 2, 2002! And furthermore, when police finally
interviewed the 11-year-old boy, they found out that his 12-year-old
roommate also had been sexually assaulted.
These kinds of reports make me sick. And, the CFSA needs to
understand that I am not going anywhere until these kids are protected.
I have made the welfare and safety of these children my top
priority, and as Chairman of this subcommittee, I'm going to keep
having hearings, and we're going to keep digging for facts and
findings, and we're going to do everything we possibly can to save
these children.
I recognize that the District's child welfare system did not
collapse over night. And, we are well aware that it will not be fixed
over night. However, one month--let alone 65 months or 5 years--is a
very long time in a child's life. How many more months and years can we
ask these infants and children and teens to wait until they have a safe
and loving home?
When we look at the District's child welfare system in it's
totality, we must not view its reform in a vacuum. The reform of this
system is about a lot of things. This is about resource needs. This is
about proper management of those resources and the services provided.
This is about accountability. And ultimately and most importantly, this
is about putting the safety and health and well-being of thousands of
children first--above all else.
I know that Chairman Davis shares these concerns and is standing
ready and willing to work together to help make life better for these
children. I thank him for requesting the GAO report and welcome now his
testimony.
Senator DeWine. Let me turn to the Ranking Member of this
committee, who has been a real partner in this effort and who
cares passionately about the children of the District of
Columbia, Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going
to be very brief and submit a statement for the record, because
I am anxious to hear from our partner in the House on this
issue. And I also have any number of questions that will follow
up some of the more disturbing findings in this report.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But let me just say that I appreciate this work. I want to
associate myself with your remarks, Mr. Chairman, and
understand that we have made some progress. But according to
this report, there is a tremendous amount of work that is yet
to be done. And this work is extremely important. And there is
an urgency about this work. So I will submit the rest of my
statement in writing. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
I would like to join Chairman DeWine in welcoming our witnesses
from the District as well as Chairman Tom Davis from the House
Government Reform Committee. I appreciate Chairman Davis taking the
time to share his insight into the District, as a representative from
Virginia, and the GAO report which he initiated.
It has been two years since Chairman DeWine and I convened our
first hearing on this subcommittee to discuss child welfare in the
District. At that time we met with some of you and some of your
predecessors. We are happy that Judith Meltzer is on the panel again,
and that her expertise has provided a thread of continuity in the
reform of child welfare in the District. However, over the two years
that have passed, we are still in the planning phase of reform.
The receivership of the Child and Family Services Agency ended in
June of 2001 after certain criteria were achieved by the city, such as,
protecting CFSA from agency budget or personnel reductions; reform of
the Family Court and coordination; implementation of memoranda of
understanding with the Department of Health and the Commission on
Mental Health Services for providing mental health and substance abuse
services. These benchmarks have improved the direction of this agency,
but not the results so far.
Now this subcommittee is meeting with the leaders on child welfare
again and we understand that the agency's probationary period, which
has seen child welfare through the last 21 months, was terminated in
January. I understand that the District has met 75 percent of 20 best
practice benchmarks during probation. I would be interested to learn
more specifically about the benchmarks met and those where the agency
fell short.
The two main guidebooks to reform of CFSA are a court order (the
implementation plan of the LaShawn Decree) and the Federal law (the
Adoption and Safe Families Act). GAO has aptly reviewed the District's
strengths and weaknesses in these areas. The federal court will
maintain oversight of the agency as it implements the standards set in
the. Yet another component must be considered: the citizens of the
District; as identified in Judith Meltzer's written testimony.
I remain concerned that there is a grave difference between
checking the box of criteria and impacting the lives of children. I
have worked in this field for 20 years as an advocate for children, and
I know that there are small things that can be done to make children
safer, while the administrative arm of the agency is trying to stand up
their processes. I do not want the District to lose sight of this fact.
We must be achieving safety and permanency for every child on a day to
day basis. We cannot wait until the administration of the agency is
strong enough to do its job every day.
Each of your different perspectives (as an advocate of children; as
an administrator of an agency; and as the monitor to ensure compliance
with court mandates) can provide insight.
This morning, I would like to know from each of you: How can we
move beyond ``we're working on it''? When is this agency going to
remove the ``Under Construction'' sign and replace it with a sign
reading, ``Now Operating''? We are not talking about widgets. We are
talking about the safety and future of children.
I hope that you all will be open with the subcommittee on the
critical needs that exist and how we can address the necessary
resources in the city. I appreciate the time of each of our witnesses
and hope that we can begin a constructive dialogue on the future of the
Child and Family Services Agency.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Congressman Davis, again, thank you for requesting this
very revealing report. We are very grateful to you for doing
this. And we look forward to your testimony. Thank you. Please
proceed, and take as much time as you would like.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. And good morning, Mr.
Chairman and Senator Landrieu. And let me thank you for your
partnership and your leadership, both of you, in this as well.
And thank you for inviting me to testify today.
As you know, I have a longstanding interest in the Child
and Family Services Agency and all the reform efforts it is
undertaking to provide adequate services to vulnerable children
and families in the District.
When I served as chairman of the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on the District, we held numerous hearings to
examine CFSA's operations under Federal court-ordered
receivership. At the time, CFSA was plagued by deep-rooted
management problems that impacted the safety of children in its
care and hindered the agency's delivery of services.
The systematic problems identified were widespread and
included agency operations, staffing, budget, and fiscal
management, procurement, and quality assurance monitoring. The
CFSA has since worked to address many of these problems and
fulfill the criteria for terminating the probationary period.
To complement the reforms in CFSA, Congress worked with the
D.C. Superior Court officials, Government, and community
leaders to craft the Family Court Act. The act established
management principles to better address the needs of the
children in the system, increased the number of Family Court
judges, and created the position of magistrate judge to help
eliminate the backlog of cases and ensure that cases were
managed in a timely manner. The Family Court reforms emphasized
the importance of communication between the Court and the CFSA,
including the establishment of an on-site liaison office in the
Family Court to better inform judges of the availability of
social services in the city.
The occurrence of highly publicized incidents last year,
including the placement of underage children in group homes,
reminded us that many areas of CFSA's operations had yet to be
reformed and that children were paying the price for agency
mistakes. Therefore, then-D.C. subcommittee Chairwoman Connie
Morella and I requested a follow-up GAO study to examine CFSA's
performance measures and compliance with the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, the implementation of key foster care policies,
and the relationship between the agency and the Family Court.
Based on GAO's initial results, I am pleased that CFSA is
showing some progress in a number of areas. Specifically, we
are encouraged by CFSA's efforts to develop written plans to
help it comply with some of AFSA's requirements and performance
measures. We are also pleased to note the agency's development
of numerous foster care policies.
Furthermore, CFSA's efforts to lower the number of underage
children who are placed in group homes is commendable. However,
I question why the number remains so high--GAO reports that 70
children were still in group homes at the end of February
2003--and whether the District has an adequate number of foster
families.
The relationship between CFSA and the Family Court is
improving. And the two entities are working collaboratively.
But I understand that hearing conflicts and staffing problems
remain.
While the agency's progress is encouraging, I admit that
GAO's findings leave me with more questions than answers. I
still have concerns about the many challenges that lay ahead.
For instance, there are remaining AFSA requirements that the
agency has not met regarding the termination of parental rights
and permanency hearings. I understand that many of the delays
in these areas are likely due to staffing shortages. I know
that social service agencies nationwide face a shortage of
social workers.
So what has to be done to attract a larger number of
qualified and competent social workers to CFSA? Mr. Chairman, I
understand that you are examining this issue and looking for
potential ways to provide a financial incentive to qualified
applicants, including loan forgiveness and scholarships. Our
counterpart, the House Committee on Government Reform, stands
ready to provide the necessary support for innovative
recruitment and retention efforts.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the incidents that prompted me
to request the GAO report occurred in group homes. One of
several issues that emerged included the delayed reporting of
abuse allegations. I remain concerned that CFSA has been slow
to improve staff training and clarify the incident reporting
requirements so that employees understand their
responsibilities.
GAO also found that critical data about children's cases
are not always entered into the FACES automatic case management
system in a timely fashion. This limits a social worker's
ability to provide the Family Court with the most accurate,
relevant, and timely information so that the judge may make an
educated decision to ensure the safety and well-being of the
child. All components of the child welfare system need to work
together to provide children with safe homes and any social and
medical services that they may require. Since the information
stored in the FACES system serves a variety of purposes within
the agency, it is imperative that it is updated as quickly as
possible. I hope that CFSA will discuss their IT improvement
plans this morning.
Furthermore, the data in the FACES system should ideally
keep track of a child's assignment to a foster family,
including those in Maryland. I continue to be concerned that
the District of Columbia may not have an accurate tally of the
number of children currently placed in Maryland foster homes. I
have also received reports that the computers are often down,
further exacerbating the database challenges.
So what needs to happen in order to address the critical
shortfalls identified by GAO? Does the answer lie in more
staff, better management, better IT services, more money? How
successful has CFSA been at targeting their resources to
resolve management, staffing, and other operational challenges?
These are questions that our committees must continue to ask as
we pursue our respective roles. And I certainly hope that
today's hearing will identify CFSA's advances and pinpoints its
needs as it continues to institute reform.
I understand that the process is slow. If only the system
could be fixed overnight for the benefit of the children it
serves. Unfortunately, the reality is that a comprehensive
overhaul of an agency's infrastructure and the implementation
of new polices and procedure, it takes time, it takes money and
some patience.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The House committee will hold an oversight hearing in May
to further examine these issues. As we move forward with our
oversight responsibility, I look forward to working together,
as we examine the progress of the agency's reforms, determine
what assistance Congress can provide as CFSA completes the
development and improvement of its policies and procedures.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
appreciate the leadership of both of you on this issue.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Tom Davis
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me to testify today about the District of Columbia
Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). As you know, I have a
longstanding interest in CFSA and the reform efforts it is undertaking
to provide adequate services to vulnerable children and families in the
District.
When I served as Chairman of the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, we held numerous hearings to
examine CFSA's operations under Federal court-ordered receivership. At
the time, CFSA was plagued by deep-rooted management problems that
impacted the safety of children in its care and hindered the agency's
delivery of services. The systemic problems identified at CFSA were
widespread and included agency operations, staffing, budget and fiscal
management, procurement, and quality assurance monitoring. The CFSA has
since worked to address many of these problems and fulfill the criteria
for terminating the probationary period.
To complement the reforms in CFSA, Congress worked with D.C.
Superior Court officials, government, and community leaders to craft
the Family Court Act. The Act established management principles to
better address the needs of the children in the system, increased the
number of Family Court judges, and created the position of magistrate
judge to help eliminate the backlog of cases and ensure that cases are
managed in a timely manner. The Family Court reforms emphasized the
importance of communication between the Court and CFSA, including the
establishment of an on-site liaison office in the Family Court to
better inform judges of the availability of social services in the
city.
The occurrence of highly publicized incidents last year, including
the placement of underage children in group homes, reminded us that
many areas of CFSA's operations had yet to be reformed and that
children were paying the price for agency mistakes. Therefore, then-
D.C. Subcommittee Chairwomen Connie Morella and I requested a follow-up
GAO study to examine CFSA's performance measures and compliance with
the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the implementation of key
foster care policies, and the relationship between the agency and the
Family Court.
Based on GAO's initial results, I am pleased that CFSA is showing
progress in a number of areas. Specifically, I am encouraged by CFSA's
efforts to develop written plans to help it comply with some of the
ASFA requirements and performance measures. I am also pleased to note
the agency's development of numerous foster care policies. Furthermore,
CFSA's efforts to lower the number of underage children who are placed
in group homes is commendable. However, I question why that number
remains so high (GAO reports that 70 children were still in group homes
at the end of February 2003), and whether the District has an adequate
number of foster families. The relationship between CFSA and the Family
Court is improving and the two entities are working collaboratively,
but I understand that hearing conflicts and staffing remain problems.
While the agency's progress is encouraging, I must admit that GAO's
findings leave me with more questions than answers. I still have
concerns about the many challenges that lay ahead. For instance, there
are remaining ASFA requirements that the agency has not met regarding
the termination of parental rights and permanency hearings. I
understand that many of the delays in these areas are likely due to
staffing shortages. I know that social services agencies nationwide
face a shortage of social workers. So, what must be done to attract a
larger number of qualified and competent social workers to CFSA? Mr.
Chairman, I understand that you are examining this issue and looking
for potential ways to provide a financial incentive to qualified
applicants, including loan forgiveness and scholarships. The House
Committee on Government Reform stands ready to provide the necessary
support for innovative recruitment and retention efforts.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the incidents that prompted me to
request the GAO report occurred in group homes. One of several issues
that emerged included the delayed reporting of abuse allegations. I
remain concerned that CFSA has been slow to improve staff training and
clarify the incident reporting requirement so that employees understand
their responsibilities.
GAO also found that critical data about children's cases are not
always entered into the FACES automated case management system in a
timely fashion. This limits a social worker's ability to provide the
Family Court with the most accurate and relevant information so that
the judge may make an educated decision to ensure the safety and well-
being of the child. All components of the child welfare system need to
work together to provide children with safe homes and any social and
medical services they may require. Since the information stored in the
FACES system serves a variety of purposes within the agency, it is
imperative that it is updated as quickly as possible. I hope that CFSA
will discuss their IT improvement plans this morning.
Furthermore, the data in the FACES system should ideally keep track
of a child's assignment to a foster family, including those in
Maryland. I continue to be concerned that the District of Columbia may
not have an accurate tally of the number of children currently placed
in Maryland foster homes. I have also received reports that the
computers are often down, further exacerbating the database challenges.
So what needs to happen in order to address the critical shortfalls
identified by GAO? Does the answer lie in more staff, better
management, better IT services, more money? How successful has CFSA
been at targeting their resources to resolve management, staffing, and
other operational challenges? These are questions that our committees
must continue to ask as we pursue our respective roles. And I certainly
hope that today's hearing will identify CFSA's advances and pinpoint
its needs as it continues to institute reform.
I understand that the process is slow. If only the system could be
fixed overnight for the benefit of the children it serves. The
unfortunate reality is that a comprehensive overhaul of an agency's
infrastructure, and the implementation of new policies and procedures
take time, money, and patience.
The House Committee on Government Reform will hold an oversight
hearing in May to further examine these issues. As we move forward with
our oversight responsibility, I look forward to working together as we
examine the progress of the agency's reforms, and determine what
assistance Congress can provide as CFSA completes the development and
improvement of its policies and procedures.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I am available to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator DeWine. Well, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to
working with you. We just appreciate your interest and again
thank you for requesting this GAO report. And I think it is
going to provide us, both of us, with a great deal of
information to help the District improve and work together on
our common goal, to really help the children of the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu?
Senator Landrieu. I just want to thank you for your
testimony and acknowledge that these problems are quite severe
in the District. And we have every intention of continuing to
work with you to improve and to find workable solutions. I will
note that the District, of course, which I always feel
compelled to point out, is not the only place in the United
States where these problems exist. But they exist in a more
acute way here--the numbers just seem overwhelming to some of
us who do this work all throughout the country. The District of
Columbia is not alone, but it does seem to have some persistent
problems that are just very tough to address.
So I thank you for your effort and look forward to working
with you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
I would invite our second panel now to come forward.
Dr. Olivia Golden is the Director of the District of
Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency. Ms. Judith Meltzer
is the court-appointed monitor for the Child and Family Service
Agency. Ms. Cornelia Ashby is the Director of Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the General Accounting
Office. And Anne Schneiders is the chair and founder of the
Washington Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for
Children.
I think we will start with you, Dr. Golden. And we will
take just a brief 5-minute opening statement, if you would like
to make one. And then we will just go right down. And then we
will have questions.
STATEMENT OF DR. OLIVIA A. GOLDEN, DIRECTOR, CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Dr. Golden. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeWine,
Senator Landrieu, District of Columbia Subcommittee. I am
Olivia Golden, the Director of the Child and Family Services
Agency for the District of Columbia. And I appreciate your deep
commitment to the District and to children.
Less than 2 years ago, in June of 2001, Federal Court
receivership of CFSA terminated. And I had the opportunity to
become the first director of CFSA in its new form as a cabinet-
level agency of the District of Columbia. The legislation that
created this new agency laid out for CFSA a whole set of
responsibilities and authorities that had never been unified in
one place in the District before, creating for the first time
the opportunity for true reform.
The pace of change since then has been extraordinary. It
has only been 18 months since October of 2001 that the District
has had a unified child abuse and neglect agency at all. Before
then, CFSA investigated reports of neglect only, while the
Metropolitan Police Department investigated reports of abuse
and services to children who had experienced abuse were split
between court social services and CFSA.
In this fragmented system, the obstacles to such basic
elements of child welfare services as prompt and high-quality
investigation and timely movement to permanence were
overwhelming. Both our own sense of urgency and the Federal
Court's framework required us to create real change for
children at the same time we were reengineering the whole legal
and institutional framework for child welfare in the District,
building the District's first real safety net for children.
After our first year, as Senator DeWine mentioned, the
court monitor in the LaShawn lawsuit reported that we had met
75 percent of 20 exacting performance goals, measuring progress
from the end of the receivership. As a result, Federal Judge
Hogan signed the order ending the probationary period in
January of 2002. Among the probationary period accomplishments
that have the most direct impact on children are the dramatic
reduction in the backlog of investigations open more than 30
days, sharp reductions in the use of group care for young
children, a sharp reduction in the number of children in
residential care more than 100 miles from the District, and a
20 percent increase in finalized adoptions.
This is a critical juncture for reform and for the LaShawn
lawsuit. The District has demonstrated its capacity to mobilize
and maintain momentum for change. Yet the end of CFSA's
probation does not mean the end of the lawsuit. We are now
committed to several years of hard work to meet the ambitious
goals we have set for ourselves and the requirements of the
Court's modified final order. We have been closely working with
the court monitor and plaintiffs in developing the
implementation plan that will set out benchmarks for this
process.
CFSA's multi-year timetable for reform is consistent with
the national experience. Our national advisory panel, which
includes leaders who have transformed child welfare in other
jurisdictions, such as William Bell from New York, Judge
Ernestine Gray from New Orleans, and Judith Goodhand from
Cleveland, Ohio, has suggested that we think of change in a
major urban child welfare system as a 5- to 10-year process. As
William Bell wrote of New York's ambitious child welfare
reform, ``Everyone involved had to accept that real reform was
a multi-year, multi-faceted undertaking.''
In my written testimony, I describe in detail how far we
have come and the reform that still lies ahead in staff
recruitment, retention, and training, in licensing, in contract
reform, in foster care and adoptive parent recruitment, in
information systems, and in partnerships with other agencies.
In this oral summary, I would like to highlight just three
additional accomplishments.
First, because manageable social worker caseloads are key
to quality services for children, we have brought the average
ongoing caseload down from about the mid-30's last year at this
time to 23 as of last week.
Second, our substantial progress in building a reliable and
timely automated data system has been key to our
accomplishments for children. I would love to talk about that
more during questions. This month FACES, our system, will
receive an award from Computer World Magazine for being a
national leader in automating child welfare case management.
And I would like to correct some of the comments made earlier,
if we have time in the question period, because we do have a
very complete and timely automated system. But there is old
data from 1998 and 1999 that GAO found, because of the state of
the system then, the old data was not all on it.
Third, just 1 year ago, we began reforming legal support by
co-locating a dramatically expanded team of attorneys with
CFSA. Today, social workers have legal representation in 97
percent of all hearings. Our legal staff has been reorganized
to work with Family Court judicial teams. And each lawyer is
shifting to vertical prosecution, which means seeing a case
through from initial hearing to permanence.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, we are at an extraordinary moment in the
District's child welfare system, a moment of early
accomplishment, of great hope, and yet of fragility. I am
deeply grateful for the subcommittee's past support and
leadership and for both Senator Landrieu and Senator DeWine's
work at a national level where I had the chance to work with
you as well.
My written testimony suggests several areas for the
subcommittee's continued involvement, which I look forward to
discussing today or in the future.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Olivia A. Golden
Good morning Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and Members of the
District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee. I am Olivia Golden, the Director of the Child and Family
Services Agency (CFSA) for the District of Columbia, and I am grateful
for the opportunity to testify today regarding the progress of child
welfare reform in the District of Columbia. I appreciate the deep
commitment of Senator DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and other Subcommittee
members to the District's well-being and to the child welfare agenda of
safety, permanence, and well-being.
Less than 2 years ago, in June 2001, Federal Court Receivership of
CFSA terminated, and I had the opportunity to become the first Director
of CFSA in its new form as a cabinet-level agency of the District of
Columbia. The legislation that created this new cabinet-level agency
laid out for CFSA a whole set of responsibilities and authorities that
had never been unified in one place in the District before, creating
for the first time the opportunity for true reform. The pace of change
since then has been extraordinary. For example, it has only been about
18 months, since October of 2001, that the District has had a unified
child abuse and neglect agency. Before then, CFSA investigated reports
of neglect only, while the Metropolitan Police Department investigated
reports of abuse, and services to children who had experienced abuse
were split between Court Social Services at the Superior Court and
CFSA. In this fragmented system, the obstacles to such basic elements
of child welfare services as prompt and high-quality investigation and
timely movement to permanence were overwhelming. To take another
example, after 15 years when the District's statute regarding licensing
of foster homes, group homes, and independent living facilities had
never been implemented, this authority was given to CFSA in the April
2001 legislation and was implemented through regulations in 2001 and
early 2002. Just weeks ago, we accomplished the District's first-ever
licensing of these facilities, meeting the regulatory deadline of
January 1, 2003.
But there was no time to wait for this dramatic institutional
change to be complete: both our own sense of urgency and the Federal
Court's framework for measuring progress required us to create real
change for children at the very same time we were re-engineering the
whole statutory and institutional framework for child welfare in the
District. After our first year, the Court Monitor in the LaShawn
lawsuit reported that we had met 75 percent of 20 exacting performance
goals measuring progress from the baseline at the end of Receivership,
thus ending the probationary period under LaShawn. Judge Hogan signed
the order ending the probationary period in January 2002.
Among the probationary period accomplishments that have the most
direct impact on children are:
--reduction in the backlog of investigations open more than 30 days
from over 800 in May of 2001 to under 300 in May of 2002 (and
under 100 today);
--sharp reductions in the use of congregate care for young children--
for example, a reduction in the number of children under 6 in
group care from 99 in May of 2001 to 47 in May of 2002 and
under 40 as of February 28, 2003;
--a sharp reduction in the number of children in residential care
more than 100 miles from the District to 56 as of February
2003. This is a sharp decline from a total of 83 in May of 2001
and 65 in May of 2002;
--a 20 percent increase in finalized adoptions from the year ending
in May of 2001 to the year ending in May of 2002; and
--improvements in the proportion of cases with current case plans,
the building block for permanence for children.
I want to acknowledge the leadership and commitment demonstrated by
Mayor Williams, Deputy Mayor Graham, the Council of the District of
Columbia and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, in making such dramatic
change possible in less than 2 years.
It has been an extraordinary personal opportunity for me to be part
of these 2 years of fundamental reform in the District. In my previous
role as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Federal
level, I had the opportunity to work on both the Adoption and Safe
Families Act and the Federal Child and Family Service Reviews, in order
to better align the Nation's child welfare system with three critical
goals: keeping children safe, enabling every child to grow up in a
permanent family, and supporting the well-being of the most vulnerable
children and most fragile families. It is these same three goals that
have shaped our work for the past 2 years in the District.
In today's testimony, I would like to give you a sense of how far
we have come in this very brief but very intense period of reform and
of the continued, major reform that still lies ahead. Four key themes
summarize where we have been and where we are going:
--1. After less than 2 years out of receivership, we are at a
critical juncture for reform and for the LaShawn lawsuit.--We
have accomplished major milestones, by completing the statutory
reform sketched above and achieving the milestones that ended
the probationary period; at the same time, we have ahead of us
a several-year plan to accomplish the vision for reform laid
out in the LaShawn Modified Final Order.
--2. This timetable for reform is consistent with the national
experience about reform of major urban child welfare systems,
an experience we draw on through our National Advisory Panel
and a wide variety of other expertise.--We are about 2 years
into a reform process that the national experience suggests
will take 5 to 10 years of sustained, committed effort.
--3. CFSA's progress has required both major institutional changes--
such as new legislation, new regulations, and new
intergovernmental agreements--and improvements in basic, day-
to-day practice leading to better results for children.--In the
first year we transformed the statutory and institutional
framework and tore down barriers to reform at the same time
that we achieved early results for children, including the
achievement of 75 percent of the performance standards to end
the probationary period. In the second year, we are continuing
the rapid pace of change, accelerating the improvements for
children and the development of core processes, and
strengthening emerging partnerships.
--4. We have ahead of us an ambitious multi-year program to build in
quality and transform results.--We expect that the road map to
this ambitious reform agenda will be the Implementation Plan
currently being completed by the Federal Court Monitor after
intensive discussions with the District and the LaShawn
plaintiffs. We believe that the support of the whole community
will be necessary to achieve this ambitious agenda, and we are
grateful for the continuing support of the Subcommittee and the
opportunity to suggest how the Subcommittee can help from here
on.
Before turning to these specific themes, I would like to illustrate
the impact of reform on children's lives with one real example: 17-
year-old Anna has experienced at least 15 psychiatric hospitalizations
since becoming involved with CFSA at age 12. Her father and grandmother
love Anna, but they are worn out from dealing with her bi-polar and
behavioral disorders, seizures, verbal and physical violence, substance
abuse, and running away. They wanted Anna placed in a residential
treatment facility. Anna's CFSA caseworker hoped to keep Anna in the
community and in contact with her family, so she referred Anna's case
to Multi-Agency Placement Team (MAPT). Through MAPT, Anna has been able
to stay in the community with intensive, coordinated, multi-agency
support. These services include: placement in a foster home that can
meet her needs, intensive case management, referral to a local
psychiatrist, involvement with a mentor, enrollment in an education-
based day treatment program, and a part-time job. The difference for
Anna is that her family and the agencies worked together to coordinate
services for her. This is very different than hasty assembly of
fragmented services in the past. Anna's difficulties are severe, and
she may or may not be able to remain in the community. But for now,
MAPT has provided access to intensive, coordinated local services; Anna
has been diverted from a restrictive residential placement; and she is
engaged in school and with the providers and not running away.
STATUS OF THE LASHAWN LAWSUIT
We are now at a very important point in the LaShawn lawsuit. The
Receivership and the probationary period that followed it have
terminated, as a result of the District's successful enactment of key
legislative reforms as well as the accomplishment of 75 percent of the
20 performance goals. In January, Federal Judge Hogan of the U.S.
District Court certified CFSA's completion of probation, which
successfully demonstrates the District's capacity to mobilize and
maintain momentum for change.
At the same time, the end of CFSA's probation does not mean the end
of the lawsuit. We are now facing several years of hard work to meet
the ambitious goals we have set for ourselves and the requirements of
the Modified Final Order, which is the original consent decree the
District signed in 1993, and other remedial orders. Now, the District
must substantially comply with requirements in these orders to end
Federal Court involvement.
The vision of reform laid out in the Modified Final Order not only
has legal force but offers a compelling vision of safety, permanence,
and well-being for abused and neglected children. It envisions a
District where:
--prompt, thorough, quality investigations protect children at risk
and screen them appropriately for health and mental health
issues;
--a broad range of services in the community help children remain at
or return home safely--or, when those options are not possible,
grow up in nurturing adoptive families;
--support is readily available to help foster, kinship, and adoptive
parents meet children's health, mental health, and other needs;
--children almost always live with families and only rarely in group
settings;
--foster children have as much continuity and stability as possible,
including opportunities to live with their brothers and
sisters, to bond with one foster or kinship family rather than
move among many placements, and to see their parents often as
long as reunification is the goal; and
--social worker caseloads are low enough that both CFSA and private-
partner social workers routinely provide quality case
management while expanding their skills through pre-service and
in-service training.
For several months, the District, Federal Court Monitor, and
plaintiffs have been negotiating an Implementation Plan designed to
improve the key areas of local child welfare in keeping with this
vision. As you will hear today from the Court Monitor, we are
optimistic that the final Implementation Plan will be submitted to the
Court very soon. This final Implementation Plan will mandate and direct
continued reform of CFSA over the next several years. It will mean
meeting measurable benchmarks within specific time frames. And it will
mean achieving substantial compliance of the Modified Final Order, so
that Federal court oversight will terminate and further legal action
will be avoided.
I expect the final Implementation Plan will challenge us to move
beyond our achievements to date to develop a well functioning urban
child welfare system. I also expect that CFSA will need to continue,
and perhaps even increase, the fast-paced rate of change we have
struggled to establish over the past 2 years. However, with continued
reform inside our agency and sustained support from outside, the
District now has two unprecedented opportunities: first, to establish
the strong public child protection program local children and families
deserve and second, to end the LaShawn lawsuit. The challenge will be
great, the demands high, and the time frame extended over several
years. But the time is right to continue our momentum and achieve
significant positive outcomes for children, families, and the city.
This payoff is clearly well worth all our best efforts and support.
THE NATIONAL CONTEXT FOR CHILD WELFARE REFORM
To inform and sustain this dramatic pace of reform at CFSA, we have
drawn on a range of national expertise in the reform of urban child
welfare systems. The October 2000 consent order that led to the end of
the Receivership envisioned a National Advisory Panel, to be supported
by private funding and to provide expertise and advice to the Director
of CFSA. With support from the Annie Casey Foundation, we have
established this National Panel, which includes academic experts as
well as leaders who have transformed child welfare systems in other
jurisdictions--such as William Bell, current Commissioner of the
Administration for Children's Services in New York, Judge Ernestine
Gray from New Orleans who is the Immediate Past President of the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and Judith
Goodhand who formerly led child welfare in Cleveland, Ohio.
These national leaders have provided us with a range of advice,
support, and technical assistance, ranging from informal training
activities to an on-site team review of all of CFSA's placement
functions, with a report to follow shortly. One common theme to all of
their advice, however, has been to think of change in a major urban
child welfare system as a 5- to 10-year process. As William Bell,
Commissioner of New York City's child welfare agency, wrote of New
York's ambitious child welfare reform (New York Times Op-ed dated
January 21, 2003), ``a desire for quick fixes had to be resisted.
Everyone involved had to accept that real reform was a multi-year,
multi-faceted undertaking.''
CFSA: A SNAPSHOT OF PROGRESS
Before moving on to the details of our reform process, I would now
like to take a moment to provide a snapshot of our progress for
children. Our goal is to achieve safety, permanence, and well being not
just for one, or a dozen, or a hundred but for the thousands of
children who need the District's protection every year. To provide a
context for the scale of the task ahead, in fiscal year 2002, our 24-
hour line for reporting child abuse and neglect received an average of
640 calls monthly. About 440--or 69 percent--of those calls met the
criteria for abuse or neglect and were referred for investigation. In
an average month, CFSA served some 3,119 children in paid placements,
and about 2,301 families with children at home. At the end of fiscal
year 2002, we had 1,803 children adopted from our foster care program
and living in adoptive homes, with support from the District's
subsidized adoptions program.
In every area where we are assessing progress, we see a balance of
important positive changes yet a great deal left to do. Key highlights
include:
--Improved staffing and reduced caseloads per social worker, yet more
to do to reach our goals.--Because manageable caseloads are key
to high quality services for children, we have placed a top
priority on bringing down and equalizing caseloads, to reduce
both the average caseload and the caseloads carried by our most
over burdened workers. As a result of our aggressive
recruitment (described below) as well as a focus on assigning
and managing cases more equitably, we have brought the average
ongoing caseload down from about the mid-30's last year at this
time to 23 as of last week. At the top end, we have gone from
18 workers carrying more than 50 cases last August to none at
that level now, and we expect to bring all caseloads below 40
within the next few weeks. However, we have much more to do:
under the MFO, we will need to bring all ongoing caseloads
below 20, with some targeted for 17 and 12 cases depending on
the child and family circumstances. At the front end of the
system, our investigators are very close to the MFO caseload
levels: at the end of February, 45 of 55 investigators had
caseloads below the MFO level of 12 investigations. We intend
to meet the MFO level in investigations by the end of the
fiscal year.
Recruitment and retention of child welfare staff are national
challenges and not unique to the District of Columbia. The
Child Welfare League of America and the American Public Human
Services Association, among others have reported on the problem
and proposed remedies. With support from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, we are hoping to build on this knowledge and add
new lessons from our experience that may assist other
jurisdictions.
--Timely investigations.--As indicated above, we have made important
progress in reducing the backlog of investigations open more
than 30 days, from a backlog of more than 800 in May of 2001 to
under 300 in May of 2002 to under 139 today. The proportion of
open investigations that have been open 30 days or less is
currently 70 percent. We have been able to accomplish these
improvements even while adding new responsibilities, such as
the new area of institutional investigations--investigations of
settings such as group homes, foster homes, and day care
centers--which in many States are seen as more complex and
time-consuming than individual abuse and neglect
investigations. Our next steps in investigations will require
us to focus intensively on quality, in order to meet the
ambitious standards in the MFO.
--Continued reductions in reliance on congregate care.--Sadly, the
District's history involves far too great a reliance on group
care rather than families for children who cannot live safely
at home. We have already made important changes in this
historic practice and anticipate further progress over the
coming years. In addition to the dramatic reduction in the
number of very young children--under age 6--in congregate care
highlighted above, we have also focused on reducing the number
of children age 12 and under in congregate care. This number
has dropped from 130 as of May 31, 2002 to 70 as of February
28, 2003 of whom approximately 40 are under the age of 6.
Understanding the stories of the young children who have moved
from group care to families helps make clear how much
difference this change can make to their lives. Just to take
one example: In CFSA's drive to replace group homes with family
settings, especially for children age 6 and under, Michael
posed several challenges. He has been blind and mute from
birth, with his father as his primary caretaker. When a family
crisis temporarily overwhelmed his father, Michael entered a
group home at age 4. Two years later, Father was stable, but
Michael remained in group care. Everyone, including Father,
recognized that Michael had made progress through specialized
services while in the group home--for example, enrollment in a
school for blind children. So the challenge was to connect
Father to services that would support him in meeting Michael's
special needs. Among services CFSA located and put in place
are: a home health aide to provide respite for Father, an
introduction to Michael's pediatrician of 2 years, a visiting
nurse, individual and family therapy to help Father learn how
to interact with Michael more fully, and referrals to local
sources of Braille materials and special toys. Last month,
Michael went home with his father. For now, he continues to
attend the school for blind children. Someday, with
accommodations, he may be able to attend a mainstream
classroom.
--Improving the timeliness of adoption and guardianship for children
who cannot return to their birth homes.--In fiscal year 2002,
CFSA finalized 313 adoptions, representing approximately a 20
percent increase from last year. Key elements of this
accomplishment were close collaboration with the Superior
Court, improved legal support for CFSA, and emphasis on
tracking progress. In fiscal year 2003, we anticipate improving
further our process for ensuring that children who cannot live
with their birth parents are able to grow up with a loving
family. Next steps include holding immediate permanency
staffings as soon as the court determines a child cannot go
home, further improvements in legal support and filings to
terminate parental rights, and award of a contract for an
Adoption Resource Center to support adoptive parents.
In addition, there are currently 60 relatives in the process of
obtaining subsidized guardianship. Thirty relatives have
completed the process awaiting judge's order, as did two last
year. The subsidized guardianship program is an effective
approach to achieving permanence for a child when a relative is
prepared to make a lifetime commitment but not to terminate
parental rights.
THE FIRST YEAR OF REFORM
A key first step in achieving these changes for children was the
tremendously ambitious set of institutional reforms that the District
accomplished in the months just before and just after CFSA's June 2001
return from Receivership, reforms that were focused on dismantling the
structural and legal barriers that for so long stood in the way of
safety, permanence, and well-being for the District's abused and
neglected children. The consent order provided a framework for the
structural reforms to achieve a major overhaul of child welfare in the
District of Columbia, including the following elements:
--enabling legislation that established CFSA as a Cabinet level
agency under the Mayor with independent personnel and
procurement authority, licensing 13 authority for foster homes
and group homes, and responsibility for the Interstate Compact
on the Placement of Children;
--unification under CFSA of the responsibility for abuse and neglect
investigation and services, a provision of the enabling
legislation which was implemented effective October 1, 2001,
thus ending the fragmentation that had been a key barrier to
serving families effectively;
--promulgation of the District's first licensing regulations for
group homes (September 21, 2001) and foster homes (July 28,
2001); and publication of the first regulations to govern
independent living facilities, (February 22, 2002); and
--reform of the legal support provided to CFSA social workers,
including almost tripling the number of attorneys so social
workers can always be represented in court, and restructuring
legal services to enable much closer coordination between
attorneys and social workers and provide for an attorney-client
relationship with CFSA.
Each of these institutional changes has required many hours of work
to implement, requiring fundamental change in the nature of work,
training, staffing assignments, and policies. At the same time, the
benefits have been far-reaching. For example, the extraordinary
partnership between the Corporation Counsel and CFSA has reformed legal
support for our agency. A little less than 1 year ago, we co-located a
dramatically expanded team of attorneys with CFSA and began reforming
attorney support of social workers. Today, social workers have legal
representation in 97 percent of all hearings. Our legal staff has been
reorganized to work in teams with Superior Court judicial teams. Each
lawyer is currently shifting to ``vertical prosecution,'' which means
seeing a case through from initial hearing all the way to permanency,
with the goal of more timely and better decision-making on behalf of
children.
A final key element of structural reform was the Family Court
legislation passed by the Congress in 2001, with important
contributions by members of this Subcommittee, and signed by the
President in January 2002. We have already seen major improvements in
the relationships among the key systems and in the processes for
managing children's cases as a result of this legislation, and early
indicators are promising in terms of the results for children. In the
past, poor relationships among CFSA, Superior Court, and the
Corporation Counsel had created problems for children and families in
the system. But today, as the Council for Court Excellence reported
last October, we are working together towards the same goals:
``The major public stakeholders in the DC child welfare system--the
DC Superior Court, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), and the
Office of the Corporation Counsel (OCC)--are working collaboratively to
make major structural changes that will position the city to achieve
dramatically improved outcomes for children.''
Our goal is to continue working closely with the Family Court to
achieve better outcomes for children through teamwork among the legal
and social work professionals involved with a child's case, through
scheduling that allows social workers to be out in the field visiting
children and families, through clear accountability and outcome
measures, and through shared knowledge and professional development. I
meet regularly with Presiding Judge Lee Satterfield to identify issues
that we need to tackle jointly to benefit children. Last fall, CFSA
participated actively in the design and implementation of the first
cross-training, hosted by the Family Court, on systems of care. Also in
the fall, CFSA worked closely with the Court to design the best way to
transfer cases to the new teams of magistrate and associate judges in
the Family Court. This activity for the last 1,200 cases, is happening
in a phased in manner over several months to guard against the
disruption of the casework continuity with a social worker. We provided
automated systems support so that cases from one of CFSA's
administrations would be assigned to just two or three teams of judges.
This would enable judges, attorneys, and CFSA social workers to develop
shared expectations and to work together more closely. In partnership
with the Courts, we have successfully designed a schedule that will
ensure social workers some time without court appearances, freeing them
to make visits and conduct other work. Finally, we are collaborating
closely with the Court in the area of information systems. We have just
initiated a project to scan court orders into our automated system so
that everyone involved at CFSA has complete and accurate information.
Our most recent success in the field of automation is that we have
developed the functionality in FACES that enables us to interface with
the Court's Information System and are now able to show by social
worker and supervisor the court hearing dates, times and locations for
all children who are in our custody. This is an enormous achievement
because it greatly improves our ability to manage social worker and
attorney time more efficiently and improve the court experiences of
children and families.
These institutional changes were critical, because they positioned
us to achieve dramatically improved outcomes for children and families:
to keep children safe, ensure that children grow up in permanent
families, and promote the well-being of the most vulnerable children
and most fragile families.
THE SECOND YEAR OF REFORM
Building on these institutional changes and the early results
reflected by the probationary period standards, CFSA is moving ahead on
a range of improvements in practice, in the systems that support our
work, and in our partnerships with public and private agencies. The
goal of all of these changes is to accelerate even further the
improvements in children's lives. Yet we know that in many areas, we
have a great deal still to do. This section offers only a sampling of
the many major reforms now underway.
Staff Recruitment/Retention
Recruitment and retention of a full complement of qualified social
workers are essential to reducing individual caseloads, which, as
suggested above, will vastly improve child protection. Currently, CFSA
has approximately 270 licensed masters- and bachelors-level social
workers. This represents a net increase of 30 social workers over the
past year and falls slightly short of our goal of 300 social workers,
total, in fiscal year 2002. (If we had counted both licensed social
workers and social work graduates in trainee positions pending
licensure, we would have exceeded the goal, with a total of 304 social
workers at the end of fiscal year 2002. However, since District law
does not allow unlicensed social workers to carry cases, we do not
count our unlicensed trainees until they pass the licensing exam.)
In fiscal year 2003, our goal is to end the year with a total of
310 licensed social workers. While we have made important progress
towards this goal and believe we can meet it, it will not be easy, nor
will it be easy to continue progress into fiscal year 2004 and future
years, in order to meet and maintain the MFO caseload standards. To
achieve the goal of 310 total licensed social workers, even with a
retention rate that is a little better than the national average, we
anticipate having to hire more than 160 social workers and trainees
during the course of this year to achieve our targeted increase of 40-
50 licensed social workers on board at the end of the year. We have an
aggressive recruiting strategy--including outreach to both local and
selected distant colleges and universities with schools of social work,
participation in major conferences in the social work field, increased
advertising, and targeting bi-lingual candidates--and our retention of
social workers is consistent with the experience of other child welfare
agencies nationwide. For all licensed social workers at CFSA, the
turnover rate was 17 percent--or slightly below the annual average of
20 percent for State child welfare agencies. We continue to work on
improving retention through strategies such as reducing caseloads,
upgrading training, and providing more support for doing a tough job.
We are very appreciative of the Committee's interest in the broad issue
of social worker recruitment and retention and would like to highlight
the District's interest in participating as a pilot site in your work
in areas such as scholarships, stipends, and loan forgiveness for
social workers.
Training
CFSA's major improvements in training are key to both recruitment
and retention, as well as being an important underpinning to the
quality of services. We are proud to report that our recruiters have
heard from candidates that word has spread about our new training
units, which enable new workers to learn how to handle the pace and
intensity of CFSA's work with close guidance. These new units are a
drawing card for CFSA compared to other organizations.
We now coordinate our training through an in-house Training Academy
that is set up to offer pre-service and in-service training to our
staff. Under the requirements of the Modified Final Order, Pre-Service
Training is a competency-based, 4-month program of classroom and on-
the-job training designed to prepare new social workers and supervisors
for effective delivery of child welfare services. It includes
theoretical, skill building, and practical learning experiences. In
addition, trainees receive intensive supervision in a training unit.
They learn about CFSA's structure, goals, and mission and about legal
aspects of child welfare.
During the past year, the CFSA Training Academy has offered the
following courses for the first time: joint training of foster parents
and social workers, orientation for non-social work staff, and training
for the magistrate judges of the Family Court in conjunction with the
Corporation Counsel. In the year ahead, we will continue to strengthen
and expand the design of the training office to ensure that our efforts
impact the quality of practice and staff development critical to
improving outcomes for children in care.
Improved Service Quality
Ensuring children's safety, providing opportunities for them to
grow up in stable families, and supporting well-being of both children
and families require quality services. We are working to raise the bar
for services provided by our contracted and community partners through
two different but complementary strategies:
--implementation of the new licensing authority assigned to CFSA in
2001, and
--an aggressive and proactive program of contract reform.
Licensing and Monitoring
Licensing of Youth Residential Facilities has been in the making
for 15 years following passage of the Youth Residential Licensure Act
of 1986. The group home regulations became final in September, 2001;
the foster home regulations became final in July, 2001; and the
Independent Living Program regulations became final in February, 2002.
Last spring and summer, the Office of Licensing and Monitoring
within CFSA began the process of licensing providers who operate group
homes and independent living facilities. Throughout the process, CFSA
provided technical assistance to help facilities get licensed and
inspected all facilities. CFSA met the deadlines for licensing of all
26 independent living and group home providers. The standards have
already made a significant difference in the quality of facilities
where our young people live, including repairs, renovations, and in
some cases a shift to new space.
Contract Reform
Our contract reform is a bold initiative designed to ensure that
CFSA's performance-based posture and best practices in modern child
welfare are reflected in the services we buy. It is a vehicle for
stimulating increased availability of community-based services in the
District, reducing reliance on group homes, making providers
accountable for delivering positive outcomes for children and families,
offering incentives for outstanding results, and ensuring good use of
public funds to meet community needs.
Last August, CFSA met with providers to announce the contract
reform initiative and involve them in the process. During the fall, we
gathered provider input through focus groups. In January, we circulated
draft Requests for Information. The deadline for comments just passed
about a month ago. We appreciate the extensive, valuable feedback we
received from providers, Superior Court, the Federal Court Monitor and
plaintiffs, and community members, and we are now reviewing all
comments with care. The next step will involve drafting three new
global Requests for Proposals that will seek an expanded range of
quality offerings in the areas of Congregate Care, Family-based Care,
and Community-based Care and Preventive Services. We expect to put
these RFP's out for bid this spring and to launch the new contracts in
late summer.
Foster, Adoptive, and Kin Parent Recruitment
Our vision is to increase our numbers of resource family homes in
the District of Columbia of foster, adoptive, or kin homes. Currently
we have 150 traditional foster homes, 350 kin homes and 4 proctor homes
within the District. We are committed to placing children in the
neighborhoods and communities from which they are removed to minimize
the trauma and the significant losses that children experience as a
result of placement in foster care. We are focusing therefore on
geographically sensitive recruitment to increase numbers of resource
parents in those wards from which more children are being removed, as
well as child specific recruitment activities. We are also expanding
our Proctor Parent program and building capacity for them to meet the
needs of the behaviorally challenged children and the medically fragile
population, and we have successfully negotiated a contractual
arrangement with the Foster Parent Association of D.C. to offer several
key services to our resource families, including identifying members to
co-facilitate training and facilitate support groups. We anticipate
that foster parents themselves are an excellent resource for
recruitment as we can move towards ensuring that the needs of current
parents are met.
Information Systems and Data Collection and Tracking
Our substantial progress in building a reliable and timely
automated data system has been key to our accomplishments for children.
In the last year and a half, we have built a collaboration between
staff from FACES (our automated information system), top management
from all parts of the agency, and our line social work and supervisory
staff that has dramatically improved the quality and timeliness of data
entry and the user-friendliness and relevance of the automated FACES
reports and screens. As a result, staff at all levels from social
workers to supervisors and top managers are now able to count on FACES
as a tool for their work, to rely on FACES reports as a means of
tracking performance and results for children, and to use FACES
information for planning--whether planning for one child or for the
agency as a whole. In the key area of safety, a close collaboration
between FACES and our intake and investigations staff has yielded not
only full and timely data but reporting screens that enable supervisors
to manage investigations better. For ongoing supervisors, a key piece
of information for ensuring safety is social worker visitation, which
supervisors can now track through CFSA's automated system. For example,
each supervisor can access reports that track social worker visits to
children in the last month. These management reports are updated daily
and available to supervisors through a few clicks of the mouse.
Similarly, there have been major improvements in the key data
needed to achieve permanence:
--Case plan information is now much more complete on the automated
system, in part because of major improvements in the case plan
automated format implemented as a result of social worker
feedback.
--Court reports can now be completed and reviewed by supervisors and
program managers as part of FACES.
--Information from the Court regarding permanency hearings, while
still incomplete, is just at the point of major improvement as
a result of the new automated feed to our system from the
Court's data.
--Automated linkages to other agencies are supporting our work in
both safety and permanence. For example, access to the
District's criminal justice information system helps our
investigators locate missing parents quickly--a critical step
in the adoption process.
We are proud that the improvements in our FACES system have begun
to receive national recognition. Last fall, the Court Monitor noted
improvements in the quality of FACES in her report. This month, FACES
will receive an award from Computerworld magazine for being a leader in
automating child welfare case management. Our Chief Information
Officer, Harold Beebout, was one of the first five CIO's in the
District to receive certification from the District's Office of the
Chief Technology Officer through a rigorous process where senior
information technology officials from several jurisdictions probed the
technical and strategic preparedness of the District's top information
managers.
Partnerships
Almost all the performance achievements I've been describing are
the result of partnerships: with foster and adoptive parents,
providers, Family Court, other agencies, and many others. The strong
local safety net children and families deserve will ultimately be woven
through partnerships. The child welfare function is essential, but it
is only one component among a vast array of services that abused and
neglected children need to overcome their difficulties and thrive.
Other public and private agencies and community members have important
roles to play. CFSA's status as a cabinet-level agency has opened the
door to improved working relationships with other District agencies. On
behalf of those we serve, we are working to exploit this wonderful
opportunity.
A prime example is CFSA's developing links with the Department of
Mental Health. As we conduct clinical staffings and review cases at
CFSA, over and over we see mental health needs that must be met if
children are to be safe, grow up in stable families, and thrive.
Children need counseling to rise above abuse and neglect. Parents need
mental health services to overcome their own crises and keep their
children safe. Foster parents need access to emergency help when a
foster child has a crisis in the middle of the night. Social workers
need expert mental health consultation to assess the risks of a child's
return home.
To access more and better mental health services for those we
serve, CFSA is developing a strong collaboration with the District's
Department of Mental Health. The timing is perfect because DMH is under
its own court deadlines and is just as intent as CFSA on strengthening
the local safety net for children and families. Senior members of our
two agencies met for a day-long retreat a few weeks ago and developed a
detailed work plan that focuses on access to services, development of
provider capacity, service definition, Medicaid reimbursement, and
other issues.
CFSA's partnership with the Healthy Families/Thriving Communities
Collaboratives continues to provide services that strengthen, provide
support to children in foster care in the communities where they live
and support efforts to reunite children in foster care with their
families. During the past year, CFSA and the Collaboratives built upon
its partnership by taking a more targeted approach in examining ways to
strengthen service delivery for children and families in the District.
As a result of this concentrated effort, in 2002 two Collaboratives
have instituted Emergency Assessment programs, providing intensive
preventive services to families in their own communities and diverting
families from ongoing involvement with the child welfare system. In
addition, we have entered into new partnership agreements with the
Collaboratives in three distinct areas--preventative, supportive and
aftercare. Services offered within these targeted areas include case
management; visitation; housing assistance; parent, caregiver, and
foster parent support; support for family visitation; and information
and referral. Our partnership throughout the years with the
Collaboratives has shown that family-centered, culturally competent
practice that provides integrated community based services truly makes
a difference in the lives of children and families entering and exiting
the child welfare system.
NEXT STEPS
While we have made an important and vigorous beginning on the
agenda of safety, permanence, and well-being for the District's
children, we have ahead of us an ambitious multi-year program to build
in quality and transform results. We expect that the road map to this
ambitious reform will be the Implementation Plan currently being
completed by the Federal Court Monitor after intensive discussions with
the District and the LaShawn plaintiffs. In order to accomplish the
goals of the plan, we know that we will be continuing the intense pace
of change. And because of the District's unique role as both a local
and a State child welfare agency, we will be continuing this intense
pace of change both in our daily services to the children who come
through our doors and in our reforms of policy, institutions, and
infrastructure. That is, at one and the same time, we will be:
--improving our services to the hundreds of children who come to our
attention each month through new investigations;
--providing strong clinical support and staffing to ensure that the
thousands of children now on our caseload achieve the permanent
families they deserve, either through reunification,
guardianship, or adoption;
--building new services and resources for children and new supports
for foster, kin, and adoptive families, both through our own
contract reforms and through new and strengthened partnerships
with agencies across District government;
--strengthening prevention and neighborhood-based services for
families;
--under-girding the services we provide both internally and through
our partners with the critical infrastructure to support
quality, such as training, quality assurance, policy
development, licensing and monitoring;
--recruiting and retaining high quality, well-trained social workers;
--recruiting and retaining foster, kin, and adoptive parents who can
meet the needs of the District's children and providing those
resource parents with the training and supports they need; and
--continuing our efforts to build in stronger partnerships with the
metropolitan jurisdictions and with the Superior Court, in
order to promote children's safety, permanence, and well-being.
Achieving these goals will require continued commitment from the
whole community. The District's financial investments in CFSA, even
through difficult financial times, have been critical to achieving the
progress so far, and stabilizing this commitment into the future will
be essential to continuing progress from here. We very much appreciate
the support of the Subcommittee, for a key next step in maintaining
this momentum: the District's proposal to correct an inequity in the
current statutory framework for Federal reimbursement for Title IVE, by
raising the Title IVE Federal reimbursement rate to 70 percent, which
would make it the same as Medicaid, as it is in all other
jurisdictions. We also very much appreciate the leadership of the
Subcommittee in ensuring that the District, Maryland, and Virginia
continue collaborating to develop metropolitan agreements that will
benefit children, and in promoting the continued close collaboration of
CFSA and the Superior Court, and we urge a continued focus in both of
these very promising areas.
Beyond these critical areas for the Subcommittee's continued
leadership, we appreciate the invitation to identify additional areas
for potential investment. We offer the following ideas for further
discussion, because they link closely to the next steps in the Federal
Court's Implementation Plan and the needs of the District's children.
We are eager to provide additional information in any of these areas
that interest the Committee:
--Prevention and Integrated Services for Families.--A major issue for
the District's children and families is the availability of
early and integrated services that could prevent placement or
make reunification possible. We are working closely with our
community-based collaborative partners in this area, as well as
developing expanded partnerships with other District agencies
such as the Department of Mental Health, Addiction Prevention
and Recovery Administration, and the Department of Housing and
Community Development. These are issues across the country yet
they are particularly difficult to address in the District,
with the intensive needs that children and families may have
and the gaps in resources. We believe that there are
opportunities here for the Federal Government to pilot ideas of
great interest nationally as well as to make a major difference
for the District's children.
--Adoption.--Because of the intensive work that we are currently
doing to identify the specific needs of children who are
awaiting placement, we would be very interested in
collaborating with the Subcommittee on a project that focuses
on recruitment for these children. In general, our children who
are awaiting adoption are ages 7-13 and part of sibling groups;
in addition, we would like to focus on a number of children who
are medically fragile and will need adoptive homes prepared to
meet those needs.
--Piloting of National Initiatives Regarding Social Worker
Recruitment, Retention, and Training.--We are interested in
working closely with the Subcommittee on piloting in the
District key initiatives to recruit and retain social workers
to do public child welfare work that could be valuable for
national policy. We are interested in discussing strategies
such as loan forgiveness, stipends and scholarships for
bachelors-level social workers interested in continuing their
education, and scholarships for paraprofessionals interested in
becoming social workers.
--Joint Initiatives with the Court, such as Training and Information
Systems.--We are currently engaged in a range of activities
with the Superior Court and see ambitious next steps ahead,
particularly as the Court's new information system is
implemented. The District's side of these joint activities
could be enhanced through further support.
CONCLUSION
We are at an extraordinary moment in the District's child welfare
system: a moment of early accomplishment, of great hope, and yet of
fragility. If we maintain our commitment and our investment for several
more years, building on the major institutional reforms, promising
partnerships, and early results for children that we have already seen,
we will achieve the vision of safety, permanence, and well-being that
our children deserve. On the other hand, if we are unable to maintain
this level of continued commitment to change, we risk failing our
community and our children. I am deeply grateful for the Subcommittee's
past support and leadership on behalf of the District and our most
vulnerable children, and I know the District can count on your
continued support and leadership in the future. Thank you, and I look
forward to any questions.
Senator DeWine. Ms. Ashby.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES,
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, I am pleased
to be here today to discuss the preliminary findings from our
study of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, done at the
request of Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the House
Committee on Government Reform. We will issue our final report
next month.
My comments are based primarily on our analysis of data in
the District's automated child welfare information system,
known as FACES. We verified the accuracy of the data. But for
some of the data elements we needed, CFSA had not entered into
FACES information for about two-thirds of its active cases.
Consequently, we obtained and analyzed information from paper
case files to supplement FACES information for some cases.
Most, but not all, of the cases with incomplete data originated
prior to FACES going online in October 1999. Top CFSA managers
told us that including data in FACES for active cases that
originated prior to FACES is not an agency priority. In my full
statement, we discuss the importance of having accurate,
timely, and complete automated case management data for all
cases.
In summary, CFSA has addressed various AFSA requirements
and met several of the selected performance criteria, adopted
child protection and foster care policies, and enhanced its
working relationship with the D.C. Family Court. However, much
remains to be done.
CFSA addressed six of the nine AFSA requirements and met or
exceeded four of the eight performance criteria. For example,
CFSA signed a border agreement to achieve timelier placement of
District children in Maryland, which addresses the AFSA
requirement to use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate
timely permanent placements of children. However, CFSA did not
meet AFSA requirements involving proceedings to terminate the
rights of parents in certain situations, annual permanency
review hearings or notice of reviews and hearings. One of the
selected performance criteria requires 60 percent of children
in foster care to be placed with one or more of their siblings.
As of November 2002, 63 percent of children had such
placements.
The criteria for which CFSA's performance fell short
included social worker visitation with children in foster care,
placement of children in foster homes with valid licenses,
progress toward permanency, and parental visits with children
in foster care who have a goal of returning home. For example,
none of the 144 children placed in foster care during the 2-
month period prior to November 30, 2002, received required
weekly visits by a CFSA caseworker. CFSA has written plans to
address 2 of the 3 unmet AFSA requirements and 3 of the 4 unmet
performance criteria.
CFSA has adopted child protection and foster care placement
policies that are comparable to most, but not all of those
recommended by organizations that develop standards for child
welfare programs. However, caseworkers did not consistently
implement the six policies we examined.
CFSA has policies for investigating allegations of child
abuse, developing plans, and estimating permanency goals for
foster children. In addition, it has policies for managing
cases. CFSA has, in addition to its policies for managing
cases, policies for licensing and monitoring group homes, plans
for training staff in group homes, and a goal to reduce the
number of young children in group homes. However, CFSA lacks
some recommended policies, namely written time frames for
arranging needed services for children and families, limits on
the number of cases assigned to a caseworker, and procedures
for providing information about planned services for children.
For three of the six policies we examined, FACES data
indicated that the percentage of foster care cases for which a
policy was implemented ranged from 13 to 73. This variation is
due in part to the incomplete data in FACES. In addition,
information related to the other three policies was not
routinely recorded in FACES, and we had to review case files to
assess their implementation.
One policy requires caseworkers to complete a case plan
within 30 days of a child's entry into foster care. However,
case plans were not routinely completed within 30 days. Another
policy requires administrative review hearings every 6 months.
But such hearings were rescheduled often. The third policy
requires caseworkers to arrange for services. It was difficult
to determine whether services were actually provided. CFSA
officials told us that they recently made changes to help
improve the implementation of some of these policies.
PREPARED STATEMENT
CFSA has improved its working relationship with the Family
Court with its commitment to promoting improved communication
and by expanding the support services it provides for court
activities. However, CFSA officials and Family Court judges
noted several hindrances that constrained their working
relationships. The hindrances they noted included scheduling
conflicts between court and CFSA, the insufficient number of
caseworkers, caseworkers who were unfamiliar with cases that
had been transferred to them, and the unclear roles and
responsibilities of attorneys, judges, and CFSA caseworkers.
This concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY'S
PERFORMANCE AND POLICIES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss preliminary findings from our study of the
District of Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), done at
the request of Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the House
Committee on Government Reform. My testimony will focus on the extent
to which CFSA has (1) taken actions to address the requirements of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and met selected
performance criteria, (2) adopted and implemented child protection and
foster care placement policies that are comparable to those generally
accepted in the child welfare community, and (3) enhanced its working
relationship with the D.C. Family Court.
My comments today are based primarily on our analysis of the
information in the District's automated child welfare information
system, known as FACES, which CFSA is to use to manage child welfare
cases and report child abuse and neglect, foster care, and adoption
information to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). We
analyzed cases in FACES that were at least 6 months old as of November
2002 and verified the accuracy of its data. However, CFSA had not
entered into FACES detailed information on the data elements we needed
for our analysis with respect to about two-thirds of the District's
active foster care cases--mostly cases that originated prior to FACES
going on-line in October 1999. Consequently, we also obtained and
analyzed information from paper case files to supplement FACES
information for some cases. We also interviewed District officials,
CFSA managers, judges, and child welfare experts, and we analyzed
Federal and District laws and regulations, related court documents, and
child welfare policies. Our final report will be issued in May 2003. We
conducted our work between September 2002 and March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, CFSA has taken actions to address various ASFA
requirements and met several selected performance criteria,\1\ enacted
child protection and foster care placement policies and procedures, and
enhanced its working relationship with the D.C. Family Court; however,
much remains to be done. CFSA met two-thirds of the ASFA requirements
and half of the selected foster care performance criteria we used, and
developed written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA
requirements and three of the four unmet performance criteria. In
addition, CFSA has adopted child protection and foster care placement
policies and procedures that are comparable to most, but not all, of
those recommended by organizations that develop standards applicable to
child welfare programs. However, CFSA has not adopted some key policies
and procedures for ensuring the safety and permanent placement of
children, and caseworkers have not consistently implemented or
documented some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted.
For example, CFSA has developed an automated child welfare data system
to help manage its caseload, but detailed information for the data
elements related to the policies reviewed had not been entered into the
system for about 70 percent of its foster care cases. Further, CFSA has
improved its working relationship with the Family Court through
improved communication and top management support; however, both CFSA
and the Family Court still need to overcome barriers that continue to
constrain this relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These performance criteria were among those included in the
performance standards that CFSA had to meet in order to end the
probationary period following the general receivership. We selected
those performance criteria that in our judgment most directly relate to
the safety and permanent placement of children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
CFSA is responsible for protecting thousands of foster care
children who have been at risk of abuse and neglect and ensuring that
critical services are provided for them and their families. However,
many children in CFSA's care languished for extended periods of time
due to managerial shortcomings and long-standing organizational
divisiveness. As a result of these deficiencies, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia issued a remedial order in 1991 to
improve the performance of the agency. In 1995, lacking sufficient
evidence of program improvement, the agency was removed from the
District's Department of Human Services and placed in general
receivership. Under a modified final order (MFO) established by the
court, CFSA was directed to comply with more than 100 policy and
procedural requirements. The efforts CFSA made during the receivership
to improve its performance included establishing an automated system,
FACES, to manage its caseload. The U.S. District Court ended the
receivership in 2000, established a probationary period, and identified
performance standards CFSA had to meet in order to end the probationary
period. The court appointed the Center for the Study of Social Policy
as an independent monitor to assess CFSA's performance and gave them
the discretion to modify the performance standards. However, in the
summer of 2002, abuses of two children placed in group homes were
reported, indicating that CFSA's operations and policies, especially
those regarding foster care cases, may still need improvement.
Additionally, several Federal laws, local laws, and regulations
established goals and processes under which CFSA must operate. ASFA,
with its goal to place children in permanent homes in a timelier
manner, placed new responsibilities on all child welfare agencies
nationwide. AFSA introduced new time periods for moving children toward
permanent, stable care arrangements and established penalties for
noncompliance. For example, it requires States to hold a permanency
planning hearing--during which the court determines the future plans
for a child, such as whether the State should continue to pursue
reunification with the child's family or some other permanency goal--
not later than 12 months after the child enters foster care. The D.C.
Family Court Act of 2001, established the District's Family Court and
placed several requirements on the District's Mayor and various
District agencies, including CFSA and the Office of Corporation Counsel
(OCC).\2\ The Family Court Act requires the Mayor, in consultation with
the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, to ensure that D.C. government
offices that provide social services and other related services to
individuals served by the Family Court, including CFSA, provide
referrals to such services on site at the Family Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, established the Family Court
as part of the D.C. Superior Court. The Family Court replaced the D.C.
Superior Court's former Family Division. Among other responsibilities,
the Family Court handles child abuse and neglect cases and court
hearings and other proceedings for the District's foster children and
their families. OCC provides legal support for CFSA caseworkers during
their appearances before the Family Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSA operates in a complex child welfare system.\3\ The agency
relies on services provided by other District government agencies. For
example, both the Fire Department and the Health Department inspect
facilities where children are placed, and D.C. Public Schools prepare
individual education plans for children in care. In addition, CFSA
works with agencies in Maryland, Virginia, and other States to arrange
the placement of District children in those States and also works with
private agencies to place children in foster and adoptive homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We issued several GAO reports that addressed CFSA operations
and program plans. For more information see related GAO products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The management of foster care cases involves several critical
steps. Typically, these cases begin with an allegation of abuse or
neglect reported to the CFSA child abuse hot line. CFSA staff are
required to investigate the allegation through direct contact with the
reported victim. If required, the child may be removed from his or her
home, necessitating various court proceedings handled by the District's
Family Court. CFSA case workers are responsible for managing foster
care cases by developing case plans, visiting the children,
participating in administrative hearings, attending court hearings, and
working with other District government agencies. CFSA case workers are
also responsible for documenting the steps taken and decisions made
related to a child's safety, well-being, and proper placement. In
addition, CFSA is responsible for licensing and monitoring
organizations with which it contracts, including group homes that house
foster care children.
HHS is responsible for setting standards and monitoring the
Nation's child welfare programs. The monitoring efforts include
periodic reviews of the operations, known as Child and Family Services
Reviews,\4\ and of the automated systems, known as Statewide Automated
Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) Reviews, in the States and
the District of Columbia. HHS last reviewed CFSA's child welfare
information system in 2000 and its overall program in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Child and Family Services Reviews, conducted by HHS, cover a
range of child and family service programs funded by the Federal
Government, including child protective services, foster care, adoption,
independent living, and family support and preservation services. The
2001 review evaluated seven specific safety, permanency, and well-being
outcomes for services delivered to children and families served by
CFSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSA UNDERTOOK ACTIONS TO ADDRESS MOST ASFA REQUIREMENTS REVIEWED AND
MET HALF OF THE SELECTED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
CFSA took actions to address six of the nine ASFA requirements and
met or exceeded four of the eight performance criteria we included in
our study. Although ASFA includes other requirements, we only included
those directly related to the safety and well-being of children. The
performance criteria were among those performance standards that CFSA
had to meet in order to end the probationary period following the
general receivership. We selected those that, in our judgment, most
directly relate to the safety and permanent placement of children in
foster care. For example, CFSA signed a border agreement to achieve
timelier placement of District children in Maryland, which addresses
the ASFA requirement to use cross-jurisdictional resources to
facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting
children. However, CFSA did not meet three requirements involving (1)
proceedings to terminate the rights of parents whose children are in
foster care, (2) annual hearings to review permanency goals for
children and (3) notice of reviews and hearings. Table 1 summarizes the
ASFA requirements directly related to the safety and well-being of
children and identifies whether CFSA met them.
TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF ASFA REQUIREMENTS RELATING DIRECTLY TO THE SAFETY
AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASFA Requirements Met ASFA Requirements Not Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Include the safety of the child in 1. Initiate or join
State case planning and in a case review proceedings to terminate
system. parental rights for certain
children in foster care--
such as those who have been
in foster care for 15 of
the most recent 22 months
of care.
2. Comply with requirements for criminal 2. Provide family members a
background clearances and have procedures notice of reviews and
for criminal record checks. hearings and an opportunity
to be heard.
3. Develop a case plan for a child for 3. Conduct mandatory annual
whom the State's goal is adoption or permanency hearings every
other permanent living arrangement. 12 months for a child in
foster care.
4. Develop plans for the effective use of ............................
cross-jurisdictional resources to
facilitate timely adoptive or permanent
placements for waiting children.
5. Provide for health insurance coverage ............................
for children with special needs in State
plans for foster care and adoption
assistance.
6. Incorporate standards to ensure quality ............................
services for children in foster care in
State plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ASFA and HHS' CSFR and GAO analysis.
We analyzed automated data related to eight selected performance
criteria and found that CFSA met or exceeded four of them. For example,
one of the criteria requires 60 percent of children in foster care to
be placed with one or more of their siblings; we found that as of
November 30, 2002, 63 percent of children were placed with one or more
siblings. The areas in which CFSA's performance fell short included
criteria related to (1) social worker visitation with children in
foster care, (2) placement of children in foster homes with valid
licenses, and (3) progress toward permanency for children in foster
care and (4) parental visits with children in foster care who had a
goal of returning home. For example, none of the 144 children placed in
foster care during the 2-month period prior to November 30, 2002,
received required weekly visits by a CFSA caseworker. In addition, 52
of 183 foster care children (32 percent), for whom CFSA had not met the
progress towards permanency goal, had been in foster care without
returning home for 36 months or more. Twenty-two of these children had
been in foster care 5 or more years without returning home. A complete
list of the performance criteria and our analysis is shown in appendix
I.
CFSA has written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA
requirements and three of the four unmet performance criteria we
selected for our study. One of CFSA's plans includes actions to address
one criterion for which the agency fell short--parental visits. This
plan, the Interim Implementation Plan, includes measures that were
developed to show the agency's plans for meeting the requirements of
the MFO issued by the court. The plan states that, for new contracts,
CFSA will require its contactors to identify sites in the community for
parental visits to help facilitate visits between parents and their
children. However, CFSA does not have written plans that address other
unmet criteria, such as reducing the number of children in foster care
who, for 18 months or more, have had a permanency goal to return home.
CFSA has also not implemented the ASFA requirement to provide foster
parents, relative caregivers, and pre-adoptive parents the opportunity
to be heard in any review or hearing held with respect to the child.
Without complete plans for improving on all measures, CFSA's ability to
comply with the ASFA requirements and meet the selected performance
criteria may be difficult. Furthermore, unless these requirements and
criteria are met the child's safety may be jeopardized, the time a
child spends in foster care may be prolonged, or the best decisions
regarding a child's future well-being may not be reached.
Agency officials cited external demands, including court-imposed
requirements, staffing shortages, and high caseloads, as factors that
hindered CFSA's ability to fully meet the ASFA requirements and the
selected performance criteria. For example, program managers and
supervisors said that the new court-imposed mediation process intended
to address family issues without formal court hearings places
considerable demands on caseworkers' time. The time spent in court for
mediation proceedings, which can be as much as 1 day, reduces the time
available for caseworkers to respond to other case management duties,
such as visiting with children in foster care. Furthermore, managers
and supervisors reported that staffing shortages have contributed to
delays in performing critical case management activities, such as
filing for the termination of parental rights. Staffing shortages are
not a unique problem to CFSA. We recently reported that caseworkers in
other States said that staffing shortages and high caseloads had
detrimental effects on their abilities to make well-supported and
timely decisions regarding children's safety. We also reported that as
a result of these shortages, caseworkers have less time to establish
relationships with children and their families, conduct frequent and
meaningful home visits, and make thoughtful and well-supported
decisions regarding safe and stable permanent placements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain
Staff, GAO-03-357 (Washington, DC: Mar. 31, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSA HAS ESTABLISHED MANY FOSTER CARE POLICIES BUT LACKS OTHERS, AND
THE EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DOCUMENTATION VARIES
CSFA has established many foster care policies but, caseworkers did
not consistently implement the six we examined. In addition, CFSA's
automated system lacked data on policy implementation for 70 percent of
its foster care cases. When CFSA's caseworkers are not consistently
implementing the policies essential steps are not always being taken
for all children in a timely manner. As a result, children may be
subject to continued abuse and neglect or efforts to achieve permanent
and safe placements may be delayed. Furthermore, without information on
all cases, caseworkers do not have a readily available summary of the
child's history needed to make future decisions and managers do not
have information needed to assess and improve program operations.
csfa has established many foster care policies but caseworkers did not
CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT THEM
While we previously reported in 2000 \6\ that CFSA lacked some
important child protection and foster care placement policies, CFSA has
now established many such policies and most are comparable to those
recommended by organizations that develop standards applicable to child
welfare programs. For example, CFSA has policies for investigating
allegations of child abuse, developing case plans, and establishing
permanency goals for foster children. In addition, one policy is more
rigorous than suggested standards. Specifically, CFSA's policy requires
an initial face-to-face meeting with children within 24 hours of
reported abuse or neglect, while the suggested standard is 48 hours or
longer in cases that are not high risk. However, CFSA still lacks some
that are recommended, namely (1) written time frames for arranging
needed services for children and families (e.g., tutoring and drug
treatment for family members); (2) limits on the number of cases
assigned to a caseworker, based on case complexity and worker
experience; and (3) procedures for providing advance notice to each
person involved in a case about the benefits and risks of services
planned for a child and alternatives to those services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child
Welfare: Long-Term Challenges in Ensuring Children's Well-Being, GAO-
01-191 (Washington, DC: Dec. 29, 2000), and U.S. General Accounting
Office, Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia's Child Welfare
System Reform Efforts, GAO/HEHS-00-109 (Washington, DC: May 5, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSA did not consistently implement the six policies we examined.
We selected policies that covered the range of activities involved in a
foster care case, but did not duplicate those examined in our review of
the AFSA requirements or the selected performance criteria. For three
of the six policies, data in FACES on all foster care cases indicate
that the extent to which caseworkers implemented them varied
considerably. Table 2 summarizes these three policies and the
percentage of cases for which the data indicated the policy was
implemented.
TABLE 2.--THE EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED FOSTER CARE POLICIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Foster Care
Cases for
Policy Which the
Policy Was
Implemented
(N=943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiate face-to-face investigation of alleged child 26
abuse or neglect within 24 hours of receiving an
allegation on CFSA's child abuse hotline...............
Complete a safety assessment within 24 hours of face-to- 13
face contact with the child............................
Complete a risk assessment within 30 days of receiving 73
an allegation on the hotline...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FACES data and GAO analysis.
In some cases, it took CFSA caseworkers considerably longer than
the required time to initiate an investigation or complete safety and
risk assessments. In 93 cases, CFSA caseworkers took more than 10 days
to initiate the investigation and in 78 cases, it took caseworkers
longer than 100 days to complete a risk assessment, more than three
times longer than the 30-day requirement.
For the other three policies, we reviewed case files and examined
related data from FACES for 30 cases, because officials told us that
the information related to these policies was not routinely recorded in
FACES. One policy requires caseworkers to complete a case plan within
30 days of a child's entry into foster care. Our analysis and file
review found that case plans were not routinely completed within 30
days. Another policy requires conducting administrative review hearings
every 6 months. These reviews ensure that key stakeholders are involved
in permanency planning for the child. We found that administrative
review hearings were rescheduled for a variety of reasons, such as the
caseworker had to appear at a hearing for another case or the attorney
was not available. The third policy requires caseworkers to identify
and arrange for services for children and their families. It was
difficult to determine whether services recommended by caseworkers were
approved by supervisors or if needed services were provided. Managers
said that sometimes services are arranged by telephone and the results
not entered into FACES.
Officials said that several factors affected the implementation of
some of the policies we reviewed. Agency officials explained that, in
part, the data on implementation of the initial investigations and
safety assessment reflected that the District's Metropolitan Police
Department was responsible for the initial investigation of child abuse
cases until October 2001 and that data was not entered into FACES. CFSA
now has responsibility for both child abuse and neglect investigations.
Further, program managers and supervisors said that several factors
contribute to the time frames required to initiate face-to-face
investigations, including difficulty in finding the child's correct
home address, contacting the child if the family tries to hide the
child from investigators, and even obtaining vehicles to get to the
location. Caseworkers' supervisors and managers explained that
generally, the policies were not always implemented because of limited
staff and competing demands and the policies were not documented
because some caseworkers did not find FACES to be user friendly.
CFSA officials said they recently made changes to help improve the
implementation of some of the policies we reviewed. CFSA has focused on
reducing its backlog of investigations and reduced the number of
investigations open more than 30 days from 807 in May 2001 to 263 in
May 2002. CFSA officials said that they anticipate a reduction in the
number of administrative review hearings that are rescheduled. The
responsibility for notifying administrative review hearing participants
when a hearing is scheduled was transferred from caseworkers to the
staff in the administrative review unit, and notification will be
automatically generated well in advance of the hearings. Additionally,
another official said that CFSA has begun testing a process to ensure
that all needed services are in place within 45 days.
However, without consistently implementing policies for timely
investigations and safety and risk assessments, a child may be subject
to continued abuse and neglect. Delaying case plans and rescheduling
administrative review hearings delay efforts to place children in
permanent homes or reunite them with their families. Further, without
knowing whether children or families received needed services, CFSA
cannot determine whether steps have been taken to resolve problems or
improve conditions, which also delays moving children toward their
permanency goals.
In addition to its policies for managing cases, CFSA has policies
for licensing and monitoring group homes, plans for training staff in
group homes, and a goal to reduce the number of young children in group
homes. CFSA's policies for group homes are based primarily on District
regulations that went into effect July 1, 2002. According to a CFSA
official, the agency was precluded from placing children in an
unlicensed group home as of January 1, 2003. As of March 2003, all CFSA
group homes were licensed, except one, and CFSA was in the process of
removing children from that home. In the future, CFSA plans to use
requirements for licensing group homes as well as contractual
provisions as criteria for monitoring them. CFSA also plans to provide
training to group home staff to make it clear that, as District
regulations require, any staff member who observes or receives
information indicating that a child in the group home has been abused
must report it. Further, CFSA has a goal to reduce the number of
children under 13 who are placed in group homes. CFSA has reduced the
number of children under 13 in group homes from 128 in August 2002, to
70 as of February 2003; and, has plans to reduce that number even
further by requiring providers of group home care to link with agencies
that seek foster care and adoptive families.
CFSA'S AUTOMATED SYSTEM LACKED DATA ON MANY FOSTER CARE CASES
While CFSA's policies with regard to is automated child welfare
information system--FACES--were not among the six policies we initially
selected for examination, in our efforts to assess CFSA's
implementation of the selected foster care policies, we determined that
FACES lacked such data for about 70 percent of its active foster care
cases. Of the population of foster care cases at least 6 months old as
of November 30, 2002--2,510 cases--data on the initial investigation
and safety and risk assessment policies were not available for 1,763 of
them. CFSA officials explained that all of these cases predated FACES
and the previous system was used primarily to capture information for
accounting and payroll purposes, not for case management. Top agency
managers said that CFSA does not currently plan to make it an agency
priority to include data in FACES for these pre-FACES cases.
Additionally, FACES reports showed that data was not available on many
of the more recent foster care cases. For example, complete data on the
initiation of investigations and safety assessments were not available
for about half of the 943 cases that entered the foster care system
after FACES came on line. Officials explained that their plans are to
focus on improving a few data elements at a time for current and future
actions.
Complete and accurate data is an important aspect of effective
child welfare systems. HHS requires all States and the District of
Columbia to have an automated child welfare information system. These
systems, known as Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS), must be able to record key child welfare functions, such as
intake management, case management, and resource management. However,
it its review of FACES, HHS found the system to be in noncompliance
with several requirements, including the requirements to prepare and
document service/case plans and to conduct and record the results of
case reviews.\7\ In addition to the standards and requirements
established by HHS for all child welfare systems, the MFO requirements
stress the importance of an automated system for CFSA. Many of the
requirements the MFO imposed on CFSA direct CFSA to produce management
data. For example, the MFO requires that CFSA be able to produce
management data showing (1) how many children who need medical reports
received them within 48 hours after the report of neglect or abuse was
supported, (2) the caseload figures by worker for all workers
conducting investigations of reports of abuse or neglect, and (3) the
number of supervisors with at least 3 years of social work experience
in child welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ HHS completed its SACWIS assessment review of FACES in June
2000. The purpose of this review is to assess whether the child welfare
information system performs functions that are important to meeting the
minimal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very important to have accurate and timely automated case
management data for all cases. An expert from a child welfare
organization stated that there is a great need to transfer information
from old case records to new automated systems in a systematic way.
Without such a transfer, paper records with important information may
be lost. She said that records of older teens have been lost, and, with
them, valuable information such as the identity of the child's father,
has also been lost. Without data in FACES, if caseworkers need missing
data they will have to look for paper records in the case files, some
of which are voluminous. This file review effort is much more time
consuming than reviewing an automated report and requires more time for
caseworkers to become familiar with cases when cases are transferred to
new caseworkers. Complete, accurate, and timely case management data
enables caseworkers to quickly learn about new cases, supervisors to
know the extent that caseworkers are completing their tasks, and
managers to know whether any aspects of the agency's operations are in
need of improvement.
CFSA HAS ENHANCED ITS WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE D.C. FAMILY COURT
BY WORKING COLLABORATIVELY, BUT HINDRANCES REMAIN
CFSA has enhanced its working relationship with the Family Court
through its commitment to promoting improved communication and by
expanding its legal support services for court activities. CFSA
participates in various planning committees with the Family Court, such
as the Implementation Planning Committee, and assists in providing
service referrals on site at the Family Court. Since 2002, attorneys
from the OCC have been located at CFSA and work closely with
caseworkers. This co-location has improved the working relationship
between CFSA and the Family Court because CFSA caseworkers and the
attorneys are better prepared for court appearances. Additionally,
training sessions have been held that included CFSA caseworkers, OCC
attorneys, and Family Court judges. Furthermore, frequent dialogue
between top management at CFSA and the Family Court and top management
support have been key factors in improving these relationships.
However, CFSA officials and Family Court judges noted several
hindrances that constrain their working relationships. These hindrances
include scheduling conflicts between the court and CFSA, an
insufficient number of caseworkers, caseworkers who are unfamiliar with
cases that have been transferred to them, and the unclear roles and
responsibilities of CFSA caseworkers, attorneys, and judges. For
example, CFSA officials said that Family Court judges often override
caseworker recommendations that affect children and families. Family
Court judges told us that they believe caseworkers do not always
recommend appropriate services for children and their families. As a
result of these conflicting perspectives, court officials said that
appropriate decisions affecting children and families might not be
reached in a timely manner.
CONCLUSIONS
While CFSA has met several procedural ASFA requirements and other
performance criteria, developed essential policies, and enhanced its
working relationship with the Family Court, it needs to make further
improvement in order to ensure the protection and proper and timely
placement of all of the District's children. To improve outcomes for
foster care children, CFSA needs a comprehensive set of policies;
effective implementation of all policies; complete, accurate, and
timely automated data on which to base its program management; and an
effective working relationship with the D.C. Family Court. However,
gaps in its foster care policies, inconsistent policy implementation,
and incomplete automated data may hinder CFSA's ability to protect and
improve the outcomes for the District's children. We expect to have
recommendations in our final report that will address these issues and
strengthen CFSA's operations. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared
statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you or
other Subcommittee Members may have.
APPENDIX I.--GAO'S ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Criteria GAO Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Current case plans for foster
care cases:
Forty-five percent of foster Met............... As of September
care cases have current 30, 2002, 46
case plans. percent of foster
care cases had
current case
plans.
2. Visitation between children
in foster care and their
parents:
Thirty-five percent of cases Not met........... As of November 30,
in which children have a 2002, 1 percent
goal of returning home have of children with
parental visits at least a return home
every 2 weeks. goal had parental
visits at least
every 2 weeks.
3. Social worker visitation with
children in foster care:
Twenty-five percent of Not met........... As of November 30,
children in foster care 2002, no children
have weekly visits with had weekly
caseworkers in their first visits; 0.3
8 weeks of care; 35 percent percent had at
of all children in foster least monthly
care have at least monthly visits with a
visits with a social worker. social worker.
4. Appropriate legal status for
children in foster care:
No child in emergency care Met............... As of November 30,
(legal status) for more 2002, no children
than 90 days. in emergency care
more than 90
days.
5. Current and valid foster home
licenses:
Seventy-five percent of Not met........... As of November 30,
children are placed in 2002, 47 percent
foster home with valid of children were
licenses. in foster homes
with valid
licenses.
6. Progress toward permanency:
No more than 10 percent of Not met........... As of November 30,
children in foster care 2002, 30 percent
have a permanency goal of of children had a
return home for more than permanency goal
18 months. of return home
for more than 18
months.
7. Foster care placement with
siblings:
Sixty percent of children in Met............... As of November 30,
foster care are placed with 2002, 63 percent
one or more of their of children were
siblings. placed with one
or more siblings.
8. Placement stability:
No more than 25 percent of Met............... As of November 30,
children in foster care as 2002, 21 percent
of May 31, 2002, have had of children in
three or more placements. care since August
1, 2001, had
three or more
placements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Ms. Schneiders.
STATEMENT OF ANNE E. SCHNEIDERS, CHAIR AND FOUNDER,
WASHINGTON CHAPTER, THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN
Ms. Schneiders. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator
Landrieu. I come before you as the Chair of the Washington
Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for Children,
which is a national advocacy organization for children.
Senator DeWine. You might want to pull that mike close.
Thank you.
Ms. Schneiders. I am a practicing attorney and a clinical
social worker, licensed in D.C., Maryland, and New York, and
practiced child welfare/foster care for 25 years before going
to law school. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address
this committee on the status of Child and Family Services from
the perspective of one who must interface with this agency on
behalf of abused and neglected children as guardian ad litem
for almost 200 children over the years.
The rise and fall of statistics does not interest me, as
numbers can say whatever you want them to to make a point. My
concern is the impact of policy decisions on children, as too
many children who have been cared for by CFSA leave the system
angry, resentful, and no better off than when they entered. Let
me cite such a few policies.
First is placement. Children brought into the system are
too often made to wait weeks or months before a placement is
available. Children 14 and older are made to wait in group home
facilities until a placement is identified. Many are then
placed in whatever home has a vacancy, regardless of the needs
of the child or the expressed preference of a family. There is
little matching of a child to the family.
The result is a negative experience for both and the
ultimate removal of the child. Some children are moved two,
three, and four times before finding an appropriate placement.
This is true of both CFSA foster homes and the private agencies
with whom CFSA contracts. Some children abscond from the group
homes before a foster home is located. Some act up to the point
of requiring psychiatric hospitalization. Thus the trauma of
the abuse, coupled with the trauma of removal from the birth
parents, are compounded three and fourfold by the actions of
Child and Family Services.
CFSA needs to invest in active and aggressive recruitment
of therapeutic foster homes so that it has a pool of families
with whom to place children. Children should be matched with
families, so that there is at least a reasonable expectation
that the placement will be effective. It should not take 4 to 6
weeks to put a child in a foster home.
Secondly, the lack of adequate support services. There is a
disturbing punitive climate emerging in the agency that seems
to view the child as the culprit in the abuse and neglect
cases. Services are not readily available to counter the
effects of abuse and neglect. Tutors are limited to 1 month of
service with repeated requests for renewal. Little can be done
in 1 month. Mentors are only available for 3 months at a time,
with a need to justify renewal. The purpose of a mentor is to
afford the child a meaningful relationship. To terminate such a
relationship in 3 months only serves to have the child
experience yet another loss.
Teenagers are denied admission to independent living
programs until they are 18, regardless of the need and the
child's readiness at 16 or 17. Specialized evaluations and
therapy are limited to whatever Medicaid will pay, regardless
of the child's need or the availability of competent
clinicians. GALs are frequently told by social workers to
request a court order or the service will not be provided, thus
making the court manage the case. There is no similar policy
restricting services to parents, who immediately get referrals
for therapy, parenting, anger management, drug treatment, and
whatever else they may need.
CFSA needs to have a police that guarantees every child the
services which the Court identifies as needed to counter the
effects of abuse and neglect and prepare them more quickly for
permanency or emancipation.
The preparation for emancipation. Most of the children who
age out of foster care are young people whose problems or age
have precluded adoption or whose family failed to improve
sufficiently for them to return home. They have serious
academic deficits, emotional problems, mental limitations, none
of which are their fault. They lack self-confidence and self-
help skills. They are immature and vulnerable. They are ill-
prepared to jump into the mainstream of life.
CFSA discharges the children without secure housing,
employment, or healthcare. This month alone I have had two
children I represent age out at 21. One mildly retarded,
emotionally disturbed youngster is currently homeless. The
other, a teen mother of two, was given a list of city shelters
to which to apply the day after her 21st birthday. There is no
farewell, no emancipation celebration, no assurance that if you
get stuck, you can come back for help, just a message that your
case has been closed.
CFSA receives an allocation of Section 8 housing vouchers
from the Federal Government that are carefully doled out to
selected parents who have abused and neglected their children
and who are seeking reunification. At the same time, CFSA sends
its own young people, the victims of the abuse and neglect, out
of the system at age 21 telling them where to find the nearest
shelter. None of the vouchers in the hands of CFSA can be given
to its own children for whom it has served as surrogate parent.
To make matters worse, CFSA is now proposing to reduce the
age of emancipation of 18 instead of the current 21, because
they claim that children do not appreciate the services
offered. Very few children even of stable families are ready to
leave home at 18. Intact, stable families send their children
to college in the hopes that they will mature during those
years. It is incredible to think that CFSA expects abused and
neglected children, who have had very little nurturing and
stability and who have too often bounced around the foster care
system, are mature enough to manage on their own at age 18. All
that is available to them is the street or a city shelter.
Discharging these children at age 18 will force them to survive
on the street, selling drugs or their bodies for enough money
to buy food. This is not the way the District of Columbia
should handle its children.
Current legislation which provides that these very
vulnerable young people remain in care until age 21 is both
humane and responsible and should not be altered as a means of
balancing the budget. The decision as to whether a child is
prepared for independent living prior to age 21 should continue
to be left with the Family Court who has oversight of the case
and should not be made as the result of an arbitrary and
capricious policy based on finances.
CFSA needs to develop a policy and method of providing
appropriate housing for children that emancipate from the
system each year and not just send them to the city shelters to
apply for TANF and food stamps. None of us would treat our own
children that way. CFSA needs to design an integrated program
of services staffed with persons who can engage young adults in
meaningful activities and in which the young people are active
participants in their own development. CFSA should create an
after-care department to assist youngsters who spent their
childhood in foster care and need a home to return to for
occasional assistance during stressful times, especially as
they try to get started on their own.
Finally, it is intriguing to hear CFSA boast about the
reduction in staff turnover when workers continue to leave,
cases remain uncovered or covered by a supervisor. Social
workers continue to complain about high case loads, routinely
put in for transfers to non-case carrying positions, or work
late into the night to get reports to the Court on time. I
spoke to a social worker yesterday at midnight who was still
trying to finish a report for the Court today.
Cases are still counted as families without regard to the
number of children in that family. Social workers are often
responsible for up to 50 children at a time because of the way
cases are counted, making it impossible to get to IEP meetings,
treatment team meetings, or other significant events in the
child's life. Cases have as many as three or more workers at a
time and far more during the life of the case. A worker is
assigned to the case on one day, the goal is changed to
adoption, and the case is transferred to a recruitment worker.
A family is recruited, and the case is transferred to an
adoption worker. At the same time, a sibling goes to
independent living and is assigned a teen services worker.
Another sibling is placed with a contract agency and is given a
different worker. I represent a set of twins, who each have
different workers.
Such a practice precludes the formation of beneficial
relationships.
Senator DeWine. Twins who have different workers?
Ms. Schneiders. Pardon?
Senator DeWine. Twins who have different workers?
Ms. Schneiders. Yes. One happens to be in residential
treatment, and therefore gets a worker through that unit. And
the other is in a foster home and has a worker with that unit.
And no one knows who has case responsibility for that.
CFSA needs to develop a one case-one worker policy similar
to the Court's one family-one judge system, with a maximum of
15 to 20 children per worker, regardless of the number of
families. Social workers need to get to know the case so that
services are not duplicated, facts are not lost, progress is
not overlooked, goals are not changed. And the continual
reorganization of the agency is counterproductive in pursuit of
this goal.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Success should be measured when children in the care of
Child and Family Services Agency feel safe and protected, loved
and cared for, and achieve permanence early or are prepared to
face the world on their own at age 21, not when the statistics
prove that numbers have gone up or down.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne E. Schneiders, Esq., LISW
Good morning, Senator DeWine, and all members of the Appropriations
Committee.
My name is Anne Schneiders, and I come before you as the Chair and
Founder of the Washington Chapter of the National Association of
Counsel for Children, a national advocacy organization for children. I
am a proud resident of the District of Columbia; a practicing attorney
at D.C. Superior Court; and a clinical social worker licensed in the
District of Columbia, Maryland and New York. I spent 25 years as a
social worker and administrator in foster care before going to law
school.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this Committee on
the status of Child and Family Services from the perspective of one who
must interface with this agency on behalf of abused and neglected
children as a Guardian ad litem for almost 200 children over the years.
Dr. Olivia Golden has certainly brought an element of
professionalism to the table, and her reports to you and other bodies
reflect considerable progress and improvement. The reality, however,
from my perspective, as an advocate for the children entrusted to CFSA
and their families, is that while Dr. Golden is masterful at
conceptualizing programs and services, policies and procedures,
structures and organizations, she is so far removed from the daily
delivery of services to the children and their families, that she is
unaware that the concepts she espouses are not effectuated on the front
lines. In this testimony I will address specific issues and provide
some concrete examples of the difficulties those of us trying to
represent children and families encounter in working with CFSA. This
agency is still in dire need of improvement, and in spite of all the
rhetoric about progress and improvement, much of it remains on paper
and has not made it to the level of practice on a daily basis.
The rise and fall of statistics does not interest me, as numbers
can say whatever you want them to say to make a point. My concern is
the impact of policy decisions on children as too many children who
have been ``cared for'' by CFSA leave the system angry, resentful and
no better off than when they entered. Let me cite a few such policies:
DIVERSION OF REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT
Advocates for children and families are very concerned with the
apparent diversion of neglect and abuse cases away from the Superior
Court's Family Court. Children must be represented by counsel to be
adequately protected. During the year (2002), only about 900 neglect
and abuse cases were petitioned, while in previous years between 1,700-
1,900 per year were petitioned. We are under no illusion that community
based services are this effective!! Children are being placed with D.C.
family members in what are called ``third party placements'' in order
to avoid the ICPC difficulties of placing children over State lines,
without ascertaining the criminal and child abuse histories of these
potential caretakers. While obtaining criminal and abuse clearances is
sometimes a cumbersome process, it is essential to protect children
from further abuse. In these cases, we welcome what CFSA refers to as
``bureaucratic barriers'' that serve to protect children.
Recommendation
--There should be an outside review of the reports of abuse and
neglect that get diverted to community based services to
determine the appropriateness of these referrals, and to see
how many of them eventually come before the court in a more
severe state than at the initial identification.
LACK OF PROSECUTION
We are also very concerned that perpetrators of sexual abuse and
physical abuse of children are not prosecuted in the District of
Columbia. Most attorneys will tell you that none of the perpetrators of
the abuse of children before the court have been prosecuted, yet we
continue to make reunification the primary goal in abuse cases. While
CFSA has taken all of the Corporation Counsel attorneys under its
umbrella--and even into its building--there has been no significant
improvement in the government's pursuit of justice for children.
Recently, the mother in a case petitioned in 1999 for physical abuse
was arrested. The children had already been removed, reunified, and
have recently had to be removed again for repeated physical and
emotional abuse. Had proper steps been taken to prosecute the initial
criminal child abuse case, these children would not have been re-
abused. Another severely retarded, cerebral palsy child was abused at
home; brought into care; abused physically and sexually in group homes
prior to placement in a foster home. None of these instances were
pursued because he was deemed not a reliable witness. Again, over a 3-
year period 3 children were removed from one parent. One child had been
burned and shot; the third child was scalped at the age of 6 weeks. No
one was ever prosecuted for these crimes because the victims were
young! If these 3 cases are on my caseload, I am sure there are
hundreds of others throughout the system.
Recommendation
--CFSA must be required to pursue justice for children and criminal
prosecution of those who physically and sexually abuse
children.
PLACEMENT POLICIES
Children brought into the system are too often made to wait weeks
or months before a placement is available. Young children still are
retained at 400 6th Street overnight or until a placement is available.
Children 14 and older are made to wait in group home facilities until a
placement is identified. Many are then placed in whatever home has a
vacancy regardless of the needs of the child or the expressed
preference of the family. There is little matching of child to family.
The result is a negative experience for both and the ultimate removal
of the child. Some children are moved 2, 3, 4 times before finding an
appropriate placement. This is true of both CFSA foster homes and the
private agencies with whom CFSA contracts for services. Some children
abscond from the group home before a foster home is located. Some act
up to the point of requiring psychiatric hospitalization. Thus, the
trauma of the abuse coupled with the trauma of removal from the birth
parents are compounded 3- and 4-fold by the actions of Child and Family
Services Agency.
As recently as last week a 15-year-old child who had spent a year
in a group home requested a foster home in January, and the Judge
ordered CFSA to identify a home for him. In March the matter was
brought back to court because no referral had yet been made. When the
Judge asked for an explanation, CFSA came up with a home--reportedly
the only home available in the system. No match was made; the child
never met the foster family. He was just placed in the home. It lasted
less than a week before the child ran away. The child remains in the
group home being told there is no other foster home in the system. He
must just wait!
The same is true of the process for placing children in residential
treatment programs. Last year I represented two 14-year-old children
who spent extended periods of time in the Psychiatric Institute of
Washington waiting for the process of identifying a residential
treatment program to progress. These children wasted 2-3 months of
their childhood sitting in a hospital waiting for meetings to be
scheduled; papers to be exchanged; and transportation to be arranged
before they could begin the treatment process.
Recommendation
--CFSA needs to invest in active and aggressive recruitment of
therapeutic foster homes so that it has a pool of families with
whom to place children. Children should be matched with
families so that there is at least a reasonable expectation
that the placement will be effective. It should not take 4-6
weeks to place a child in a foster home, nor 6-8 weeks for
admission to a residential setting.
LACK OF ADEQUATE SUPPORT SERVICES
There is a disturbing punitive climate emerging in the agency that
seems to view the child as the culprit in abuse and neglect cases.
Services are not readily available to counter the effects of abuse and
neglect.
--Tutors are limited to 1 month of service with repeated requests for
renewal. Little tutoring can be effective in 1 month. The
request for renewal on a monthly basis is a serious waste of
time on the part of social workers. Judges need to order such
simple services as tutoring to be sure that this service is not
interrupted, and re-started with a new tutor. Children cannot
adjust that readily to new faces and styles of teaching.
--Mentors are only available for 3 months at a time with the need to
justify renewal for longer periods. The purpose of a mentor is
to afford the child a meaningful relationship. To terminate
such a relationship in 3 months only serves to have the child
experience yet another loss. CFSA has contracts with various
firms who pay the mentors for the time invested in the child.
Because of this expense, they limit the time given to any child
to 12 hours/month with the maximum amount, if justified, to 24
hours/month. This time includes transportation to and from the
child's place of residence. Volunteers for Abused and Neglected
Children (formerly CASA) have trained volunteers who do not get
paid. All CFSA has to do is enter into a contract for
administrative services, but has failed to do so. It is
difficult to understand the rationale for this decision.
--Teenagers are denied admission to independent living programs until
they are 18 regardless of the need and the child's readiness at
16 or 17. This leaves some children in inappropriate settings
waiting for the magical age of 18 for admission to an
appropriate program. No one has yet explained the rationale for
this decision.
--Specialized evaluations and therapy are limited to whatever
medicaid will pay for regardless of the child's need or the
availability of competent clinicians. Every child removed from
the birth parent is traumatized by this event, or those leading
up to removal. Too often the multiple moves of CFSA from
shelter care to multiple foster homes only compounds the
emotional stress these children experience. The inability to
secure specialized forms of therapy is serious. Young children
require therapy to deal with sexual trauma, physical abuse,
attachment disorders, and depression, while adolescents become
angry, defiant, aggressive and act out sexually or use drugs.
Identifying quality mental health care for these children is
extremely difficult given CFSA's policy that only providers who
take medicaid can be used unless there is a court order for a
specific type of therapy or therapist. This process is lengthy
and delays by weeks or months the initiation of therapy for
very troubled children and often puts both home and school in
jeopardy. Payment to vendors, while better than previously,
continues to be problematic and keeps the pool of available
clinicians limited. This is one of the most serious
shortcomings of CFSA given the fact that virtually every child
in care needs therapy.
GAL's are frequently told by social workers to request a court
order or the service will not be provided, thus making the court manage
the case. There is no similar policy restricting services to parents
who immediately get referrals for therapy, parenting, anger management
programs, drug treatment, and whatever else they need, regardless of
whether they take advantage of it or not.
The same problem exists for other evaluations and therapies ordered
by the court--i.e. psychiatric and psychological evaluations of both
children and parents. The one place where it was possible to get top
quality, comprehensive evaluations of children and their parents was
the Youth Forensic Services. This agency, however, has been virtually
dismantled by the Commission on Mental Health so that Youth Forensics
now has no psychiatrist, 2 psychologists one of whom is unlicensed, and
3 social workers.
Recommendations
--CFSA needs to have a policy that guarantees every child the
services which the court identifies as needed to counter the
effects of abuse and neglect, and prepare them more quickly for
permanency or emancipation. There needs to be an identified
roster of qualified clinicians who can be accessed readily so
as not to delay the initiation of therapy for traumatized
children. Adoption is often delayed because a child has not
been provided therapy, mentoring, tutoring or other needed
services to counter the negative effects of prior physical/
sexual abuse or severe neglect.
--Some oversight committee needs to revisit the logic of dismantling
Youth Forensic Services which was one of the best resources
available to CFSA. There is no comparable service available in
the District of Columbia which understands the needs of the
court; the type of comprehensive evaluations needed; and the
impact of court decisions on children and families.
PREPARATION FOR EMANCIPATION
Most of the children who ``age out'' of foster care are young
people whose problems or age have precluded adoption, or whose family
failed to improve sufficiently for them to return home. They have
serious academic deficits, emotional problems, mental limitations, none
of which are their fault. They lack self confidence and self-help
skills. They are immature and very vulnerable. They are ill prepared to
jump into the mainstream of life.
CFSA discharges these children without secure housing, employment,
or health care. This month alone I have had two children I represent
age out at 21. One mildly retarded, emotionally disturbed youngster is
currently homeless; the other, a teen mother of two was given a list of
city shelters to which to apply the day after her 21st birthday. There
is no farewell; no emancipation celebration; no assurance that if you
get stuck you can come ask for help; just a message that ``Your case is
now closed.'' Adoptive families are assured of post-adoption services;
teens are given no such assurance.
CFSA receives an allocation of Section 8 vouchers from the Federal
Government that are carefully doled out to selected parents who have
abused or neglected their children and who are seeking reunification.
At the same time, CFSA sends its own young people, the victims of the
abuse or neglect, out of the system at age 21 by telling them where to
find the nearest shelter. None of the vouchers in the hands of CFSA can
be given to its own children for whom it has served as surrogate
parent.
To make matters worse, CFSA is now proposing to reduce the age of
emancipation to 18 instead of the current age of 21 because they claim
the children don't appreciate the services offered. Very few children
even of stable families are ready to leave home at age 18. Intact,
stable families send their children to college in the hopes that they
will mature during those 4 years. It is incredible to think that CFSA
expects abused and neglected children, who have had very little
nurturance and stability, and who have too often bounced around the
foster care system are mature enough to manage on their own at age 18.
All that is available to them is the street or a city shelter.
Discharging these children at age 18 will force them to ``survive'' on
the street selling drugs or their bodies for enough money to buy food.
This is not the way the District of Columbia should handle its
children.
Recommendations
--Current D.C. legislation which provides that these very vulnerable
young people remain in care until age 21 is both humane and
responsible and should not be altered as a means of balancing
the budget. The decision as to whether a child is prepared for
independent living prior to age 21 should continue to be left
with the Family Court judge who has oversight of the case, and
should not be made as the result of an arbitrary and capricious
policy based on finances.
--CFSA needs to develop a policy and method of providing appropriate
housing for the children that emancipate from the system each
year, and not just send them to city shelters, and to apply for
TANF and food stamps. None of us would treat our own children
in this manner!
--CFSA needs to design an integrated program of services, staffed
with persons who can engage young adults in meaningful
activities and in which the young people are active
participants in their own development.
--CFSA should create an after-care department to assist youngsters
who spent their childhood in foster care and need a ``home'' to
return to for occasional assistance during stressful times,
especially as they try to get started on their own.
STAFF RETENTION AND ASSIGNMENT
It is intriguing to hear CFSA boast about the reduction in staff
turnover, when workers continue to leave; cases remain uncovered or
``covered'' by a supervisor. Social workers continue to complain about
the high caseloads; routinely put in for transfers to non-case carrying
positions; or work late into the night to get reports to the court on
time. Cases are still counted as ``families'' without regard for the
number of children in that family. Social workers are often responsible
for up to 50 children at a time, making it impossible to get to IEP
meetings, treatment team meetings, or other significant events in a
child's life.
Cases have as many as 3 or more workers at a time and far more
during the life of the case. A worker is assigned to a case on one day;
then the goal is changed to adoption and the case is transferred to a
``recruitment'' worker; a family is recruited and the case is
transferred to an ``adoption'' worker. At the same time a sibling goes
to independent living and is assigned a ``teen services'' worker;
another sibling is placed in a contract agency and is given a different
worker. I represent a set of twins who each have different workers.
Such a practice precludes the formation of beneficial relationships
that support the family and children--and delay progress.
Recommendation
--CFSA needs to develop a ``one case/one worker'' policy similar to
the court's ``one family/one judge'' system, with a maximum of
15-20 children per worker regardless of the number of families.
Social workers need to get to know the case so that services
are not duplicated, facts lost, progress overlooked. The
continual ``re-organizing'' of the agency is counter
productive.
Success should be measured when children in the care of Child and
Family Services Agency feel safe and protected, loved and cared for,
and achieve permanence early or are prepared to face the world on their
own at age 21.
I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to improved
relationships between CFSA and the community.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Very interesting.
Ms. Meltzer.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH W. MELTZER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY, AND COURT-
APPOINTED MONITOR, CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES AGENCY
Ms. Meltzer. Thank you. Good morning, Senator DeWine,
Senator Landrieu. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and
for your continuing leadership.
I am Judith Meltzer, Deputy Director of the Center for the
Study of Social Policy, which is the court-appointed monitor to
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan for the LaShawn A. v.
Williams lawsuit.
The LaShawn modified order is a comprehensive decree dating
to 1994, mandating comprehensive reform of the District's child
welfare system. The Center is the monitor with responsibility
for development of implementation plans and for ongoing
assessment of the District's progress.
The recent history of LaShawn begins with the termination
of the receivership in June 2001 and the launching of a
probationary period. The probationary period was to end only
when the District demonstrated sufficient progress on a series
of very incremental benchmarked performance standards. The
District did that. Attached to this testimony is a copy of our
report of September 30, 2002, which was based on an independent
review last summer of over 1,000 CFSA case records.
In doing that review, we looked at both the automated
records on the FACES information system, as well as paper
records for every case, because you could not rely on the
automated system to get complete information. We did find that
the District met 75 percent of the targets, which was the basis
for recommending a termination of the probationary period.
This is an accomplishment, and a significant one for the
District. And I do not want to underestimate it. But I also
want you to know that it does not mean that the District's
child welfare system is consistently functioning at an
acceptable level of performance or that the District achieved
compliance with the LaShawn Order.
I want to emphasize this in response to your earlier
remarks, Chairman DeWine. The probationary standards were set
as very incremental markers to demonstrate that the city had
the capacity to administer this agency. In other words, the end
of probation gives the responsibility for administration back
to the District of Columbia from the U.S. District Court. And
that was really the question that was resolved by the
termination of the probationary period. We are now at a point
of developing the implementation plan for going forward,
because the Court has determined that the administration can
continue to make progress on these standards.
As Court Monitor, I am currently responsible for the
development of this implementation plan in collaboration with
the parties. The Implementation Plan is designed to address the
deficiencies we found, the deficiencies found by GAO, and the
deficiencies identified by the field and by advocates such as
Ms. Schneiders.
Since January, Dr. Golden and her staff, the Office of
Corporation Counsel of the Mayor's office, plaintiffs and I
have been working intensively to reach consensus on a plan.
That discussion is near completion--and I will be submitting a
plan to the Court by mid-April. The implementation will set
ambitious yet, I believe, feasible targets between now and
December 2006 for District performance. Among the most
important are continued improvement in the timeliness and
quality of investigations of child abuse and neglect; high-
quality social work and supervisory practice related to
assessment, case planning and supervision of placement; wider
availability of community-based supports; enhanced service
provision; increased visits by social workers; an expanded
range of high-quality family placement options in the District;
reliable and accessible supports for foster parents; consistent
access to mental health services, substance abuse services, and
comprehensive medical, psychological and educational services;
and permanent homes for the 1,110 children currently in the
foster care system with a permanency goal of adoption.
The implementation plan also requires steady and measurable
improvement in several key infrastructure areas, including
aggressive hiring of social workers. This job cannot be done
unless there are enough social workers who are well trained to
do it. The Plan also requires implementation of a high-quality
training program for CFSA staff and for private agency workers;
revamping contract policies and procedures to establish clear
and enforceable performance expectations; full implementation
and enforcement of the new licensing standards for foster
homes, group homes, and independent living facilities;
revamping the agency's administrative case review system;
continued work with the new Family Court to achieve AFSA
timelines and outcomes, and completion of work on the automated
information system, FACES, so that the agency has access to
timely, accurate, and complete data on the children and
families it serves.
I believe that the Implementation Plan, with its ambitious
yet sequenced targets, can be successfully completed. And my
optimism is in part based on the excellent leadership that has
been provided in the last 2 years by the Mayor, Dr. Golden, and
her staff.
In addition to a degree that far exceeds anything that I
witnessed in the prior history of LaShawn, the child welfare
agency is finally working constructively with other agencies in
the District Government, including the Mental Health Agency.
Also Superior Court, under the leadership of Judge Rufus King
and presiding Judge Lee Satterfield, is working collaboratively
and constructively with the child welfare agency.
There are five actions that the subcommittee can take to
help accelerate positive change. I will list them only now,
although my written testimony provides some additional detail.
First, I think the Congress can provide incentives for the
creation of a qualified and stable workforce, either through
educational stipends or loan forgiveness programs and through
expanding the applicability of Title IV-E training
reimbursement to private agency workers, court staff, and other
public agency partners.
Second, I think there can be additional financial support
for targeted prevention efforts that will allow the District to
expand the provision of comprehensive neighborhood-based
services to families at risk of entering the child welfare
system.
Third, I believe there should be targeted efforts to
achieve permanency for the 1,110 children in the foster care
system who have a permanency goal of adoption. This is one-
third of the current caseload.
Fourth, I think there can be assistance for the development
of additional foster and adoptive families within the District
of Columbia, including foster families for children who are
entering the system without exceptional needs, as well as those
who have severe behavioral and therapeutic needs.
Fifth, there needs to be intensive efforts to create assets
and supports for those leaving the foster care system, as Ms.
Schneiders has just testified to. There are currently 1,028
youths over the age of 14 in the foster care system. Again,
that is almost a third of the caseload. And it is a higher
proportion of older children than other systems. This reflects,
I think, the many years in which the system did not move
children to permanency in a timely fashion. But much more has
to be done to provide these children with the supports they
need, so that when they exit the foster care system, they can
lead healthy and independent lives.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Members of the subcommittee, I want to conclude by
emphasizing the importance of continuing support for the work
of the District's child welfare system. I know it is
frustrating. It has been extremely frustrating for me. It is
frustrating for everybody that this reform has taken so long.
But this is a multi-year effort. The Implementation Plan that
the Court will order will chart ambitious steps for finally
bringing the District's child welfare agency to an acceptable
level of performance. This requires changes in practice,
policy, and structure, as well as additional resources.
With our continued efforts and shared commitment, I look
forward to a day in the not-too-distant future when we can
celebrate full compliance with LaShawn order and the end of
Federal Court oversight of the system.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judith W. Meltzer
Senator DeWine and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning about the
progress of the District of Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency
(CFSA). I am Judith Meltzer, Deputy Director of the Center for the
Study of Social Policy. I serve as the Court-appointed Monitor to U.S.
District Court Judge Thomas Hogan for the LaShawn A. v. Williams
lawsuit. The LaShawn Modified Order is a comprehensive decree, dating
to 1994. The Order includes expectations for child welfare performance
in the District across the full range of programmatic and
administrative functions that are necessary to achieve the safety,
permanency and well-being of children who are at risk of and experience
child abuse and neglect. The LaShawn Order appointed the Center for the
Study of Social Policy as the independent Court Monitor with
responsibility for the development of implementation plans and for the
ongoing assessment of the District's progress in complying with the
Federal court orders.
The recent history of LaShawn begins with the leadership of Mayor
Anthony Williams and the establishment of the Child and Family Services
Agency in June 2001, with Dr. Olivia Golden as its Director. On that
date, the Federal court terminated the Receivership of the District's
child welfare system and launched a probationary period, which would
end only when the District demonstrated sufficient progress on a series
of 20 benchmarked performance standards. The District was to achieve
agreed-upon performance targets for 75 percent of the standards by
October 31, 2001, which was later extended to May 31, 2002. The
standards were designed as incremental measures of progress and
covered, among other things, the timeliness of investigations of abuse
and neglect; the development of current case plans for family services
cases and children in foster care; reducing the number of children in
emergency and congregate care; increasing the numbers of children
adopted; and improving the appropriateness and stability of foster care
placement for children in the District's custody. Attached to this
testimony is a copy of my report to the Court dated September 30, 2002,
on the District's progress in meeting the Probationary Period
Performance Standards based on our review last summer of over 1,000
case records. The District met performance targets for 75 percent of
the standards and, based on those results, I was able to recommend that
the probationary period be terminated. On January 7, 2003, U.S.
District Court Judge Hogan formally terminated the probationary period,
thus ending the Federal court Receivership of the District's child
welfare agency, although Federal court oversight under LaShawn remains
in place.
The ending of the Receivership reflects real improvement in the
system and is a significant and positive accomplishment for the
District of Columbia. It does not, however, mean that the District's
child welfare system is consistently functioning at an acceptable
performance level or that the District has achieved compliance with the
LaShawn Order. This Subcommittee hearing comes at a very important time
for the Child and Family Services Agency as it works to create a child
welfare system that meets not only the Court's expectations for
performance, but more importantly a system that meets the expectations
of the citizens of the District of Columbia.
As Court Monitor, I am currently responsible for the development,
in collaboration with the parties, of a binding Implementation Plan
that identifies the steps and tasks necessary to achieve compliance,
the timelines for task accomplishment and the resources (including
staff, personnel, contracts and other resources) necessary for
implementation. This Implementation Plan is to be submitted to the
Court and will become an enforceable order of the Federal court under
the LaShawn Order. The expectations of the LaShawn Order and the
Implementation Plan are consistent with the District's efforts to
comply with the Federal and District Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) and with community and professional standards of acceptable
child welfare practice.
Since January, I have been working intensively and constructively
with Dr. Golden and her staff, the Office of Corporation Counsel, Grace
Lopes from the Mayor's Office and representatives from plaintiffs
(Children's Rights, Inc.), to reach consensus on an Implementation
Plan. Our negotiations ended last week and I expect to make final
decisions and submit an Implementation Plan to the Court by no later
than April 15th. At that time, I will be glad to submit the proposed
Plan to this Subcommittee for inclusion in the record of this hearing.
The Implementation Plan will set ambitious, yet I believe, feasible
targets between now and December 2006 for District performance across
the spectrum of child welfare practices and services. Among the most
important are:
--Continued improvement in the timeliness and quality of
investigations of child abuse and neglect.
--High quality social work and supervisory practice with children and
families in the areas of assessment case planning, and
supervision of placement.
--Wider availability of community-based supports for families to
prevent children and families from entering the child welfare
system.
--Enhanced services provision so that children will enter foster care
placement only when their own families cannot be assisted to
provide them with safe and stable homes.
--Increased visits by social workers to children in placement and to
families with children at home with current child protective
services cases.
--Development of an expanded range of high quality family placement
options in the District of Columbia to continue progress to
reduce the numbers of children, especially young children, who
are cared for in group settings. The Implementation Plan will
most likely include a provision that requires the District to
end any overnight placement in its in-house Intake Center by
June 2003 and to have fewer than 50 children under age 12 in
congregate settings by December 31, 2004.
--Providing reliable and accessible foster parent supports so that
placement disruptions decline and children experience fewer
placement moves while they are in foster care.
--Consistent access to resources that children and families need,
especially mental health services, substance abuse services and
comprehensive medical, psychological and educational services.
--Locating adoptive families or permanent kinship families for the
1,100 children in foster care with a permanency goal of
adoption, and completing the necessary adoption subsidy/
guardianship agreements and other legal actions to provide
these children permanent homes.
In order to achieve the programmatic and practice goals that I
listed, the Implementation Plan also requires steady and measurable
improvement in several key infrastructure areas, including:
--Aggressive hiring of social workers through improved recruitment
and retention strategies leading to rapidly declining caseloads
for all workers. The Implementation Plan is anticipated to
require complete achievement of LaShawn caseload standards for
workers and supervisors by the end of 2004.
--Implementation of a high quality training program for CFSA staff
and private agency workers that is geared to improving practice
skills and achieving defined practice competencies.
--Revamping the contract policies and procedures to establish clear
and enforceable expectations for performance by private
agencies related to achieving safety, permanency and well-being
outcomes for children.
--Full implementation of new licensing standards for foster homes,
group homes and independent living facilities and consistent
and effective enforcement of licensing standards.
--Revamping the Agency's administrative case review system to provide
consistent and meaningful review of case progress and
achievement of permanency goals.
--Continued work with the new Family Court to make sure that the
entire system works together to achieve ASFA permanency
expectations and timelines.
--Implementation of comprehensive quality assurance processes,
including routine case and supervisory reviews, special
incident reviews, external fatality reviews and quantitative/
qualitative assessment of case process and outcomes.
--Completion of work on CFSA's automated management information
system (FACES) so that the Agency has access to timely,
accurate and complete data on the children and families it
serves.
In making decisions about the Implementation Plan, I have worked
with the District and the plaintiffs to achieve a balance between the
urgent needs of children and families and the desire to quickly produce
results, with the District government's appropriate concern about
successfully sequencing and managing multiple and demanding
requirements for change. I believe that the Implementation Plan, with
its ambitious yet sequenced performance targets, can be successfully
completed. My optimism is, in part, based on the excellent leadership
provided by Dr. Golden and the hard working CFSA staff. Dr. Golden has
assembled an enthusiastic team of competent child welfare professionals
and has mobilized the diverse talents of many staff within the Agency
and from a broad range of private agency and community partners. In
addition, to a degree that far exceeds anything I have witnessed in the
prior history of LaShawn, the child welfare agency is working
constructively with other agencies in the District government, most
importantly, the Department of Mental Health, the Office of Corporation
Counsel, and the Metropolitan Police Department. This collaborative
effort is greatly enhanced by the support of the Mayor. Finally, the
Superior Court, under the leadership of Chief Judge Rufus King and
Presiding Judge Lee Satterfield, is working with the child welfare
agency to ensure children's safety and to provide meaningful and timely
judicial review of children's progress toward permanency. The serious
difficulties of providing appropriate services, supports and stable
living situations for children remain, but I believe there is an
improved level of trust and commitment from the various parts of the
system to work together in new ways to solve these complex problems.
There are five actions that the Subcommittee can take to help
accelerate positive change. They include:
--1. Provide incentives for the creation of a qualified and stable
workforce.--This can be done in two ways: first, provide
financial incentives for recruitment and retention of social
workers through loan forgiveness, new stipends or loans for
education in return for defined, time-limited commitments to
child welfare work in the District; and second, by provide
additional funding, either through extending the applicability
of Title IV-E training reimbursement or through other means, to
provide intensive skill building and family-centered practice
training for workers in the public child welfare agency and for
staff in private provider agencies and partner agencies, such
as mental health, substance abuse, and the Courts.
--2. Provide additional financial support for targeted prevention
efforts that would allow the District to expand the provision
of comprehensive neighborhood-based services to families at
risk of entering the child welfare system.--For the past 2
years, the District was able to use TANF funds to support
services provided by the eight Healthy Families, Thriving
Communities Collaboratives, including their innovative use of
Family Team Decision Making, which bring family, extended
family and community supports together with public agency
workers to develop and implement plans of care to ensure safety
and permanency for children. In fiscal year 2004, the District
will have to use local funds to replace the TANF resources for
this work and currently does not have additional funding
available for any expansion of these important efforts.
--3. Support targeted efforts to achieve permanency for the 1,100
children in foster care who have a permanency goal of
adoption.--This can be done in one of several ways: first,
providing fiscal incentives for achieving permanency through
adoption or subsidized guardianship for children currently in
foster care. Bonus funds could be available for specialized
recruitment for sibling groups, young teens and/or children
with individualized needs, or to pay for additional services
and supports to allow a foster family or kin provider to
securely commit to adoption or permanent guardianship. Second,
funds could be provided to allow the District child welfare
agency to enter into contracts with private child placing
agencies to engage in child-specific recruitment and placement
with families for currently waiting children.
--4. Assist with the development of foster and adoptive families
within the District of Columbia.--One of the barriers to
District families wishing to become licensed foster parents is
the presence of lead paint in much of the District's older
housing stock. Some potential families cannot be approved as
foster parents or kin providers until they secure lead paint
abatement, which is frequently beyond their financial means.
Funding to pay for lead paint abatement for these District
families, who are otherwise qualified to be licensed foster or
kinship homes or approved adoptive families, could be made
available.
--5. Support intensive efforts to create assets and supports for
youth leaving foster care.--As of December 31, 2002, one-third
of the children in foster care (1,028 children) were age 14 and
over. The District has a higher percentage of older children in
its foster care system than nationally, in part reflecting the
many years in which the District failed to make timely
decisions on permanency for children. Despite current efforts,
many of these older children will not achieve permanency before
they leave the foster care system, and much more needs to be
done to ensure that they are equipped to survive as independent
adults when they do leave. Congress could help by providing
additional support for educational stipends, work experience
and career coaching for these children; for additional mental
health and substance abuse services; for assistance with
housing when they leave foster care and for the creation of
Individual Development Accounts (IDA's) that would allow teens
in foster care to build assets.
Members of the Subcommittee, I conclude by emphasizing the
importance of continuing support for the work of the District's child
welfare agency. The Implementation Plan that the Court will order will
chart ambitious steps for finally bringing the District's child welfare
agency to an acceptable level of performance. This will require changes
in practice, policy and structure as well as additional resources.
Achieving the desired results also will require clarity and tenacity
about accountability and consistent review of performance data to
measure progress and take corrective action. As external Monitor, the
Center for the Study of Social Policy will prepare periodic progress
reports for the Court, the District government, the Congress and the
public, and we will work with the Agency to improve their internal
quality assurance and results monitoring. With our continued efforts
and shared commitment, I look forward to a day, in the not too distant
future, when we will celebrate full compliance with the LaShawn Order
and the end of Federal court oversight of the District of Columbia
child welfare system.
Thank you and I will be pleased to take questions.
Senator DeWine. Thank you all very much.
Let me start, Dr. Golden, I saw sometimes you nodding your
head yes and sometimes you nodding your head no. And so maybe
we should start with clarifying for the record how much of the
GAO report you agree with and what you do not agree with.
Dr. Golden. Well, we have talked at great length. And I
really appreciate----
Senator DeWine. I want to get that on the record, though,
so we all know here----
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. How much of the GAO report is
in dispute. And I know we do not have the final report.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. But I would like to know, at least going
into the report, how much do you think is not correct----
Dr. Golden. I really----
Senator DeWine [continuing]. And which is correct.
Dr. Golden. Sure.
Senator DeWine. And then we can go and argue about what it
means.
Dr. Golden. Well, I have not seen a late draft. It sounds
to me as though most of the issues about which we discussed,
the methodology, have been addressed. I think that the one set
of things that would be worth our talking about more is that
some of the GAO information is historical information; that is,
in a number of areas, because they looked at a sample of cases
in the fall of 2002, that entered the system anywhere from 1998
on, some of the information is historical. And that is very
valuable to us, because it tells us where we came from. But it
is different currently. And as we have been working it through
with GAO, we have been discussing that.
Senator DeWine. I do not know what you mean.
Dr. Golden. Excuse me?
Senator DeWine. I do not know what you are talking about.
Dr. Golden. Okay. Shall I give you what----
Senator DeWine. Yes.
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator DeWine. Explain it to a lay person who is not in
the system.
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator DeWine. I do not do this every day. What does it
mean?
Dr. Golden. Sure. Sure.
Senator DeWine. What do you mean, historical?
Dr. Golden. Well, remember that FACES was created in 2000.
The receivership ended in 2001. And the system was unified,
meaning that CFSA had responsibility for all cases in about
October of 2001. So the system changed very dramatically over
those years.
Senator DeWine. All right.
Dr. Golden. What--for a number of GAO's findings, for
example, case plans submitted in the first 30 days, which is an
area where we know we need to do lots of work----
Senator DeWine. All right.
Dr. Golden [continuing]. As I understand it, the
methodology was to look at cases in the fall of 2002, and then
go back and look at whenever they came into the system, whether
many years ago or recently. And for me, as I think about--I am
very eager to use all the information GAO has in our reform
plans. For me, that is a different piece of information,
because that is about how cases were investigated versus the
information they have provided me that is more current.
So when I am providing you and the Court with information,
I am focusing a lot on the change, where things were in 2001,
when we had a deeply fragmented system, and what has changed.
And some of GAO's information is about that, and some of it is
longer ago.
Senator DeWine. Okay. But these kids are still in the
system, though.
Dr. Golden. That is right.
Senator DeWine. These are not kids that are gone.
Dr. Golden. That is right.
Senator DeWine. I mean, let us make sure we understand.
When I think historic, when I heard you say historic, I thought
you meant a kid that was gone, in other words, a kid that was,
you know, 22 and out of the system and we are not worried about
anymore. But we are still worrying about these kids.
Dr. Golden. Right. And we are still trying to improve our
practices.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Dr. Golden. And so some of the GAO information tells me
about my caseworkers' practices now.
Senator DeWine. So this is not ancient history.
Dr. Golden. That is right.
Senator DeWine. These are still kids. And we are still
worrying about them. And we still have a responsibility for
them.
Dr. Golden. And we are focusing really intently on changing
how we serve those children.
Senator DeWine. Okay. And the fact is, what about the
statistic that 70 percent of the current cases are not in the
system? Now what about that statistic?
Dr. Golden. I believe----
Senator DeWine. That kind of grabs you.
Dr. Golden. Right. And that----
Senator DeWine. Is that right or wrong?
Dr. Golden. It is wrong stated as you stated it. I do not
think GAO would state it that way.
Senator DeWine. Okay. State it correctly then. I am wrong.
Tell me how I should state it.
Dr. Golden. Okay. Right now we know where all of our
children are and who they are. We know a whole lot of other
information about them. For those children currently in our
caseload who came into care before FACES or who came into care
through the Metropolitan Police Department before we were doing
it, there is information about their early months that exists
in a hard copy case file but is not in our system.
Senator DeWine. Okay. GAO----
Dr. Golden. Is that right?
Senator DeWine [continuing]. How would you say it? I want
to get it right now.
Ms. Ashby. Okay. I think that is true. And I think perhaps
the issue is the significance of that. It is true that in some
of the analyses we did, we--in fact, what we did is look at
active cases in November of 2002, because that is at the point
we were doing our field work. And we took cases that were at
least 6 months old at that point. And we tried to determine
certain things about those cases.
In some instances, the particular things we were looking
at, particularly with regard to initial investigations, safety
assessments and so forth, we could not get that information
consistently from the automated system, although it should have
been there. And even in some cases where these cases were
initiated after FACES went online, the information was missing.
Senator DeWine. Which is pretty shocking.
Ms. Ashby. It is surprising. And in not just a few----
Senator DeWine. I mean, that is surprising.
Ms. Ashby. Not just a few cases.
Senator DeWine. I mean, if the case started after the
system started, you really do not have any excuse for not
having it in then, it seems to me.
Ms. Ashby. Right. About half, in some cases. In some
instances, for specific pieces of information, specific data
elements or fields, the information was missing for up to half
of the cases.
Dr. Golden. If it would be helpful to offer some examples
of those fields and the timing, because one of the things that
I know, Senator DeWine, it may be important to you to know is
how do we compare to other operational information systems
around the country, and what is it that means that we are
getting an award or we are in the top half, giving that we are
missing some fields.
And just to give you a couple of examples, because with an
information system it always takes time over the years, some of
the big changes, when I came in 2 years ago, even though FACES
was operational, we did not have good data entry. We did not
know which cases went with which workers. We did not know how
to count worker caseloads. We did not know which homes were
licensed. We were not easily tracking worker visitation. And we
did not have good information on court hearings.
Today we have good information on all those things
currently. Some of them are really recent. The court hearing
information, we just got our automated feed from the Court 3
weeks ago. So over this 2-year period what we have been doing
is improving the implementation bit by bit. And I think the
reason our FACES system is getting that national award is
partly about where we have gotten to now.
I absolutely agree that if you look at where we were a
couple of years ago, there is a lot of improvement that we have
had to do.
Ms. Ashby. Well, I would agree there has been improvement.
And I would also suspect that if you only looked at the last
year, for example, the numbers would look better. But of
course, what we were asked to do was, for current cases, to
look to see what the status of things were. And to only look at
the last year where there have been improvements would not be a
correct picture either.
With respect to the data itself and the data, or elements
within the data, for children who entered the system prior to
October 1999 when FACES went online, much of that information
could still be relevant. These are active cases. And if you do
not know the history, or you cannot readily obtain the
history--I will not say you cannot know it, because there are
case files, although we and perhaps others would like to
address this as well. We found problems with the case files as
well. Those are not complete either.
But much of the data, or some of the data, with respect to
currently active cases, if that information is not readily
available to the current caseworker, then that worker does not
necessarily know what has gone on in terms of prior services to
that child or that family. Perhaps there has been medical
interventions that may be lost. It is much more--it is much
more difficult to use paper case files than it is to use an
automated system. I mean, that is the difference between the
first half of the 20th century and the 21st century. Certainly
an automated system is what you need. With an automated system
you can do various analyses that you cannot do otherwise.
For example, it was mentioned the possibility of not
knowing where a child is, if a child might be in Maryland, in a
foster home in Maryland, and the system might not know it.
Well, unless you have a name or an I.D. number to go to a case
file, you really could not find that out. In an automated
system, perhaps you could do a search, and you could locate the
child. So I think it is the significance that we are
disagreeing on in terms of that earlier data.
Dr. Golden. And I think it is a challenge in all the
systems around the country. Because all the SACWIS systems have
been--I mean, ours is one of the newer ones, so we are pleased
about where are, given when it was implemented. But only 21
States have them operational. We are one of those.
So for all the States that either are as new as we are or
even newer, they do--everybody faces that challenge of whether,
when you are looking at something several years back, that
social worker is going to work from the hard copy record and
focus their data entry on current or look back.
Senator DeWine. Let me just ask a simple question. And
again, I am kind of an outsider here. Obviously, I am an
outsider. But how long would it take to enter all just the
current data? You do not have any intention of entering the
current data. I mean, that is what you are telling me.
Dr. Golden. I am sorry, Senator. I think we do have the
current data. I am not understanding.
Senator DeWine. Well, that is not--I am sorry. That is not
what Ms. Ashby just told me. She said she has found cases where
you do not have the current data in there.
Dr. Golden. Well----
Senator DeWine. She said she found a case where you did not
have the current data in there.
Ms. Ashby. And I think we need to define current.
Senator DeWine. Well, current, what you told me is after
the system came up----
Ms. Ashby. That is correct.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Online, you found cases where
all the data was not in there.
Ms. Ashby. That is correct.
Senator DeWine. That is current to me.
Dr. Golden. Well, we----
Senator DeWine. I draw the line when the system came into
effect.
Dr. Golden. Right. Well, let me give you a couple of
examples. And they would probably be ones we would work on. One
example of data that would not be in there even for a few
months ago would be full and complete data from the Court about
hearings. Because we are very excited. We worked out with the
Court how to get that feed from them. And so that automated
data we would not have been complete until we got it started.
In some cases, we do go back. In other cases, we work from
paper records and focus on current.
Another example would be visits, where we have done a huge
amount of work in the past few months, because we are managing
visits very much every week. We are focusing on that. And there
it is a matter, both with our social workers internally and
with our contracted agencies, focusing a lot of training on
getting that into the system.
There is a tradeoff for those social workers, both in our
agency and in the contracted agencies, about being up to date
versus going back and trying to transfer information from their
paper records for the past. We usually focus on what we think
is most urgent for improving our practice for children. But
there is often a tradeoff.
And I think, again, other jurisdictions that have SACWIS
systems may not have as many elements as we do current or some
may have more, some may have fewer. Everybody is making a
judgment call on how much you can effectively use the automated
system.
Senator DeWine. Okay. I think I have beat this enough. I am
going to turn to Senator Landrieu. I am going to come back. I
have a lot of questions.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can sense your
frustration. And I share some of that, because we do want to
just try to be as clear as we can, so that we can push forward
these reforms and continue to try to be supportive.
Let me start with a bigger picture. Could somebody, maybe
Ms. Golden, clarify for us the universe of children we are
talking about today? I have read your statement, and it is just
not clear to me. And maybe I am not reading it correctly. But
we are talking about 3,119 children currently in placement,
plus 2,301 children in families.
Dr. Golden. Those are end of 2002 point-in-time numbers.
They are pretty--they have been pretty stable. That is right.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to clarify that if I
add those two numbers, that is all the children we are talking
about. That is it, the total?
Dr. Golden. Well, the other--that is the number at any
given point. It is the number of children in placement and the
number of families we are supervising in their homes. That is
right. Every month we get about----
Senator Landrieu. Okay. So just--I do not----
Dr. Golden. I apologize.
Senator Landrieu. I just need a number. What is the number?
It is 31 plus 23 is 54, approximately 5,400.
Dr. Golden. The number of cases. That is right.
Senator Landrieu. 5,400 cases.
Dr. Golden. That is right.
Senator Landrieu. Now that would be multiple children per
case?
Dr. Golden. The way that----
Senator Landrieu. Yes or no?
Dr. Golden. In the families, family cases, we count the
family, when children are at home. But when children are in
placement, we count every child.
Senator Landrieu. I am just trying to get a number. I am
just trying to get a number of the children that we are talking
about.
Dr. Golden. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. So give me an estimate, or a real number.
If it is 5,400 cases, how many children would you say that we
are monitoring, either monitoring because they are in an out-
of-home paid placement or monitoring children that are still in
their families----
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. But are being monitored
because of abuse and neglect allegations?
Dr. Golden. As you said, Senator, it is about----
Senator Landrieu. So would I raise this number to 6,500?
Would it be that many?
Dr. Golden. The number--the children in the families, as I
said, we count the children in placement, as do most States. In
families, I actually can get you the exact number.
Senator Landrieu. Could I get that?
Dr. Golden. I would say look at an average of about two to
three children per family. I think our total--those are
children who are all in the home. If any child is in placement,
we count that child separately.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. The reason I am pressing for this
number is because I am then going to ask you how many social
workers you have on staff. And I am going to divide the number
of social workers and children and come up with the actual
caseload that we are talking about.
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator Landrieu. Because there are ways that you can
determine the caseload, you know, say the caseload is X or say
the caseload is Y. But the way that I would think would be the
best way is to take the number of children and divide by the
current payroll of social workers. So first of all, we know
whether we are talking about a caseload of 15 to 1, 25 to 1, 50
to 1, or 75 to 1.
Dr. Golden. I can tell you that approximately, and then we
can follow up with a division, if that would be useful.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. What is it?
Dr. Golden. The caseload, which does include families for
children at home--that is the way the modified final order
counts it, and most places do--and children in placement is
about 23. The----
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Then I am going to take that
number, 23 to 1. But I am going to do the division this other
way and see if there is a discrepancy.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator Landrieu. The reason I push this number is that I
do not think we can get much other reform done unless you get
that caseload down. Because we are depending on the social
workers, I would imagine----
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. To execute the imputing of
the data, the visitation, the permanency plans. And so it is
very important, I would suggest to the chairman, that our
committee focus----
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. On the funding and
recruitment, or funding necessary and then recruitment, for the
caseworkers, so that the caseworkers remain, hopefully,
permanent and not turnover, get a handle on their cases, both
the back log of the historical cases, as you have talked about,
and the current, and then try to, you know, manage the reform
that way.
Dr. Golden. If it would be helpful--I agree completely with
that. I think that that is a key area for us. In working with
the Federal Court on the implementation plan, we have some
standards that frame our work and a workload study coming up to
refine those standards. So I would be glad either now or after
to share with you, we have standards for children in placement,
we have standards for families in the home, and we have
standards for investigators, which we are very close to, about
12 investigations a month. And we have--we have a plan, and we
have a workload study plan to fine tune that. So that would be
a wonderful fit with the strategies of the committee.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I look forward to working with you.
Now following that up just a moment, because I appreciate Ms.
Schneiders's testimony so much and was pleased that last year
this committee actually appropriated $1.5 million for the
guardian ad litem program, which supports a lot of the work
that you and some of the other attorneys in the area do. And we
are very proud of that, because we want to step up the advocacy
as an independent voice, you know, helping us all to really
stay focused on the reforms. And we really appreciate the
contribution that advocates are making.
But based on the testimony given, are you in a position to
change the policy that we were talking about, so that it turns
out to be one child per caseworker, and that children are not
moved from one type of caseworker to another? Could you comment
on that? And are you committed to the one child-one worker
system? And if so, when will it be implemented? And if not, why
not?
Dr. Golden. Let me tell you about all the work we have been
doing that, because that is key. And I just want to note that
Ms. Schneiders is on our local advisory board. And we had a bit
of this conversation the other night. And I was hoping we would
follow up with the names of some of the workers, so I could
work on the specific cases. So that is still ahead for us.
But let me tell you a little bit about where we stared and
what we have done in terms of the one worker-one child.
Senator Landrieu. That would be fine, except my time is
just so short.
Dr. Golden. I apologize.
Senator Landrieu. I just want you, Dr. Golden, if you
could----
Dr. Golden. Yes.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. To say do you agree with the
policy of one social worker per child? And if so, when is that
going to be implemented for the--have we gotten a number? Are
we talking about 5,000 children, the 5,000 approximately? I
will just say 5,000 children under care.
Dr. Golden. I think that the--I agree not only with a
worker for a child. But I think Ms. Schneiders' point was also
to try to make sure that, where possible, siblings have the
same worker. And so we are focusing on both those things. We
do--and we have made changes in our structure to make that
happen. Children used to move back and forth when they went
from a family to out-of-home care. And we have put together in-
home and reunification units with a goal of addressing that.
We do still anticipate that when the child's goal becomes
adoption, it often will be better to have that child's case
moved to an adoption worker. Jurisdictions around the country
do that different ways. But I think the experience suggests
that that really works well, because that way you move the
child towards placement more fully. But that is one of the very
specific examples.
Senator Landrieu. I am not--I just want to say that I am
not sure that I agree with that.
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator Landrieu. That is why I want to press this point. I
am just looking for a time line. As the manager of this agency,
what is the time line that you have in mind for making sure
that each of the 5,000 children under your care have one worker
per child or one worker per sibling group? Do you think you
will reach that goal in 12 months or 24 months or do you have a
time line in mind?
Dr. Golden. Well, each child having one worker, I actually
do want to find out where the problems are now, because that
should be consistent now. Sibling groups, I think----
Senator Landrieu. But you are testifying that currently
today it should be a policy of a child having the same worker,
today?
Dr. Golden. From the point where their case is--where their
investigation is completed, because we have separate
investigators who would handle that child's case, who would do
that the first 30 days, and then hand that child's case to an
ongoing worker. From that point either until permanence or
until adoption--now there are lots of reasons why that does not
happen in terms of turnover of that individual worker. But I
think, as I understand the question, you are asking if our
policy is to have a child develop bonds with a social worker
over that whole period, from investigation until the point of
adoption.
Senator Landrieu. Until either reunification or adoption.
Ms. Schneiders, maybe you could comment about what your
experiences are. Is that happening? Or do you find--you
testified that you have a set of twins that each have a
different worker.
Dr. Golden. Right. Siblings we have to work on.
Ms. Schneiders. The problem, as I see it, is that every
time the child makes a move, there is a--because of the way the
agency is configured--there is a teen unit, there is an
adoption unit, there is a reunification unit, there is a this
unit and that unit. So if one child is moving through these
units, so they have a worker, the goal is adoption. Immediately
we refer to the adoption unit. The adoption unit then has a
recruiter. So then the child interacts with the recruiter and
goes on Wednesday's Child and all that.
Once the family is found, the recruiter is gone, and the
child gets an adoption worker. And then--but the siblings can
be doing another thing. The sibling can be in a teen unit. The
sibling can be in residential.
So what we are proposing is that the family be given a
worker, who can work with that family, so that----
Senator Landrieu. Absolutely.
Ms. Schneiders [continuing]. Around these different issues
there can be sibling visitation, the parent knows who to call,
and they are not calling five different workers because this
child is here and another child is there. And that when a child
makes some progress, the worker knows the progress and the
struggles to that progress and can benefit from that and move
the child to the next level.
Every time a worker changes, they go back to square one, to
try to learn the case and learn the facts. And they come to
court and say: I have only had the case for 3 months. I do not
know anything about it.
Senator Landrieu. That is what we are determined to end.
Let me just state that now. I know the chairman has additional
goals--we are going to end that system in the District and, as
much as we can, throughout the child welfare agencies around
the country. We are going to move to a system where there is
one worker either per child or one worker per family, that
knows the child, knows the family, knows the history, and stays
with it, creating that kind of system.
I am going to end with this. We are going to minimize the
number of group homes that exist, maximize the number of real
families, not to underestimate the contribution that foster
families make, but to make therapeutic real families for
children to move into temporarily. And they are either going to
move back to the family that they came from or move into an
adoptive family.
So the business of foster care is going to be eliminated
over a short period of time. Children will be in real families.
And the case work has to get down to a manageable level for the
caseworkers with consistency.
So I will end on that. Let us continue to pursue with this
GAO report, Mr. Chairman. It is very disturbing in the sense
that I know we have made a lot of progress, but this outlines a
tremendous amount of work that has to be done.
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator Landrieu. This committee is prepared to provide
resources and guidance and assistance. What I am not prepared
to do is to wait another 5 years for some of these changes to
take place. They are too important, and they are too critical.
And there are children's lives that are in the balance.
So thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Ms. Ashby, you state in your testimony that many
caseworkers find the FACES database difficult to use. In your
research, did you find that this was due to the system actually
being difficult to navigate, or what was the problem?
Ms. Ashby. I do not----
Senator DeWine. Or was it a lack of training for the
caseworkers or--you know, look, the only reason you go to a
system like this--I am stating the obvious. But the only reason
you go to a system like this and put the money into it is so
that your caseworkers have more time to be caseworkers.
Ms. Ashby. Right.
Senator DeWine. And, you know, the same with policemen. You
have technology so a policeman can be a policeman. And you want
the caseworker to be a caseworker. And you want him or her to
have more information at his or her fingertips about the
client, about the child and about the child's family and get
that information so you can serve that child better.
Ms. Ashby. Correct.
Senator DeWine. Now if the system is getting in the way of
that or if the caseworker cannot use the system or if the
caseworker is working around the system, we have a problem. And
I get the impression we have a problem. So what is the deal
here?
Ms. Ashby. All right. I cannot give you a definitive
answer. I suspect that it is all of the above, that in some
cases, perhaps, a caseworker is intimidated by an automated
system. That is not unusual.
Senator DeWine. Yes. I get that. I understand.
Ms. Ashby. There is training available, as I understand it.
And there is actually, I think, up to 3 days training. So I
find it hard to believe the training is an issue. Time may be,
the time it takes to gather the information and put it in the
system. I do not know if access to computers--and I do not know
if every caseworker has a desktop computer or not. Dr. Golden
is indicating that that is the case. So access to the computer
is probably not the problem.
Maybe it is culture. I do not know. If you have an
organization that is saying that historical data is not
important because that was last year or 2 years ago or 3 years
ago, maybe that is interpreted to mean, well, maybe today's
data is not that important either, because a year from now, 2
years from now, that will be historical. I do not know. We did
not look at FACES in terms of the technical aspects of it or
inputting data, per se.
Senator DeWine. Well, let me ask this, and let me again be
more provocative here, Dr. Golden: When you are--is that a
problem when your organization is not putting a premium on
historical information, because you are not putting it in? And
you are not putting a premium on it, and, therefore, the
caseworker says: My organization is not paying the money to put
it in or is not mandating it be put in, and therefore maybe it
is not important to be put in.
Dr. Golden. Senator, what----
Senator DeWine. You are looking me in the eye, and you are
basically telling me it is never going to go get put in. That
is the impression, because you have never answered me whether
it is ever going to be put in.
Dr. Golden. Senator, let me----
Senator DeWine. Now have you, Doctor?
Dr. Golden. I think what I focused on, and it sounds as
though----
Senator DeWine. Doctor?
Dr. Golden [continuing]. I am giving you the wrong answer,
sir.
Senator DeWine. Have you ever told me it is going to be put
in? Please give me a yes or no.
Dr. Golden. I----
Senator DeWine. No. I take it as a no.
Dr. Golden. Right. I mean, I think----
Senator DeWine. It is never going to be put in.
Dr. Golden [continuing]. Data from 1998 hard copy records,
you are----
Senator DeWine. It is never going to be put in. So that
caseworker is never going to have that information about this
child.
Dr. Golden. The caseworker has the information in a hard
copy record.
Senator DeWine. Has to go get the hard copy, which----
Dr. Golden. Senator, I am glad to go back and talk to staff
about this issue. But I wonder--what I want to tell you is what
we have learned, because we have hugely changed social workers'
use of FACES. And I actually, in my management meeting the
other day preparing for this hearing, asked people why they
thought there had been a huge transformation and culture
change. Because we are--and we are doing that not only with our
own workers, but with the private agency workers. Because it is
right, that in the past people did not use it.
What has transformed that is that not only are we now
managing it every week, but we have made it easier for social
workers. We have had a group that meet regularly, that seeks to
change, for example, the investigations screens, the case plan
screens, so they are useful to the worker. So we have just
transformed people's use of it currently.
I hear, Senator, your concern about whether in our intense
focus on having people use this system in an up-to-date way so
it is helpful to them, we have neglected something that we
should have gone back and done. And I will go back and ask that
question. But what I really want you to know is that the
current culture of using the system and of the focus on data at
every level is just transformed. And our private agencies, we
have cases managed by our private agencies, when we started
managing the data, they were looking behind. And they did not
like to look behind. They think of themselves as doing a good
job. They discovered that they had big FACES training issues.
And we went out and did all of that work.
So I think we have transformed that. And I will certainly
go back and find out whether, in our haste to really reform the
current, there is something we should have done differently in
the past.
Senator DeWine. Well, if your answer to me would have been,
Senator, it just costs too darn much money to do it, I might
understand it. I might not agree with you. But I do not even
hear that.
Dr. Golden. I do not think it ever----
Senator DeWine. I mean, I am not even sure I understand
what you are even telling me. I am not--I did get a good
night's sleep last night. I mean, I just do not get.
Dr. Golden. Well, perhaps I am just hearing wrong somehow.
I think----
Senator DeWine. Here is what I am hearing, and take me
through this. And, look, this is only part of the problem. And
we have about another hour here.
Dr. Golden. Right. Of course.
Senator DeWine. So everybody just relax. We are going to
have a long time.
Dr. Golden. Of course.
Senator DeWine. What I am hearing you tell me is, we have a
new system. It is a Cadillac system. And it is going to give
our caseworkers the information they need, which is part of
what is going to make my caseworkers do their job.
Dr. Golden. Right. It helps them do their job better and
help us hold them accountable.
Senator DeWine. And there is training. And there is a lot
of things that will make caseworkers do their job better. One
is training. One is ratio. So that, as Senator Landrieu talked
about----
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. So we do not--the casework
ratio. Supervision. There are a lot of things that would go
into it. But one would be a computer system that gives me the--
I can download the information.
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. Okay. So we are only talking about one
thing, but it is important, one thing. And what I am hearing
you say is that I have a new system, but I am only going to use
part of the system. Each child is only--I am only going to
retrieve part of the information about that child. And then the
rest of the information will not be available to me. Now it
will be available to me, if I go back and look at the file. It
just seems so inefficient. I do not quite get it.
Dr. Golden. Well----
Senator DeWine. And I am not hearing any answer to why you
are doing it that way. And I would really like to move on. I
would just like to give you an answer.
Dr. Golden. Right. I mean I can give you the best answer I
can. Then I will go back and look. I do not think that it
ever--as with any system implementation, I do not think it ever
occurred to us that--we have the basic information about 1998,
for example, that lets us check past reports. I do not think,
because I do not think it typically happens when you implement
a system, that going back, collecting those hard copy records,
and, if they have information about things like whether there
was a--how soon the person contacted the child, which may or
may not be in there. It may or may not be in there
systematically. We do now know the quality. I do not think it
occurred to us to try to collect all those records and fill in
that specific information----
Senator DeWine. How about if the child----
Dr. Golden [continuing]. Because we are so----
Senator DeWine. How about if the child had more--how about
more basic things? How about more significant--not procedural
things, but how about basic facts about the child?
Dr. Golden. Those should be there. Everything about--I
should not say anything, because, again, it depends on the
quality----
Senator DeWine. Would those be the system?
Dr. Golden. Those should be in the system, yes. I mean,
again----
Senator DeWine. Where the child was physically.
Dr. Golden. That should be there, if it was accurately kept
at that time. We do not know the quality of work in 1998 or
1999. So if that is anywhere--but yes, where the child was, the
age.
Senator DeWine. Well, I mean, if it is in your hard file.
Dr. Golden. Right. That should be there.
Senator DeWine. That is there.
Dr. Golden. That should be there, unless it was----
Senator DeWine. That would be in your computer system.
Dr. Golden. That should be there, if it was in the hard
copy.
Senator DeWine. If the child received some sort of
treatment, that would be in there?
Dr. Golden. I do not think treatment information would be
likely to have been very well collected----
Senator DeWine. Whoa.
Dr. Golden [continuing]. In 1998 or 1999.
Senator DeWine. Whoa. Is that not important? I mean, I can
see----
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. Notification being important.
That is procedure.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. But if the child--let us say the child has
been sexually abused.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. And the child went to see a psychiatrist.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Would that not be important?
Dr. Golden. It would be important. It may or may not be in
the hard copy record.
Senator DeWine. Oh, my lord.
Dr. Golden. It may or may not have been done in 1998.
Senator DeWine. You are kidding me.
Dr. Golden. Right. That is an area where we have had to
make huge reforms, the whole area of mental health services and
the way----
Senator DeWine. You are telling me that is not even in the
hard copy.
Dr. Golden. It would depend on the quality of the work. At
that point, sexual abuse investigation----
Senator DeWine. If it was in the hard copy, would it have
been transferred to the computer?
Dr. Golden. I do not know if service information as well
transferred to the computer, probably not.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Now that is what I find shocking. Now
here, let us get to what I find shocking.
Dr. Golden. Yes.
Senator DeWine. If it is in a hard copy and it is in a file
about Jim Smith, a little boy who has been sexually abused, I
would expect a caseworker to be able to pull that up on a
computer and to know that the child has been sexually abused
and has had a psychiatrist talk to him, or whoever the
counselor was or whatever it was.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. That to me is important. It is not
important that historically 3 years ago, there was a court
notification, et cetera.
Dr. Golden. Right, which is the kind of information that we
are not updating.
Senator DeWine. Right. I am not worried about that,
historically.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. Okay? What I am worried about is that that
caseworker, who is dealing with that child, knows that that
child has been sexually abused and knows that that child went
through a treatment with Dr. So-and-So, so he could pick up the
phone and call Dr. So-and-So and find out about this child, if
he needed to do that.
Now would we agree that that is important?
Dr. Golden. I would agree that that is important.
Senator DeWine. And would we agree that that all be in that
computer?
Dr. Golden. I agree that if we had that information, it
should be in the computer. The concern I am expressing is that
that is an area where I think that the problems back in 1998
and 1999 went way deeper than the computer system.
Senator DeWine. Okay. But what you just told me----
Dr. Golden. I agree.
Senator DeWine [continuing]. It might be, might be, in the
hard copy. But what you just also told me is, even if it was in
the hard copy, it might not have been transferred to the
computer. That is what I find offensive and alarming. And I
think you ought to fix it.
Dr. Golden. Thank you, sir.
Senator DeWine. Okay. We are going to--and I apologize to
everyone on the panel. We are going to have to stop. We are
going to have to recess this for about 10 minutes.
I have a press conference on missing and exploited children
in this same building. I am going to try to get to the press
conference, get back from the press conference. We are going to
stop this panel. We are going to come back here in about 10
minutes, as soon as I can get back. And I apologize for that.
And I will come right back. But it will be at least 10 minutes.
You can take a break, whatever you want to do.
Thank you very much. One of the GAO conclusions that I have
listed here shows only 1 percent of children with the goal of
reunification had a parental visit at least every 2 weeks. Now
I find that to be a shocking statistic. Only 1 percent of
children who had a goal of reunification had a parental visit
at least every 2 weeks. So that means we have a child, all
these children, who have a goal of reunification. And yet only
1 percent of them are seeing a parent every 2 weeks.
How could that be? How can you reunify a child with a
parent, and only 1 percent of them are seeing the parent every
2 weeks?
Dr. Golden?
Dr. Golden. That is a huge issue for us. The number that we
have from the court monitor's report is about 12 percent. So
that is the court monitor's finding from her review. It was an
improvement for the year before, but it is clearly completely
untenable. I agree with you completely.
What we are doing about it is three or four different
strategies. One big obstacle was a history in the agency of not
having community sites for visitation and the logistics of
parents coming into town and into our building. We have put in
our contracts with all our community-based partners to
facilitate and supervise visitation. So we are working a lot on
community-based sites.
A second piece of it is engaging the family early. Because
one of the things that can happen, in the agency's past, we did
not reach out to family members early on. And that made it much
harder to engage them later. We are moving towards, though we
have a long way to go, early case conferences.
And we are focusing much more in our--both in our work with
our community partners and with our own social workers on
building on--once you have all the family members involved,
then you have to do the visitation. I expect we are also going
to learn a lot about scheduling, what we need to do to
accommodate parents' work schedules. I think there is a whole
set of things. I agree completely that that is an area where we
have to keep working very hard.
Senator DeWine. Anybody else on the panel want to discuss
that issue?
Ms. Schneiders. From a practitioner's point of view, when a
case comes in, there is an automatic goal of reunification for
the child for a period of time until, you know, we work through
that. And in those cases where there is an automatic goal, not
a plan goal, but just because it is a new case, it is a goal of
reunification, sometimes the parents simply do not show up.
They are still very heavily involved in drugs. So you may
schedule a visit, but it does not occur. So it constitutes as
no visit.
Senator DeWine. Sure. Although--I understand why--you know,
you have many cases. But 1 percent is an unbelievable figure,
or even 12. I mean----
Ms. Schneiders. Right. I was----
Senator DeWine. Even if it is only 12 percent. I mean, it
is still unbelievably low to me. But----
Ms. Meltzer. In our study, 66 percent of the children
actually had no visit over the period, the first 8 weeks in
foster care, that we looked at that. So it is a critically
important issue. It is critically important that the family get
involved right away with the agency on the development of the
case plan. And in your own State, Ohio, there is really good
experience, particularly I know in Cleveland, where they have
implemented Family-to-Family. For any child coming into
placement, the agency convenes a family team meeting, with the
family and the extended family, within 24 hours of that
decision or before the decision is made. They have found that
that is a very helpful strategy, because you use that meeting
to make sure that the placement is one that is the best match
to the child's needs. You sometimes can avert the placement by
working with family members to identify family resources. And
then you set up, at that early point, the visitation schedule
with the family.
It is one of the things that we have been talking to the
District about, either implementing something like that or at
least convening a family meeting within the first 7 days of a
child entering foster care, which is the requirement under the
LaShawn order.
Senator DeWine. Now I have another statistic here that says
that 46 percent of foster children have current case plans.
Could that be right? It is from the GAO report, 46 percent of
foster children have current case plans. What does that mean?
Dr. Golden. The court monitor study shows approximately
doubling on that number over the year, from--to reach a number
of about half from May 31 of 2001, when 25 percent of foster
care children and 9 percent of kinship and family services
children had current case plans, to about 50 percent May 31,
2002. That is an enormous issue for us which we are working on
in several different ways.
One way is the improvements in automation. So both with our
own staff and with the social workers in our contracted
agencies, we have really improved the case plan screens so that
they are very user friendly.
A second piece of that is the work we are doing to bring
down the caseload ratios that we discussed with Senator
Landrieu. A key part of that is not just addressing the
average, but addressing the issues of the workers who are most
overwhelmed that Ms. Schneiders described. And so we focused on
having no one at the top end.
And the third issue is with the Court in terms of our
scheduling and work with them. So that sounds about accurate,
about where we are. We have raised our quality standards at the
same time. And that is one that we have very ambitious goals
for ourselves for improving over the next year.
Senator DeWine. I would like to go through, if we could,
Ms. Schneiders's recommendations. And the way I would like to
do it is for her to take about 30 seconds on each one of them.
She has already done it, but I would like to get us back into
it. And then I would like Dr. Golden, if you could respond to
each one of them.
Ms. Schneiders, you want to do that? I have your written
testimony. I could read them, but I think it would probably be
more effective if you just explained each one of them from your
written testimony. You have nine recommendations. I would like
to go through each one them.
Ms. Schneiders. The first one refers to the need for active
and aggressive recruitment of therapeutic foster homes so that
there is a pool of families with whom to place children. And
the children need to be matched with the family.
I can give an example. Just recently, I have a child who
requested of the judge in January for a family. The judge
ordered that a family be found for this child, who was 15 years
old. Nothing happened until----
Senator DeWine. Excuse me. I want to make sure I have----
Ms. Schneiders. It is on page 3 in italics.
Senator DeWine. Okay. I am looking at a different----
Ms. Schneiders. I think----
Senator DeWine. I am looking at your apparently original--I
do not care how you proceed. But I have your original one. And
actually, it starts with outside review of reports of abuse and
neglect that get diverted to community-based services. So I do
not care which one you go from, but----
Ms. Schneiders. Okay. I was going from the oral one. And
the one that I think is in circulation----
Senator DeWine. Okay. How many do you have in your oral
one?
Ms. Schneiders. Pardon?
Senator DeWine. How many recommendations do you have in
your oral one? Are they the same?
Ms. Schneiders. They are the same. There are a few more in
the full----
Senator DeWine. All right. You do it however you want to do
it.
Ms. Schneiders. All right.
Senator DeWine. You proceed however you----
Ms. Schneiders. I will take the ones that are in the report
that everybody has, just so it will make it easier.
Senator DeWine. It does not matter. You do it however you
want. I just want to make sure we are literally on the same
page here.
Ms. Schneiders. Well, in the full report there was
reference to the number of diversion of reports, which I did
not address orally. So that is problematic.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Let us do it.
Ms. Schneiders. That is on page 4 of the full report. The
concern that those of us who are advocating for children is the
number of abuse and neglect reports that come into the agency
that get diverted to the community. They do not go directly to
the court. They are not papered, as they say in the court
system. They go back to the community for community service and
then very frequently will come back to the court at a later
date when there is a more severe incident of abuse, where the
community services were inadequate to address that.
And we are recommending that somebody look at a 6-month
period or 12-month period and find out, of those abuse and
neglect reports that came in, that got diverted to the
community, how many of those came in in worse shape than they
were originally when the first report was made. And that if the
community agencies are not able to really respond to and
support these families at that level, and the children are
getting re-abused or more severely abused, then we need to look
at that diversion strategy to--it is an effort to keep children
in their families. And I understand the rationale for it. But
it----
Senator DeWine. I am not sure I understand. Give me an
example. What happens?
Ms. Schneiders. 10:30 at night, a call comes in, a child
who has been, you know, abused, sexually abused, physically
abused, whatever. The case, which normally would have been
brought to the court the next morning and papered or petitioned
as a neglect case, brought into the system and followed the
normal route. The decisions that are being made at the front
end that a collaborative, a community-based, service agency
could handle that case. So the case then gets sent the
following morning back to the community, to a community
collaborative, a community-based program, to say we have a
report of abuse, go see this family, look into it and see, you
know, can you provide family services or can you provide, you
know, something else.
The decision making as to how serious the report was and
how serious the--or how much service is needed is left at the
front end of the referral process. So the case goes back. It
may stay in the community for another 3, 4, 5, 6 months. And
then we get it back again with a more severe incident of abuse.
And then it gets put into the court system and into the foster
care system.
Senator DeWine. So your recommendation is what?
Ms. Schneiders. My recommendation is that there be, whether
the GAO or somebody look at all of the referrals that are
coming in and being diverted back to the community before they
are brought to court, to see if in fact this is an effective
strategy to divert them to the community or are children
suffering greater harm than is necessary, if they had been
brought in to the court, looked at it, monitored it for a few
months, and reunified.
And that that effort that we are doing right now of bring
it in, petition it for the court, let a judge take a look at it
and have, you know, some advocacy there, and reunify the family
quickly through the strategies that we have, may be safer for
the child than one worker in the intake department making that
decision on his or her own, sending it to the community, and
we----
Senator DeWine. So the current system is--my background is
a criminal justice background. The current system is what, sort
of a diversion system?
Ms. Schneiders. It is a front end diversion.
Senator DeWine. I mean, it diverts it out and never gets
into the system.
Ms. Schneiders. That is right. That is right. It keeps it
at the community. So maybe some of those families that are
being counted where there are services being provided in the
community to the family, which is a good thing--I am not saying
we should not provide services to families at the community
level.
Senator DeWine. Right.
Ms. Schneiders. But there needs--we need to look at who is
making the decision about the safety of the child in
determining that the case does not need to go to court.
Senator DeWine. Well, who is the best person to monitor
that, though?
Ms. Schneiders. Well, I do not know. I do not know who is
monitoring it now. I mean, I know the authority to make the
diversion is at the point of intake. I do not know if there is
a case review or a strategy. I know that the cases are not----
Senator DeWine. Dr. Golden, how do we know that is working?
Dr. Golden. I guess two things. The first----
Senator DeWine. Who monitors that?
Dr. Golden. Who monitors how we do our intake and
investigation and those choices would, I think, be two or three
different places. One would be the supervisory chain. That is,
the intake worker making that decision with their supervisor
and their program manager. In many cases, there is a--they have
a risk assessment. And they are also trying--this goes to what
the court monitor said a moment ago about actually, I think,
probably our problem in the District compared to other
jurisdictions is that we do less of that than many places,
rather than more.
So we are trying to draw in the community and the family.
In many cases, though, rather than divert right away, we would
have that community, we would have that meeting with the
community and the family. And then our worker has to make the
judgment about the seriousness. They are making it within ACC,
typically with a corporation counsel. So there is that piece.
In addition, we are doing a variety of outside reviews. We
obviously have our court monitor, who looks at our practice. We
have just had a look at our placement practice in general by
some of the national experts, including Judith Goodhand from
Cleveland. So I actually--I think that their overall advice is
actually going to be that the District has been behind on
getting support in early. But I will note that concern and make
sure we look at both sides of it.
Ms. Meltzer. I am not sure that I actually agree with the
description of what is happening that Ms. Schneiders has
presented. My understanding of the emergency assessment program
that is in place is that the only cases that are being diverted
are cases that do not rise to the level of substantiated abuse
and neglect. They are diverting cases that are the borderline
cases, trying to get some community services in place to
support the family to prevent some of these cases which
otherwise might have come into the system.
Senator DeWine. Oh, okay.
Ms. Meltzer. Now the bigger question, I think, that is
raised, is the importance of looking over time at repeat
reports. These include cases that have been served by the
system and then are closed and then you have a repeat incidence
of maltreatment, as well as cases where that was never
substantiated and you have a repeat maltreatment report.
Looking at repeat reports and cases is work that the agency has
to do through its own quality assurance process. And it is a
part of the work that we will do in monitoring the quality of
investigative practice.
Senator DeWine. Well, would you agree with that, Dr.
Golden?
Dr. Golden. Yes. And I think that we are in fact, as Ms.
Meltzer has highlighted, we divert without our involvement
where we think it does not meet the threshold. We also are
trying to get community supports in, even if we are going to
keep going with it, because we might, for example, identify a
family member who could be a caretaker for that child. And I
agree with those ways of monitoring.
Senator DeWine. What is your system to go back and figure
out how many of those cases that you made a mistake on? And you
are bound to make mistakes. I mean, everybody makes mistakes. I
mean, this is an art. This is not an exact science.
Dr. Golden. Yes.
Senator DeWine. I mean, you make a judgment call that this
is not a--that it does not rise to an abuse case. This is not
an abuse case. This was not an abuse case. And you go back and
look and you say, well, obviously it was.
Dr. Golden. Let me tell you about----
Senator DeWine. We missed that one.
Dr. Golden. Right. I think there are several pieces to that
process. And some of them are not finished yet, which is why in
all of these I am telling about a work in progress. Because,
remember, up until 18 months ago, we did not even do the abuse
investigations. Those were with the police. And now we do.
The first thing is that in any abuse case where there is a
concern that it might rise to also having a criminal side, we
would be jointly investigating with the police. So that is
important to note. But second, in a case where, in terms of how
we are doing and are we making mistakes, the initial review is
the supervisor signing off and the program manager and the work
with the attorney. Then there has to be the quality assurance
look and review, where we are both looking at data and going
back and looking at a sample of cases. We are in the process of
picking across everything we do in the agency, where are the
most important places to focus that.
I think the other key safety net is that for those cases
were someone in the community is involved, we are also
constantly talking with them in terms of if they see something
that is getting worse, that they need to bring back to us. So I
think you always having to be looking at both sides in order to
make it better.
Senator DeWine. Do you want to proceed to No. 2 of the
recommendations?
Ms. Schneiders. The second recommendation refers to the
need for CFSA to pursue justice for children through criminal
prosecution of those children who are physically and sexually
abused. I can speak to any number of children that I represent
where the child has been physically abused in the home. I have
one case where there are three children in the home. One was
sexually, was burned and shot. The third child was scalped. And
there had been no criminal prosecution of those cases at all.
There was another retarded child that was sexually abused
in one foster home, sexually abused in a group home. And we
finally got him into a therapeutic foster home. There has been
no prosecution of that case. And the rationale is they are
young, they are retarded. And so--and it is difficult to do.
But that CFSA has all of these corporation counsel within
their building even under their control, I think injustice to
children, there needs to be more prosecution of these cases and
more aggressive, you know, digging for the facts that can
actually prove that this child was in fact harmed. The staff
get fired, and they go off into the sunset, and nothing is done
to prosecute any of the people who are responsible for these
abuses.
Senator DeWine. Dr. Golden?
Dr. Golden. I would very much like to see those examples,
because it is very distressing to me if the police or the U.S.
Attorney's Office were not proceeding to prosecute. We, I
think, would be comfortable advocating with them. I really feel
our relationship with both the police and the U.S. Attorney's
Office, which does prosecutions, is quite strong now. So I
would like to see those examples.
Ms. Schneiders. Because in the 10 years that I have been
practicing with this system, I have never had a case of
physical or sexual abuse prosecution by corporation counsel.
Dr. Golden. Well, the prosecution is not by the corporation
counsel. It is by the U.S. attorney. But I have been in--
because now with the stronger relationships that exist, DCAC,
the Joint Advocacy Center exists to go to address all of those
cases where prosecution is potential. I actually, from my
experience of observing that, had the sense that the issues
that there might have been with the police and the U.S.
attorney, in terms of making sure we coordinated well, were
better. So I need to know about those cases. And we will find
out if we need to advocate for them.
Ms. Schneiders. Well, the two cases that I cited were both
seen by the Children's Advocacy Center. The children were
interviewed. And the case was closed.
Senator DeWine. Are these current?
Ms. Schneiders. Pardon?
Senator DeWine. How long ago were these cases?
Ms. Schneiders. These are still active cases. These are----
Senator DeWine. I mean, how long ago did the criminal act
occur?
Ms. Schneiders. In the child that was scalped, she is now
3. It happened when she was 6 weeks old. So it is within a 2-
to 3-year period.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Dr. Golden. So it would be useful to know----
Senator DeWine. But what Dr. Golden is--what I am hearing
her say is that she believes that the relationship between her
office and the U.S. Attorney's Office is better.
Is that what you are telling me, Dr. Golden?
Dr. Golden. Yes. So I would want the information, to
understand why they did not choose to prosecute or what the
issues were. It would help us to have that information.
Ms. Schneiders. The third recommendation is that CFSA needs
to invest in active and aggressive recruitment of therapeutic
foster homes. And I started to give the example of the
youngster in January who asked for a foster home. The Court
ordered the foster home in January. In March, we were told that
there were no homes in the system that this child could go to.
The judge issued a show cause. CFSA came to court and said,
``We have one home with one bed in it. And we're going to put
him there.''
And I raised the question as to whether this was a good
match, should this child be in this home, did they even want a
15-year-old. In looking at it, they didn't want a 15-year-old,
but they were kind of pressured to take the child because they
had the only available bed. The child ran away within 4 days
and is currently back in a group home facility in April. And
there is no home available.
And, you know, with the number of children coming into
care, I think we really need to have a pool of homes available
so that we can find the right home for the right child and hope
that one placement will be all that is needed and not two or
three bounces before we get to a match.
Senator DeWine. Doctor?
Dr. Golden. I agree that recruitment of foster homes that
can meet the needs of our children and support of those homes
is really critical. My testimony has an example where that has
made a big difference for a child, because we have been really
focusing on foster homes, rather than group care, which is the
past history for many years at the agency.
And the example in my testimony was a child who had been in
many residential and psych hospital placements. And through a
new process that draws in the Department of Mental Health we
were able to stabilize her in a foster home. And you and I have
talked about following up on this case.
But I agree completely. And I think that the successes we
have had in sharply reducing the number of young children in
group care come in part from supporting foster homes better,
though I think they also come for identifying kin support. So
this is a very important area for us to keep working on.
Senator DeWine. How many foster families do you need?
Dr. Golden. We actually are working this year on a target
with the District--this is just in the District. We also have a
lot of children in homes in Maryland--by the end of this fiscal
year between 50 and 100 additional families in traditional.
That is not counting the therapeutic we are talking about here.
And we will learn, as we go through that process, we probably
need more than that over time. We now have----
Senator DeWine. Well, that many more or how many do you
have altogether?
Dr. Golden. Our total right now--the numbers in my
testimony are in the District. And then I can give you broader
ones. The District numbers are about 150 traditional foster
homes, more than 300 kin homes. And just as a side point, the
other point in my testimony, the other story, is about having
greater success as we work with families earlier at identifying
kin who will care for children.
But if you look totally in the District and Maryland, both
within our agency and contracted, it is 900 to 1,000 foster
homes, including all the kinds.
Senator DeWine. And how would that breakout be between the
District and Maryland?
Dr. Golden. Let us see. It is about half and half, a little
bit--I am looking at which of these are active, but roughly
half and half between the District and Maryland in terms of our
number of foster homes. We are working very hard to recruit in
the District. That is why I told you our target for increases
in the District, because we think it is generally better for
children to be in homes in their community. But we have also,
as I think you heard in the GAO's testimony, signed an interim
agreement with Maryland, which actually helps both the
jurisdictions. It is about both making sure that we are able to
have them do what we need them to do in terms of support in
Maryland about meeting their needs and the children's needs
while children are in Maryland.
Senator DeWine. And you have no agreement with Virginia?
Dr. Golden. We actually had a terrific meeting with
Virginia in the fall. And for a variety of reasons, in terms of
their timetable, our next meeting is now set up for several
weeks from now. We have a meeting scheduled for later this
month. And with Virginia, they are interested in expanding the
interim agreement with Maryland, which focuses on foster care
placement, on criminal record checks of potential foster and
kin placements, and on an abuse and neglect investigation. I
think with Virginia we are also interested in talking about
some adoption-related issues.
Senator DeWine. Ms. Schneiders, do you want to continue?
Ms. Schneiders. The fourth recommendation refers to the
need for services for children. Children coming into foster
care as abused and neglected children are almost universally in
need of therapy to deal with the loss of the parent, the abuse
that they suffered. They also are very frequently children who
are behind academically, who need tutors.
At the present moment, we can get a tutor for 1 month. And
then it has to be renewed for the next month and renewed for
the next month. And we do this on a monthly basis, which delays
time. It disrupts the tutoring, because the tutor is not
available while the referral process is going on.
Mentors are only allowed on a 3-month basis. So a child
forms a relationship, and the mentor either has to leave or be
renewed. I know it is an effort in monitoring costs and all the
rest of it, but it is very disruptive to the services for the
children. And unless--I now know that I immediately ask the
Court for an order for a 6-month tutor or a semester for a
tutor. Because if I get it in a court order, I will get it. But
if you just simply ask the agency for a tutor, you get it on a
monthly basis. If you ask for a mentor--I ask for a mentor now
for a year. But it has to be done by court order in order to
get it, rather than getting it through the agency. And I think
the agency needs to acknowledge that these children need the
services and leave it to the judgment of the social worker as
to whether the tutor needs to be for a semester or a year.
Because this is where some of the problem comes with the
workers and the amount of time they spend doing these
perfunctory types of re-referrals month after month after
month. And yet we know the children need the services. And we
know 1 month of a tutor is not going to do any good. And the
recommendation basically is that services be readily available
to these children on a consistent basis and not in the
fragmented way in which we are currently doing it.
Dr. Golden. Let me comment on the overall recommendation
for services, and then specifically on mentoring and tutoring.
We have talked a little bit. There is a set of very particular
contractor issues there.
In terms of overall services for children, one of the
things that was most clear to me when I came and that I think
is clear as we develop the implementation plan for the modified
final order is that the District's history of not having
services for children and families has been pervasive across a
range of services, including in terms of dramatic needs of our
children's mental health, because the District has not had a
child and family mental health system.
That agency is coming back from receivership, did come back
for receivership at the very same time as we have. And we have
pushed intensively with them to build that network and have it
be there for our children. And again, there are some examples
for particular children in my testimony.
We know and they know that we have a long way to go. For
example, one of the things we really focus on is having a child
be able to have an appointment for therapy regarding the trauma
that they experienced during their abuse as quickly as
possible. And what we are finding, as we start tracking that
and looping back to the Department of Mental Health is that
sometimes there are process steps they can do, but sometimes
there is just issues of capacity, of having the person
available. So that is an area that we are working on with them
very intensively.
In terms of mentoring and tutoring and other services, we
are doing a big contract reform. We are trying to get more of
our dollars into the front end services for children and
families. Specifically in mentoring and in tutoring, we have
had contracts with a relatively small number of companies. We
are trying to enlarge and broaden, increase the use of
volunteers in some of those areas. And we have also had
concerns from some about quality and appropriateness. So we are
trying to review them better.
We had a lot of comments on our draft proposals. I have not
had the chance, I do not think, to see any comments from Ms.
Schneiders. And I would like to seek you out after this and
make sure we have those. But our general direction there is
that we are trying to broaden the range of possibilities,
include volunteer as well as paid, and make sure that the
mentoring is appropriate and that we are looking at it to make
sure that it is good quality.
Ms. Schneiders. That does not address the issue, though, of
needing to get a tutor and then re-get a tutor and re-get a
tutor, whether having a tutor for a month and having a mentor
for 3 months, which is a current policy, is really in the best
interest of the children. Because once the tutor stops and we
do the reapplication, you may get another tutor. And then that
one stops, and you get another tutor. So the disruption and the
fragmentation is very problematic to the children that are
trying to use these people.
Senator DeWine. All right.
Ms. Schneiders. The fifth recommendation regarding the--it
may not be within the purview of this committee. And that is
the dismantling of youth forensic services, which was an
excellent service for children and for the Family Court, where
we had trained people who understood the court system,
understood child development. And that whole unit right now has
no psychiatrist, one unlicensed psychologist and one licensed,
and three social workers. So it is virtually useless in terms
of getting quality assessments of children.
The current problem with Child and Family of getting
current assessments is finding people who are qualified to
evaluate young children.
Senator DeWine. Excuse me. That unit is under what?
Ms. Schneiders. I think it was under the Commission for
Mental Health. But Child and Family used it through the court
system rather extensively. And we got very good, comprehensive
evaluations of children and their parents. And now we are just
scattered all over. And the people that are currently
evaluating children very often have no knowledge of child
development and the types of therapy that children benefit most
from.
And as I said, I am not sure that the family has any
control over that. But it is a serious concern.
The sixth recommendation and the ones that follow all
relate to the whole issue of the adolescent. And I think this
is a population that is very badly neglected in the Child and
Family Services. A lot of emphasis has been placed on adoption
and reunification of young children. But the child who gets
past the adoptable age and the child who gets into the
adolescent age because their parents are not ready to, or have
not made the progress, and so they end up at 14 up to 21 really
children in limbo in this city.
They are youngsters--currently, the legislation says that
children can be or should be kept in care until age 21,
although they may be emancipated at 18, if in fact they are
ready. That is a very human and responsible and necessary
element of our law that needs to be kept in place. Trying to
reduce it to age 18 is unconscionable. These children--our own
children are not ready at 18. And I think if we did a poll of
people in this room who had children 18, they are still at
home, they are college hoping they will grow up, they are in--
they may be there until they are 25 or 30. And they have had
good nurturing homes.
To say that a child who has been abused and neglected and
bounced around foster family to group home to residential
treatment to psychiatric hospital are somehow going to be ready
at 18, or even 21, to then go out and be independent is just--
it is a myth. And the children who leave the system are not
generally prepared to do so.
I had one youngster who joined the Marines. And she has
done very well. And I watch for her on television every day
now, as we proceed through this war. But two youngsters this
month, one, as I said, is currently homeless. She called me two
nights ago to say, ``Ms. Schneiders, where can I?'' We knew she
had no place to go. But she was 21. Her case was closed and
nothing was done to guarantee that she had housing or a means
of support.
The other youngster has two children. She was given the
Salvation Army Shelter and a list of city shelters to go to.
She is, you know, currently staying back with her abusive
father until she can get into the shelter.
The housing situation is critical for these youngsters. And
CFSA does get a handful of vouchers, I think it is like 100 a
year, from the Federal Government. And that is referred to in
one of the recommendations where the--the vouchers that are
given to CFSA right now are all allocated to parents who are
trying to reunify, which is a good thing. I am not negating
that. But we should not take the parents who have abused these
children and give them housing and take the children who have
been abused and put them on the street. There is something
wrong with that logic.
And we do not have a mechanism and Child and Family for
guaranteeing that our children who emancipate are safely cared
for at that point. And I would ask that a serious look be made
at how they are emancipated, what the housing situation is and
the employment. We do not help them get jobs at the point of
emancipation to make sure they have an income. We send them to
TANF. We tell them how to get food stamps. And I think that is,
you know, just an unacceptable way of emancipating our
children.
Senator DeWine. Dr. Golden.
Dr. Golden. At our last local advisory board meeting, we
talked about the fact that we all think we need to be working
in stronger ways with adolescents. One of the effects of the
past history of this system and of the District's very broad
policy is that compared to other States we have a very large
proportion of young adults. We have about 13 percent of all the
children in our caseload are young adults 18 to 21. And we
talked about asking Ms. Schneiders and others to help us work
on that system. And I know I appreciate her commitment to do
that.
The District--we are supporting the current law, which
continues services to children until 21. We are very unusual
compared to other States. Most States have some kind of
voluntary commitment arrangement between 18 and 21. And at one
point, we were talking about that. We got input that, given the
history of our young people, having that arrangement from 18 to
21, being voluntary and not court supervised would be a bad
thing to do here. And so we heard that feedback.
I think the issue for me is that we are--again, it is
looking at the effects of all of these years and of the
District's absence of services as a whole. We have to do better
for the young people coming into the system, so we do not have
as many young people who are 18 and have spent 2 years, 10
years, in the system. And at the same time, that is one of the
challenges of this moment in reform, we have to be changing the
front end, and we have to be taking seriously the needs of the
young adults in the system at a time when the District as a
whole faces a lot of big problems that really hit them hard,
like housing.
And I know, Senator DeWine, in your focus on the District's
appropriation as a whole, a lot of these are about the pieces
that we need in place. What we are working on right now is
trying to improve the years 15 to 17, independent living and
skills and support for young people. And I think we are also
planning to staff several months before aging out, young people
who are about to turn 21. We are planning to work with the
collaboratives and our community partners on what they can do.
But I think this is a hard one. And I really want Ms.
Schneiders and community help as we think it through.
Ms. Schneiders. When I think of the vouchers that the
agency gets from the Federal Government, a percentage of them
need to be reserved for the children who need them, as well as
for the parents who need them. I do not think 100 percent of
them need to go to the parents solely. I think we need to say,
these are our children, we are the surrogate parent, and we
need to allocate a percentage of those for the children. Not
all the children need them, but some really do need that front
end help. And that is referred to in recommendation 7.
Senator DeWine. Let me just interrupt a minute, because I
want to make sure I understand the testimony.
Dr. Golden, Ms. Schneiders in her written testimony she
says, ``CFSA is now proposing to reduce the age of emancipation
to 18 instead of the current age of 21.'' Is that true or not?
Dr. Golden. It is no longer true. As we had let her and
others know----
Senator DeWine. That is no longer true. Okay.
Dr. Golden [continuing]. We had discussed that idea,
because we felt as though some kind of voluntary arrangement
might work better. We got feedback from Ms. Schneiders and
others saying it was a bad idea. And we are no longer proposing
it.
Senator DeWine. Okay. So that is not true anymore.
Dr. Golden. It is not true anymore.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Got it.
Ms. Schneiders. In recommendation 8 we are recommending
that CFSA design an integrated program of services that are
staffed with persons who know how to engage young adults in
meaningful activities and to include the young people in
participation in this. I think we need to have a mechanism from
hearing from these 18- to 21-year-old youngsters of what do
they need, what do they find helpful, and what will get them
ready. There currently is no mechanism, although I have
proposed it on other occasions that there be a task force of
young adults in the system as to what they need in order to be
prepared to leave the system. And we still would strongly
recommend that they be involved in that process.
Dr. Golden. I have been meeting, though not as regularly as
a task force forum, with a group of young people in our system.
And I agree very much that their perspectives are very useful
in shaping where we go.
Ms. Schneiders. And then the final recommendation in this
section is that there be some form of an aftercare department
for these youngsters. They do go out at 21. They think they are
ready. They try to do something. And then everything falls
apart. And then end up on the street. They end up in a shelter
or nowhere. And they need to be able to come home.
If they have lived their childhood, as some of these
children have, at Child and Family Services, they should be
able to come home to Child and Family and ask for help in an
aftercare type of arrangement, just as adoptive parents very
often do. There is an aftercare for adoption. Adoptive parents
think they know what they got into when they adopted. They run
into trouble. They can come back and ask for help. And our
children should also have some place, some department, where
they can come back and say I am stuck, I need help, you know,
to get me out of the predicament at this point in time. And I
would strongly recommend that that be considered.
Dr. Golden. I mean, it is interesting, because I think
about that recommendation a little bit from my experience at
the national level. And I remember how much difficulty we had.
I mean, many States just go through 18. Other States do the
voluntary involvement between 18 and 21. The District is one of
I think not very many that support all children through 21.
There is not Federal reimbursement for that period from 18 to
21, which is another issue the committee may want to consider.
So I think the question of what we can do after 21 and how
to do it is a hard issue for us and a hard issue everywhere. We
are trying to--I mean, in some ways the only answer in the long
run is that children need to be in families. And we need to not
have children aging out. So that is, I think, the longer run
answer. But for these young people, where we are going right
now is trying to build those links to the community better,
having it in our contracts with our collaborative partners,
``aftercare,'' as you described, building mentor and family
relationships in the community that will endure.
So that is the direction that I have been thinking about. I
do not know if there is any more formalized direction. And as I
say, I do think that there is an issue nationally even in
getting support in a voluntary process beyond age 18. So I
think we have to fix it so kids do not get to that age in that
situation. And at the very least, we have to build community
connections.
Ms. Schneiders. The final recommendation is one that
Senator Landrieu also referred to, the one case-one worker
policy and the reduction of the number of children. And I keep
emphasizing that we need to count children, not families.
Because families can range from one child to eight and ten
children in a family. So I do not think it is justified to say
one case-one family, so much as we need to count the children
that these workers are responsible for.
And I think if we can get that policy in place with the
reduction of the number, that no worker should have more than
20 children that they are responsible for, then we might get
the data into the computer that we were talking about. But
right now, when they are carrying 30 and 40 and 50 cases and
doing IUPs and treatment team meetings, they are not getting
data into the computer, even for current data, let alone any
back data.
Senator DeWine. I am intrigued by your comment, the
continual reorganizing of the agency is counterproductive. What
do you mean by that?
Ms. Schneiders. It seems as if there is a continual
process. Like about 2 months ago, the agency reorganized
everybody in the building on a given day, changed places,
changed locations, changed phone numbers, changed supervisors,
changed, you know, units, changed everything. The elimination
of one unit and its consolidation with another, it simply
causes confusion. And you call a worker and then you find out
that, well, I am no longer the worker because I am now in this
unit versus that unit. And you ask for the rationale for it,
and it is just: Well, we are reorganizing. We are, you know,
eliminating this department, adding this department.
There is no notice to the other service providers. You find
that there is no way to reach people with phone numbers. I mean
it is--foster parents, generally they call me to say: I do not
even know who my worker is anymore because I got--you know, I
called and the message says she is not the worker anymore; she
got moved to another unit.
I do not know the rationale. I hope maybe the last
reorganization may be the final one, but I am not overly
hopeful that is going to be the case.
Senator DeWine. Dr. Golden?
Dr. Golden. I am really sorry, Ms. Schneiders, that we did
not have a chance to talk when you had that concern, because
that definitely sounds like something we should have explained
more fully. Each of the--solving each of these problems, moving
towards one worker-one case, unifying abuse and neglect,
correcting our placement process has required that we have made
changes. We have created a whole new department of clinical
practice so that we have support for our workers. We have
created for the first time ever in the District an
institutional abuse unit. So we are able to look into reports
of abuse and neglect. We have created a whole new licensing
process, which was not--we did not have as a--did not exist in
the District before.
We have just improved our placement process for exactly the
set of reasons that you have highlighted, because we want to
make sure that children go to families. So we have changed
that. And we did because we have also been hiring social
workers so fast, we did find ourselves in a situation where we
needed to do a move so people could be physically lined up with
their units, because we are squeezed into our building, and we
did have to do that.
So I guess what I would say is that I think the amount of
change we have to do is very great. And I think that that
requires in some cases structural change, as well as hiring and
support for families. And we--I mean, I think that the pace of
change--and that is probably what my testimony highlighted.
Partly, I think, what you are experiencing, I am experiencing,
our staff, our foster parents, is that to meet the standards we
have for ourselves, the court, and the committee have for us,
it has been a phenomenal pace of change in 18 months. It has
been creating an agency where there were fragmented pieces
before.
And the question of whether that will slow down or whether
the amount of change we still have to do is going to be an
equal pace actually is something I am reflecting on now. And we
have been having lots of dialogue with the court monitor's
office on the implementation plan. But I think that our big
goal has been to make sure that each of those new
responsibilities, that we are able to carry it out.
So that is kind of core to me in terms of which steps we
take, in which order, and at which pace.
Senator DeWine. Do you want to comment about Ms.
Schneiders's goal in regard to children versus families?
Dr. Golden. Sure. And I might ask the court monitor to come
in after that. I think that the reason both we in many
jurisdictions focus on children in placements, and families in
the home, is because the social workers work when a child in
placement involves visiting and working with that child very
intensively. When they are supervising a family, their goal is
really for what we hope is a relatively short period of time to
strengthen that family so that the parent can take back their
role.
So that is, I think, the reason behind it. We do--one of
the things that goes with that is that you do not want workers
to have a lot of family cases. And the standard--because they
are very demanding. And so the standard in the modified final
order is very strict for how many cases a worker ought to have.
I think that we have the chance over the next year, as we bring
down caseloads, to do a workload study and try to see if there
is a better way to count.
But I think the big headline, which I think is probably the
most important one, is that the way we are getting a handle on
what has been a huge issue for years is by working every week
with a count of cases and workers working directly with the
social worker and the supervisor and focusing first on the ones
who are at the top end, so that we had a few months ago had got
down to nobody over 50 this week to nobody over 40. And so we
are focusing on the people who are most overwhelmed to try to
make an impact there first.
I do not know, Judy, if you want to----
Ms. Meltzer. The modified LaShawn Order has caseload
standards which are based on the Child Welfare League of
America standards. And they are: 1 worker to 20 children for
children in foster care, although they are 1 to 12 for children
with special needs. They are 1 to 17 for families, when the
children are in their own homes with their families. And they
are 1 to 12 for investigations. Those are the standards that
the District has to comply with. And the hiring has to match so
that they can get caseloads down to those caseload standards.
I personally think that when you are doing work with
families, you want the caseloads organized around the families.
But what you want to do is have the caseloads low enough so
that the worker can deal with both the needs of the individual
children in that family and the whole family.
The place where caseworkers complain the most is when one
child is in placement. So it counts as one case on their
caseload, if they are a foster care worker. But there may be
three or four children in the home with the family that, for
reasons that may or may not make sense, they are not in foster
care or they are not being served. And it is those situations
where I think caseworkers feel the most burdened.
The answer for me is caseloads that are low enough so that
workers can individualize the services to the needs of those
children and families.
Dr. Golden. And actually, one important step in terms of
just counting in a way that feels more responsive to our
workers is that in that situation you have just describe with
the child in foster care and a family at home, for a long time
that was a big issue with our union and our workers that we
were not counting the family work. Now we do, because that
worker is responsible for a child in placement and for
reunification. So they have to be doing work with that family.
And that should count. So we do count that.
Senator DeWine. Ms. Schneiders?
Ms. Schneiders. What we need to keep in mind is that when
we have one child in placement and three at home, the three at
home obviously something was amiss in that family which brought
one child into care. And therefore, that family needs closer
monitoring. With the three children at home, you know, it can
run the range of disability or need for service. They can be in
different schools. They can be--one needs therapy. They can be
different ages. You can have a disabled child at home, even
though it is not brought into care.
So I think there has to be some look at what is asked for
in that family, what is needed in that family, not just a
numerical count that meets a standard. So that when workers are
complaining at the amount of work they have to do with the
family, it can be three children in a family or eight children
in a family, as we have any number of families with large
numbers in them. And it counts as one. And I think there has to
be some method for looking at what it is we are asking the
worker to do. How many children are we asking that worker to be
responsible for in the provision of services?
Senator DeWine. All right. Dr. Golden, let me ask you for
your comment about this report. I am referring to the Child and
Family Services review, District of Columbia, from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, dated February 2002. I
am 7. ``A little evidence was found in the cases reviewed that
showed the agency as consistently petitioning to terminate the
parental rights of parents whose children have been in foster
care for 15 of the last 22 months. Of the foster care cases
reviewed, 54 percent of the children who were in care longer
than 15 months did not have parental rights terminated. And the
compelling reasons for not terminating parental rights were not
documented in the case plan or court order. Children in the
sample were in care an average of approximately 65 months
before they achieved their permanency plan or were still in
placement as of July 29, 2001 review.''
Now I understand that is July 29, 2001. And so what I would
like to do is just give you the opportunity to update that for
me.
Dr. Golden. Okay. That report--and as you know, Senator,
because I think you and I worked together when I was at HHS and
designed the child and family reviews. That was an experience
for me of having the Federal review right as I moved to the
District that I had previously worked on designing the
framework at the Federal Government. And I felt as though it
was extremely useful to us. It gave us the baseline, looking at
the past system that we then needed to use to move forward. So
it was extremely helpful.
One of the things, as you know, that is highlighted there
about the history of the system is that there was never a focus
on TPRs in the District. And that is--well, let me tell you
what we are doing about it. But then I want to give you just a
little more history, because it will help you understand what
has to happen to move forward.
There are really three parts to what we are doing. One is
an aggressive legal strategy. Last year for the first time, we
filed more than 100 TPRs, or the corporation counsel's office
did, more than many previous years all added together. And this
year we have expectations in our performance agreements with
our attorneys of filing many more.
A second piece is changing, improving our social work
casework, because another piece of it is making our decisions
earlier. It is about what we were talking about earlier,
engaging the family earlier so we can make up our mind whether
that is working or not, and having much prompter permanency
staffings and administrative reviews.
A third piece is working with the Court on the legal
framework for terminating parental rights. And Judge
Satterfield and I actually just talked about that this week,
about moving ahead on that.
The history in the District is that there is a second way
of terminating the rights of a parent in an adoption, which in
the past was used almost exclusively instead of TPR. And that
is terminating the rights during the adoption petition through
a show cause. I am not a lawyer, but it happens at the point
where there is an adoptive home identified. And it only
terminates rights for that home.
That approach, which was historic in the District, has big
disadvantages for children where it delays timeliness or makes
it harder to recruit adoptive homes. So the Court is now--we
are both being more aggressive. And the Court is very open to
working with us so that we continue to move forward on that. So
those are the pieces of our strategy.
Senator DeWine. Okay. I appreciate that. I thank you for
that. Where are we now, though? Are these figures still
accurate, 65 months? It says children in the sample were in
care an average of approximately 65 months before they achieved
their permanency plan.
Dr. Golden. Was that a sample----
Senator DeWine. Is that about right now?
Dr. Golden. It is not right if it is all children. If it is
children with a goal of adoption, I do not know. The numbers I
have right now, in terms of permanency, are that our median
across all of our open cases is a little under 3 years, which
is way too high. But that is for sort of all of our open cases.
We have done a little research work looking at a sample of
cases at the point they close. And it is clearly in the 2- to
5-year range.
I do not know. Typically around the country, if you look at
the sample that closes for adoption, it is even higher. So I
guess the main thing I would say to you is that I know that
time until a case closes is too high. It is--that number, it is
not as high as that number, but it is definitely higher than it
should be. And that is part of what we have to work on.
And part of it--this may be more than you want to know
about the measurement of it. We do have--part of having so many
older young people and the history of the system's earlier
failures is that we are going to continue to have young people
who will be aging out at the same time we are trying to change
the experience of children who come in.
Senator DeWine. Doctor, with all due respect, if I was in
your position--and thank God, I am not. You have the toughest
job anybody has--I would want to know that.
Dr. Golden. Yes. Well, we just asked----
Senator DeWine. Why would you not want to know that?
Dr. Golden. I actually just asked for a study. So I
appreciate that.
Senator DeWine. You have to know that. You have to know
each different category. You have to know, you know, each--I
would want it broken down of each type kid.
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. Because it is a measurement of--how are you
going to hold everybody accountable on your team? Are you going
to back and say: Look, we have to do better than this? And you
are going to break it down. You are absolutely right. Kids in
the certain age category, you know, where are they? And the
kids in a certain age category, where are they? And there is
going to be reasons why some of them are going to be where they
are.
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. But for you to come in front of this
committee, or it is not just this committee, but in front of
the public, in a public meeting or anyplace, and not be able to
answer that basic question is a real problem. Do you not
understand that? It is just a horrible, horrible problem. How
can you run your department and not know that?
Dr. Golden. And the specific question is, not know the
median time to closure for cases.
Senator DeWine. Oh, it is not the--yes. But that is just
one question.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. I would want to know the range.
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. I would want to know----
Dr. Golden. Absolutely. Well, let me tell you what we are
doing about it. Because I agree. When I came to this agency,
the fact that there was no data available was a huge issue. Now
we have, as the court monitor will testify, data on dozens of
indicators. But I agree completely that the ones about
permanency, we know the average time to closure. We know the
average time cases have been open. That is that, I believe it
was, about 2.8 years. And we have actually just had some
graduate students work with us to analyze our data in more
detail. And that is where the information that I just gave you
came from.
So I think that that is exactly right. It is also an area
that we are working with the Court on, because they also have
an interest in tracking their data. And as we work on exchange
of data, we are making that more consistent.
Senator DeWine. And the universe is what? And Senator
Landrieu asked you this. But how many total cases are we
talking about?
Dr. Golden. Our total number of cases--the conversation she
and I were having was about the family cases and whether to
count the children.
Senator DeWine. Okay. How many kids are we talking about?
Dr. Golden. Right. And the number of children is about
8,000. The number of cases is about 5,000, because--of the
family cases. So that is about the total number. And we track
every month, not only those overall caseloads, but age
breakdowns, geographic breakdowns, information about the
investigations that come in every month and what percent are
substantiated, the children who have left our caseload but are
being supported by adoption subsidies. So all of those things
we regularly track.
Senator DeWine. But, I mean, I really would want to know
how long these kids were in care before they got a permanency
plan. I mean, that is just so basic.
Dr. Golden. Yes.
Senator DeWine. I mean, if they were not getting a
permanency plan, I have a problem, right?
Dr. Golden. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. A permanency plan is kind of a----
Dr. Golden. Well, until a plan, we do know. We know from
the court monitor's report and the court data about the
permanency hearing. We know that about 75 percent meet the AFSA
standards in terms of the permanency hearing, met it in 2001.
And we have to keep building on that.
Senator DeWine. Wait a minute. You do know what? I missed
that.
Dr. Golden. The share of children who achieve the
permanency hearing within the AFSA time line.
Senator DeWine. Okay.
Dr. Golden. I am sorry. I thought that was----
Senator DeWine. You know that.
Dr. Golden. Right.
Senator DeWine. But you do not know how many actually have
a plan in place, because that is what the quote is.
Dr. Golden. I am sorry. I thought you were----
Senator DeWine. Well, let me just read it again to you. I
am just reading directly from the report.
Dr. Golden. Okay.
Senator DeWine. ``Children in the sample were in care an
average of approximately 65 months before they achieved their
permanency plan.''
Dr. Golden. Right. So that means until they either went
home or were adopted. Right? That is until the closing of the
case. Right. And that is something that we know how long cases
have been in care, and the information that you are just asking
me for at the point of closure for different categories, we
have just had a special study done that looks at some pieces of
that. And I will be happy to share the more detailed
information with you.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Anybody have any other comments?
Well, I thank you all for your patience very much. I think
it has been a very helpful hearing. As I said at the beginning,
this committee will continue to have hearings on these issues.
We think it is very, very important. We want to work with you.
We want to try to be of assistance to you. And again, we thank
you very much. You each have contributed a great deal. And
there is nothing more important, I think, than what is going on
in the District than to work with our children.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Golden. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., Wednesday, April 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator DeWine.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
STATEMENTS OF:
ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOUG NELSON, DIRECTOR, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS SERVICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RUFUS KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND MEMBER, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.C. COURTS AND SECRETARY, JOINT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. Today we are convening a second hearing regarding the
fiscal year 2004 budget for the District of Columbia Courts. At
our first hearing last month, there was some confusion as to
capital funds required for fiscal year 2004.
My understanding is that since that hearing the courts have
worked closely with GSA to determine their actual capital
requirements for the next 2 years. According to the court's
written testimony, $244.8 million is being requested for fiscal
year 2004. This is an increase of $38.5 million above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, and $36.6 million more than
the President's budget request.
We would like to hear the witnesses today as to how they
plan to use these additional resources and how this increase
would work, including the success of the Family Court, as well
as the operations of the Superior Court. We are also interested
to learn how the court's facilities plan will be implemented in
a 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 is required by the Family
Court Act.
Today our GSA witness will describe the important role his
agency will have as a project manager for the renovation and
construction of court facilities.
I'm also curious to hear how the time lines of the D.C.
Courts' construction plans compare to other courthouse
constructions in other jurisdictions.
Given the constraints of the recently passed budget
resolution, frankly, it's going to be difficult for this
subcommittee to provide the increases above the President's
request for the courts. I would like to hear from Judge Wagner
how the President's proposed budget level, which is $36.6
million below the court's request is going to affect the
court's operations.
Also, I recognize that the most significant construction
costs will occur in fiscal year 2005. I urge the courts to meet
with officials from OMB as soon as possible to ensure that the
capital costs are requested in the President's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
The witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for opening
remarks, and copies of your written statements will be placed
in the record in their entirety.
Senator Strauss has submitted a written statement to be
included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
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. 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 especially know that Judges King, Wagner, and their staff have
worked hard on their budget proposal. I know that the fiscal marks that
he is testifying in support of today are what we need in order for the
D.C. Court System to continue to operate at full capacity. Since, as
the D.C. Senator, I myself cannot vote on this appropriation I am
limited to merely asking you to support his proposal.
In this hearing, the witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that
they request regarding capitol improvements requirements of the D.C.
Courts in fiscal year 2004. With the cooperation of and significant
input from General Services Administration, the D.C. Courts have come
up with a Master Plan for Facilities. This plan incorporates
significant research, analysis, and planning. I support this plan and
am happy that this subcommittee supports it as well.
However, as much as I appreciate having the support from this
subcommittee on the Master Plan for Facilities, I respectfully state
that this matter is not in the Office of Management and Budget or the
President's hands. I know that I need not remind you that Congress has
the final say over how much money is spent and it is very unlikely that
the President will veto the entire bill if more money is appropriated
on this project than is written into the President's budget. Of course,
that does not mean that Judges Wagner, King, and their staff should not
take the advice of Chairman DeWine and strongly advocate for this
project to OMB. It is still very important to have this project written
into the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget. Having it in there will
of course make it more likely that the money will be appropriated for
the project.
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 Committee's good work on
Family Court reform is in jeopardy without 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, these children
are best served by experienced advocates. 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 has 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.
In the long term, a family-friendly showcase state-of-the-art
Family Court with its own identity and a separate entrance is included
in the Master Plan that the D.C. Courts and GSA have compiled. I am
also happy to see that the Master Plan takes into account the
transition from the Family Court of today to the Family Court we will
see in the future. The two-pronged approach that includes the
transition, the final step means that this plan is well thought out,
and they are ready for the money to be appropriated for this important
project.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding
this important hearing and Judges Wagner and King as well as Mr. Doug
Nelson, Director-Property Development, GSA for working hard on the
Master Plan for Facilities and testifying today. 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.
Senator DeWine. Judge Wagner is, of course, the Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. We are also
joined by Mr. Doug Nelson, Director of the Property Development
Division, Public Building Services, National Capital Region,
General Services Administration. And of course also on the
panel is Judge King, who we welcome back again as well.
Mr. Nelson, why don't we just start with you, and just tell
us where you think we are, what do we need to know.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS NELSON
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. Thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital
budget request for the District of Columbia Courts. I'm Doug
Nelson and I am appearing here in my capacity of the Director
of the GSA National Capital Region's Property Development
Division. The Property Development Division is part of the GSA
Public Building Service, and we provide program and project
management services for major new construction, modernization,
lease construction, renovations, and repair and alteration
projects for Federal facilities.
Development of large, complex and technically challenging
projects of historical significance is not only part of our
Nation's legacy, but also GSA's. Our projects stand as a
testimony to the outstanding level of quality and service we
deliver to our customers.
GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to
provide project management services for their projects arising
from the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. GSA has
been supporting D.C. Courts' projects ranging in scope from
planning to minor repairs and alterations to major renovation
and new construction. We are now directly involved with
projects encompassing three existing buildings and a new
parking garage, all of which are located in and around
Judiciary Square.
The projects consist of the Family Court Interim Plan,
interior renovation of Building B to house, among others, the
Small Claims Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and
administrative offices. It also includes the partial renovation
of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet of the Moultrie
Courthouse John Marshall level to house part of the Family
Court; the renovation and adaptive reuse of the historic 1820's
old D.C. Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals,
including the new construction of the underground parking
garage; and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet the
space needs of the Superior Court to provide state of the art
facilities for the Family Courts.
These projects are related to one another, since room for
the Family Court is being created within the Moultrie
Courthouse by a combination of relocation of the Court of
Appeals to the Old Courthouse, the movement of the current
Moultrie occupants to Building B, and the Moultrie John
Marshall level renovation. Presently, all projects that I have
identified are underway, although each are at different stages
of completion.
The current status of each project: An 8(a) contractor has
been awarded a design-build contract for the Building B
interior renovations. The project is in the demolition phase of
construction and occupancy is scheduled for December of 2003.
The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and
creation of new courtrooms for the Family Court is being
designed by the architectural firm Oudens and Knoop.
The architectural firm of Beyer, Blinder, Belle, architects
and planners, has recently been selected for the Old Courthouse
and the parking garage, and we are using GSA's Design
Excellence program for that selection.
The architectural firm of Gensler has been recently
selected for the Moultrie Courthouse expansion utilizing the
Design Excellence program.
For your information, I have provided individual fact
sheets for the Building B project, the Old Courthouse and
garage project, and the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project.
These fact sheets provide more detailed information on each of
the projects.
In addition to the construction projects I have described,
GSA is also working with the D.C. Courts to prepare a master
plan for Judiciary Square at the request of the National
Capital Planning Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled
for presentation to the Commission early this summer, and
approval of this plan is essential for continued progress of
the projects.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Senators, we look forward to working with
you throughout the appropriate appropriations process, and I
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004
capital budget request of the Courts as it relates to these
projects. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Nelson
Mister Chairman, Senators, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request of the District of
Columbia Courts. I am Doug Nelson, and I am appearing in my capacity as
the Director of the GSA National Capital Region Property Development
Division. The Property Development Division is part of the GSA Public
Buildings Service and we provide program and project management
services for major new construction, modernization, lease construction,
renovations, and repair and alteration projects for Federal facilities.
Development of large, complex and technically challenging projects
of historical significance is not only part of our Nation's legacy, but
also GSA's. Our projects stand as testimony to the outstanding level of
quality and service we deliver to our customers.
GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to provide
project management services for their projects arising from the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. GSA has been supporting
D.C. Courts' projects ranging in scope from planning to minor repairs
and alterations to major renovation and new construction. We are now
directly involved with projects encompassing three existing buildings
and a new parking garage, all of which are located in and around
Judiciary Square.
The projects consist of:
--Family Court Interim Plan:
--Interior renovation of Building ``B'' to house, among others, the
Small Claims Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and
administrative offices;
--Partial renovation of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet
of the Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level to house
part of the Family Court;
--Renovation and adaptive reuse of the historic 1820's Old D.C.
Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals, including the
construction of a new underground parking garage; and
--Expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet the space needs of the
Superior Court and to provide state of the art facilities for
the Family Court.
These projects are related to one another, since room for the
Family Court is being created within the Moultrie Courthouse by a
combination of the relocation of the Court of Appeals to the Old
Courthouse, the movement of current Moultrie occupants to Building
``B'', and the Moultrie John Marshall level renovation. Presently, all
of the projects that I have identified are underway, although each is
at a different stage of completion.
The current status of each project is:
--An 8(a) contractor has been awarded a design-build contract for the
Building ``B'' interior renovations. The project is in the
demolition phase of construction and occupancy is scheduled for
December 2003;
--The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and creation
of new courtrooms for the Family Court is being designed by the
architectural firm Oudens and Knoop;
--The architectural firm Beyer Blinder Belle has recently been
selected for the Old Courthouse and the parking garage
utilizing GSA's Design Excellence program; and
--The architectural firm Gensler has recently been selected for the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion utilizing the Design Excellence
program.
For your information, I have prepared individual fact sheets for
the Building ``B'' project, the Old Courthouse and garage project, and
the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project. These fact sheets provide
more detailed information on each of the projects.
In addition to the construction projects I have described, GSA is
also working with the D.C. Courts to prepare a Master Plan for
Judiciary Square at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled for presentation to the
Commission early this summer. Approval of this plan is essential to the
continued progress of the projects.
Mister Chairman, Senators, we look forward to working with you
throughout the appropriations process, and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request of
the Courts as it relates to these projects. I would be pleased to
address any questions.
FACT SHEET.--D.C. COURTS BUILDING ``B'' INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the
Family Court Act of 2001. The scope of work is the renovation of the
interior of Building ``B'', located on 4th Street, NW, between E and F
Streets. Building ``B'' has three above-grade floors and an occupiable
basement totaling 68,000 OSF. Renovation of the building is being
carried out in two phases, with the building remaining partially
occupied during each phase. When the renovation project is complete,
Building ``B'' will house the Landlord-Tenant Court and the Small
Claims Court, as well as other Superior Court offices.
Current Status
The first phase of the project is currently underway. A design-
build contract was awarded to Dalco, Inc., an 8(a) construction
contractor working in conjunction with the architectural firm of Leo A
Daly. The demolition portion of the first phase is nearing completion.
The design of the new work is scheduled for completion in April 2003,
with construction to commence immediately thereafter.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Building ``B'' renovation. This contract includes
management of the design and construction phases of the
project.
--Design.--Design is scheduled for completion in April 2003.
--Construction.--Construction is ongoing, with the first phase new
construction scheduled to commence in April 2003.
Milestones
Award (Design-Build).--December 2002.
Design Complete.--April 2003.
Occupancy.--December 2003.
Cost
Design & Construction.--$13,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$1,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).
Total Budget.--$15,000,000 (fiscal year 2003).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
fact sheet.--d.c. courts old d.c. courthouse and parking garage
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts and includes the
restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Old D.C. Courthouse in
Judiciary Square in Washington, DC. The project also includes a new
underground parking garage adjacent to the Old Courthouse with space
for approximately 250 vehicles, which will be shared with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF). Designed in 1820, the
Old Courthouse currently comprises 96,000 SF. An additional 37,000 SF
addition to the Old Courthouse is planned as part of this project,
bringing the completed total square footage to 133,000. When complete,
the building will house the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Current Status
The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An
Architect/Engineer (A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA's Design
Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence
upon award in June 2003.
--Master Plan.--A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being
developed at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). The draft report is planned for a June 6,
2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of this plan is critical
to the continued progress of the project.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Court of Appeals and the parking garage. This
contract includes management of the design and construction
phases of the project.
--Design.--An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and
cost negotiations are planned to commence in early May 2003. A
single design contract will be awarded, but the A/E will
produce separate sets of construction documents for the garage
and the Courthouse.
--Construction.--The parking garage and the Old Courthouse are to be
constructed utilizing separate construction contracts.
Construction of the parking garage is planned to commence in
September 2004, with completion planned in December 2005. The
Old Courthouse construction is scheduled to begin in March 2005
and is scheduled for occupancy in March 2007.
Milestones
Design Award.--June 2003.
Design Complete.--Garage: February 2004; Courthouse: August 2004.
Construction Award.--Garage: September 2004; Courthouse: March
2005.
Garage Complete.--December 2005.
Courthouse Occupancy.--March 2007.
Remaining Cost
GSA has received fiscal year 2003 and prior year funds from the
D.C. Courts for this project. In addition, part of the garage cost is
to be funded by the USCAAF. A summary of the total projected D.C.
Courts project costs is as follows, with the remaining funds required
from the D.C. Courts:
Design.--Courthouse & Garage $5.4M (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--Courthouse & Garage $7.3M ($1.7M in fiscal year 2003; $0.7M
in fiscal year 2004; $4.9 in fiscal year 2005).
Construction.--Courthouse & Garage $66.5M ($8.8M in fiscal year
2004; $57.7M in fiscal year 2005).
Total Cost.--$79.2M ($7.1M in fiscal year 2003; $9.5M in fiscal
year 2004; $62.6M fiscal year 2005).
Remaining D.C. Courts Funding.--$74.1M ($2.0M in fiscal year 2003;
$9.5M in fiscal year 2004; $62.6M fiscal year 2005).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
fact sheet.--d.c. courts moultrie courthouse expansion
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the
Family Court Act of 2001. The scope of work is the expansion of the H.
Carl Moultrie I Courthouse building to provide more room for the
Superior Court's Family Court and to provide space for a new Family
Services Center. The Moultrie Courthouse is located on the south side
of Judiciary Square facing Indiana Avenue, NW. The project consists of
a 74,000 SF expansion of the building consisting of a 64,000 SF
addition along the building's south side and a new 10,000 SF pavilion
located on the north side. Related projects in Judiciary Square arising
from the Family Court Act include interior renovation of D.C. Courts
Building ``B'' and the partial renovation of the Moultrie Courthouse
John Marshall level.
Current Status
The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An
Architect/Engineer (A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA's Design
Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence
upon award in August 2003.
--Master Plan.--A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being
developed at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). The draft report is planned for a June 6,
2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of this plan is critical
to the continued progress of the project.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Moultrie Courthouse expansion. This contract
includes management of the design and construction phases of
the project.
--Design.--An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and
cost negotiations are planned to commence in July 2003.
--Construction.--Construction is planned to commence in May 2005.
Milestones
Design Award.--August 2003.
Design Complete.--September 2004.
Construction Award.--May 2005.
Occupancy.--June 2009.
Remaining Cost
Design.--$3,600,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$1,200,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$4,800,000 (fiscal year 2005).
M&I.--$950,000 (fiscal year 2008).
Construction.--$44,000,000 (fiscal year 2005).
Construction.--$7,700,000 (fiscal year 2008).
Total Remaining.--$62,300,000 ($4.8M in fiscal year 2003; $48.9M in
fiscal year 2005; $8.6M in fiscal year 2008).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Nelson, thank you very much. You set a
new record. You only took 4 minutes to testify.
Judge Wagner, you do not have to follow that precedent. We
will give you his extra minute. Judge Wagner, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER
Chief Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
Senators. Thank you so much for this opportunity to address
further our capital improvement requirements for the District
of Columbia Courts in fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am
Annice Wagner, and I am the Chair of the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, which is
the policy-making body for the District of Columbia Courts.
With me is Chief Judge Rufus King III, who is a member of
our Joint Committee and who is the chief judge of our trial
court, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. We also
have other staff members present with us. We have Anne Wicks,
our Executive Officer, and secretary to the Joint Committee,
and Mr. Joseph Sanchez, the Courts' Administrative Officer.
They are here to provide detailed information to the committee.
The Courts' capital funding requirements are significant,
as we know. That is because they include funding for projects
critical to maintaining, preserving and building safe and
functional courthouse facilities which are essential to meeting
the heavy demands of the administration of justice in our
Nation's capital.
Since we appeared before you, we have held several, or a
series of productive meetings with the General Services
Administration, which as you know, is the program and project
manager for the Courts' construction and renovation projects.
As with any complex construction project, we are informed that
ongoing refinement of the design, acquisition, and construction
plans have led to changes in project approaches, which affect
the Courts' capital funding request for fiscal year 2004.
Two points should be emphasized about these changes at the
outset. First, these changes do not change the timing for the
completion of the adaptation of the Old Courthouse for use by
the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Moultrie Courthouse expansion,
or the interim and final Family Court plans which will be
discussed more fully later. And second, they merely shift
capital costs from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The
shift in timing of funding has had no impact on the
construction time line, as you have heard, and all capital
projects remain on schedule, at least as of today.
Recent studies by GSA have shown the Courts' space needs,
which will occur over the next decade, and indeed show a
current shortfall in space. To meet these needs, we have three
major approaches.
First, renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use
will provide space for the District's court of last resort, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and this will free space
in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations,
including our Family Court. Second, construction of an addition
on the Moultrie Courthouse, a major portion of which will be
developed as a separately accessible state of the art Family
Court facility. And third, the future occupation of Building C,
which is adjacent to the Old Courthouse.
The readaptive use of the Old Courthouse is critical to
meeting the space needs of the entire court system. Investment
will improve efficiencies by co-locating the offices and
support facilities and provide 37,000 square feet of critically
needed space in the Moultrie building. As you know, the
Moultrie building is uniquely designed to meet the needs of the
trial court particularly, because of its secure corridors
through which many many prisoners have to go each day to the
various courtrooms within the building. It's well suited to
that.
It is also well suited to the planned addition for the
Family Court, which will be facilitated through the master
plan. This addition allows for development on C Street of a
separate Family Court entrance, with its own name appearing on
the building, which will provide a welcoming facility for
families coming to the Court in the most difficult times of
their lives, no doubt.
The Moultrie building was built in 1978 for 44 trial
judges, and today it is strained beyond its capacity in order
to accommodate 62 trial judges and 24 magistrate judges, and 9
appellate judges, as well as senior judges and support staff
for the two courts.
I would like to take the time to mention the historical and
architectural significance of Judiciary Square, which lends
dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts. The
National Capital Planning Commission is requiring the Courts to
develop a master plan for Judiciary Square, essentially an
urban design plan, before construction can begin. The D.C.
Courts are working with several stakeholders on the plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, the National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and
the Metropolitan Police Department.
The Old Courthouse is the centerpiece of Judiciary Square
and is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia.
The architectural and historic significance of the building,
which was built from 1821 to 1881, led to its listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. Since it has been
vacated, thanks to the support of Congress, we have been able
to take steps to prevent its further deterioration and to begin
planning for its readaptive use.
The project will not only meet the critical needs of the
Courts by serving as the new site for the Court of Appeals, it
will also impart new life to one of the most significant
historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of
the Courts and it will benefit the community through an
approach of strengthening a public institution, restoring a
historic landmark, and stimulating the neighborhood's economic
activities.
There are a number of other buildings such as Buildings A,
B and C, which are in our master plan. Work is underway to move
the Superior Court's two highest volume courtrooms, small
claims and landlord-tenant, into Building B by this year's end.
This move will free much needed space in the Moultrie building,
for the development of a Family Court, which will include three
new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake
facility, a family friendly waiting area, and District of
Columbia government liaison offices for Family Court matters.
The Courts are pleased to be working with GSA on these
projects, and Mr. Nelson has explained some of them to you. As
we embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the
Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, we are particularly
pleased to have GSA's expert guidance and the guidance of the
experts whom they have hired. The master plan incorporates
significant research, analysis and planning by expert
architects, engineers and design planning.
I know that my time is short here, but there are two key
features that I want to mention about the interim Family Court
plan. During 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new
Family Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The
Court also constructed four new hearing rooms for Family Court
magistrates hearing child abuse and neglect cases, and
renovated space for the mayor's social services liaison office.
A key element of the Family Court interim plan is the JM
level construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new
courtrooms and three new hearing rooms, a centralized Family
Court intake center, a family friendly child waiting area, and
a new Family Court entrance on the John Marshall Plaza. The JM
level construction will be complete in the latter part of 2004.
We are pleased to be able to report that.
There is a long-term Family Court plan, as you know. I
won't get into it right now, but I will await your questions.
It is addressed in my written testimony to the committee.
Unless these infrastructure needs are addressed, the
functional capability of the Courts will decline and the
quality of justice in the District of Columbia will be
compromised. For fiscal year 2004, we ask for $52,889,000 for
capital projects, and as you know, the bulk of the funding
needed for the master space plan will come in fiscal year 2005.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Courts'
capital budget request, and we look forward to working with you
throughout the appropriations process. Chief Judge King and I
would be pleased to address any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for this opportunity
to address further the capital improvement requirements of the District
of Columbia Courts in fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am Annice
Wagner, and I am appearing in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia. The
Joint Committee, as the policy-making body for the District of Columbia
Courts, has responsibility, for, among other matters, space and
facilities issues in the District of Columbia's court system.
With me this morning are Chief Judge Rufus King III, a member of
the Joint Committee and the chief judge of our trial court, the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Ms. Anne Wicks, the
Executive Officer of the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee,
and Mr. Joseph E. Sanchez, Jr., the Courts' Administrative Officer.
The Courts' capital funding requirements are significant because
they include necessary funding for projects critical to maintaining,
preserving and building safe and functional courthouse facilities
essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice
in our Nation's Capital. Since appearing before you on March 12, 2003,
the Courts have had a series of productive meetings with
representatives of the General Services Administration (GSA), the
agency serving as program and project managers for the Courts'
construction and renovation projects. As with any complex construction
project, we are informed that on-going refinement of the design,
acquisition and construction plans have led to changes in project
approaches which affect the Courts' capital funding requirements in
fiscal year 2004 for these multi-year projects. Two points should be
emphasized about these changes at the outset. First, these changes do
not change the timing for the completion of the readaptation of the Old
Courthouse for use by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion, or the interim and final Family Court
plans, which will be discussed more fully later. Second, the changes
provided to us by GSA for fiscal year 2004 merely shift some capital
costs from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The total cost of
these projects and the GSA requirement for full funding at the
beginning of construction remain. The shift in the timing of funding
requirements has had no impact on the construction timeline, and all
capital projects remain on schedule.
FACILITIES OVERVIEW
Let me begin by outlining an inventory of the Courts' major
facilities and key features of our Master Space Plan for their use. To
administer justice in our Nation's Capital, the D.C. Courts presently
maintain 645,000 occupiable square feet of space in Judiciary Square.
Specifically, the Courts are responsible for four buildings in the
square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the Moultrie
Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B, which
are located between 4th and 5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W. In
addition, when the District government's payroll office vacates
Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will be
returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent studies by the General
Services Administration have documented the D.C. Courts' severe space
shortage. In 2002, the Courts were short approximately 48,000 square
feet for operations, with a shortfall of 134,000 square feet projected
in the next decade.
A recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities secured
by the GSA defined the 134,000 square foot space shortfall facing the
Courts and proposed to meet that need through three mechanisms: (1)
renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use by this
jurisdiction's court of last resort, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, which will to free space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial
court operations; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie
Courthouse, a major portion of which will be developed as a separately
accessible Family Court facility; and (3) the future occupation of
Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse.
The restoration and readaptive use of the Old Courthouse for the
District of Columbia's highest court, the Court of Appeals, is pivotal
to meeting the space needs of the court system. Investment in the
restoration of the Old Courthouse will improve efficiencies by co-
locating the offices that support the Court of Appeals and by providing
37,000 square feet of critically needed space for Superior Court and
Family Court functions in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Moultrie
Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial
court. It has three separate and secure circulation systems--for the
judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the
courthouse each day. Built in 1978 for 44 trial judges, today it is
strained beyond capacity to accommodate 62 trial judges and 24
magistrate judges in the trial court and 9 appellate judges, as well as
senior judges and support staff for the two courts. Essential District
criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space
in the Moultrie Courthouse. It is needless to say that the Courts have
outgrown the space available in the Moultrie building. The space is
inadequate for this high volume court system to serve the public in the
heavily populated metropolitan area in and around our Nation's Capital.
The Courts require well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient
operations in a safe and healthy environment.
The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
lends dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and at
the same time complicates somewhat any efforts to modernize or alter
the structures. Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the Nation's
Capital. The National Capital Planning Commission is requiring that the
Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially, an
urban design plan--before construction can be commenced in the area.
The D.C. Courts are working with all stakeholders on the Plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and the Metropolitan
Police Department.
The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, 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 and to readapt
it for use as a courthouse. Since it has been vacated, thanks to the
support of Congress, we have been able to take steps to prevent its
further deterioration. This project will not only meet the critical
needs of the Courts by serving as the new site for the Court of
Appeals; it will also impart new life to one of the most significant
historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of the
Courts and benefit the community through an approach that strengthens a
public institution, restores a historic landmark, and stimulates
neighborhood economic activity.
Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930's, are situated
symmetrically along the view corridor comprised of the National
Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, and John Marshall Park and form
part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These
buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent years,
with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. Work is
underway to move the Superior Court's two highest volume courtrooms,
Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant, into Building B by year's end.
This move will free much needed space in the Moultrie Building for
development of the Family Court, which will include three new
courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake facility, a
family-friendly waiting area and District liaison offices for Family
Court matters.
The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, while not
historic, is also located along the view corridor and reinforces the
symmetry of Judiciary Square through its similar form and material to
the municipal building located across the John Marshall Plaza.
Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of
Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk's
offices, as previously described.
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
projects since fiscal year 1999, when we assumed responsibility for our
capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works. In 1999,
GSA produced a study for the renovation and readaptive use of the Old
Courthouse. Later, in 2001, GSA prepared Building Evaluation Reports
that assessed the condition of the D.C. Courts' facilities. These
projects culminated in the development of the first Master Plan for
D.C. Courts Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space requirements
and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization, both in the
near and long term.
As we embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the
Master Plan for Facilities, we are particularly pleased to have the
General Services Administration and its teams of construction and
procurement experts working with us. We appreciate GSA's presence and
participation this morning to provide detailed information on these
projects that are so important to the administration of justice in our
Nation's Capital.
MASTER PLAN FOR FACILITIES
The Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities incorporates significant
research, analysis, and planning by experts in architecture, urban
design and planning. During this study GSA analyzed the Courts' current
and future space requirements, particularly in light of the
significantly increased space needs of the Family Court. The Master
Plan examined such critical issues as: alignment of court components to
meet evolving operational needs and enhance efficiency; the impact of
the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law Number 107-114);
accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and planning to
upgrade facilities, including, for example, security,
telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space
shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable
square feet, and proposed to meet that need through three approaches:
(1) renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use by the D.C.
Court of Appeals, which will free space in the Moultrie Courthouse for
trial court operations; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie
Courthouse, to meet the needs of the Family Court; and (3) reoccupation
of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In addition, the Plan
determined that other court facilities must be modernized and upgraded
to meet health and safety standards and to function more efficiently.
FAMILY COURT IN THE MASTER PLAN
Interim Family Court Space Plan
The Master Plan incorporates an Interim Space Plan for the Family
Court that provides the facilities necessary to fully implement the
Family Court Act, as well as a long term plan that optimizes space and
programmatic enhancements for the Family Court. The Interim Space Plan
for Family Court will be complete in the fall of 2004. As this Interim
Space Plan proceeds towards completion, procedural changes have been
implemented within the Family Court to meet the requirements of the
Family Court Act. I believe Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to describe the
status of the Interim Plan, which was detailed in the Family Court's
April 5, 2002 Transition Plan. Therefore, I will mention only briefly
the essential components of the Interim Plan.
--During fiscal year 2002 the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new
Family Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The
Courts also constructed four new hearing rooms for Family Court
magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect cases, and
renovated space for the Mayor's Services Liaison Office.
--A key element of the Family Court Interim Space Plan is the JM-
level construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new
courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, the Mayor's Services
Liaison Office, a Centralized Family Court Filing and Intake
Center, a family-friendly child waiting area, and a new Family
Court entrance from the John Marshall Plaza to the Moultrie
Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the
courthouse's JM-level will be redesigned and upgraded to create
family-friendly seating and waiting areas.
As stated previously, the JM-level construction will be complete in
the latter part of 2004, marking the implementation of the Interim
Plan. When the renovation of the first floor of Building B is complete
(fall 2003), the Small Claims and Landlord & Tenant courts and clerk's
offices will be relocated from the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse
to Building B, and Family Court construction will begin on the JM
level.
Long Term Plan
The long term plan includes expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse.
Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-friendly
facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity and
separate entrance, which will be a model for the Nation. We envision a
safe facility designed to alleviate the inevitable stresses on the
families who come to the courthouse seeking justice. We want the Family
Court to be inviting and welcoming to families with small children, to
families with teenagers, to all families. We envision a customer-
friendly facility that incorporates the ``one-stop'' concept by
locating all related court units in one place and making it easier for
families to access needed social services from D.C. government
agencies. The interim Family Court plans are designed to transition
smoothly into this long term plan and to maximize the efficient use of
time and money.
CAPITAL FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2004
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 we face today is
sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' severe space shortage
and aging infrastructure. Only by investing in these critical areas
will the Courts be in a position to ensure that the type of security
necessary to protect our citizens and our institution is in place, and
that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
up-to-date. Unless infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional
capability of the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the
District of Columbia will be compromised.
Based on figures from GSA, which reflect the current approach to
our major construction projects, the Courts' capital budget request for
fiscal year 2004 is $52,889,000, comprised of the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtrooms and Judges Chambers........................ $1,950,000
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades................ 16,220,000
Restoration of Old Courthouse (complete garage 4,519,000
construction)........................................
Restroom Improvements................................. 1,100,000
Elevator and Escalator................................ 2,000,000
Fire and Security Alarm Systems....................... 6,500,000
General Repair Projects............................... 7,740,000
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion......................... 1,200,000
Master Plan Implementation--Development Studies....... 550,000
Integrated Justice Information System................. 11,110,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 52,889,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA has been working with us on the two major, multi-year projects
to provide the majority of the additional space needed to meet the
134,000 occupiable square feet deficit identified in the Master Plan
for facilities: Restoration of the Old Courthouse and Expansion of the
Moultrie Courthouse. Over the next 2 fiscal years, 2004 and 2005, these
projects will require $117 million. As both projects are currently in
the design procurement phase, GSA will require the majority of these
funds in fiscal year 2005, when the major construction contracts are
finalized. In addition, to implement future projects required by the
Master Plan, development studies will be needed in fiscal year 2004;
these have been added to our capital budget request. I understand that
Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to provide more detail on the current status
of these projects.
Restoration of the Old Courthouse will provide space for the D.C.
Court of Appeals, the District's court of last resort. Restoring this
historic landmark will help meet the urgent space needs of the
appellate court and the entire court system and will preserve the rich
history of this building for future generations. When the Court of
Appeals vacates its current space in the Moultrie Courthouse,
approximately 37,000 square feet will become available for Superior
Court and Family Court operations. The Old Courthouse project includes:
restoration of the Greek Revival building; construction of additional
underground office and courtroom space, and a new entrance to the north
on E Street; and, as authorized by Public Law 106-492, construction of
a secure parking facility to be shared with and connected to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is adjacent to the Old
Courthouse.
The Moultrie Courthouse Expansion is comprised mainly of additions
presently planned for the south side (C Street) and Indiana Avenue
entrance of the courthouse. The C Street addition will result in the
expansion of five floors in the Moultrie building. The ground level
floors of the addition will enhance the Family Court by providing a new
courthouse entrance solely for Family Court, additional child
protection mediation space, increased Child Care Center space, and safe
and comfortable family-friendly waiting areas. The C Street addition
also will permit the Courts to consolidate family-related operations in
one central location, including juvenile probation functions and
District government social service agencies that provide needed
services to families and children in crisis. The upper level floors of
the addition will meet critical space needs for other Superior Court
operations.
The remainder of the Courts' fiscal year 2004 capital budget
request includes funding to: continue the implementation of the
Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS); enhance the security,
health and safety of the public using court facilities; and maintain
our deteriorating infrastructure. These important projects were
discussed in my March 12th testimony, and their funding requirements
remain as originally submitted.
CONCLUSION
Mister Chairman, Senators, again, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the Courts' capital budget request. We look forward to working
with you throughout the appropriations process. Chief Judge King, Ms.
Wicks, Mr. Sanchez, and I would be pleased to address any questions.
Senator DeWine. Judge, thank you very much. Let me start by
asking, to carry out this plan, you've got a real spike up in
costs next year, 2005, and this is just not going to happen,
frankly, unless the President puts it in his budget. We all
know that. What has been your communication with OMB about
this?
Chief Judge Wagner. Good question. While I have not have
had any recent communication with OMB about this, what I was
told was, it is not a question of whether funding will be
recommended for one of the first phases, which is the
readaptive use of 451 Indiana Avenue, the Old Courthouse, but a
question of when. We have shared our master plan in a full
briefing in May, I mean our staff has done that. In terms of
the principals meeting with the leadership of OMB, that's a
different matter. They are always made aware of our budget
requests and what the purpose of the capital funding is, and
our staff briefed them in a full briefing in May.
Senator DeWine. What kind of reaction did your staff get?
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, that's a good question, and I
might ask Ms. Wicks to respond to that. But the reaction that
I've gotten has always been it's not a question of if, it's a
question of when, and we know that the country has other needs,
but this country always preserves its historic treasures, its
symbols of its democracy, and in this case it can be used for
that purpose. So if that phase gets off the ground, we have the
Family Court support, I think that we can all accomplish this
if we work together over the next few years.
Senator DeWine. Why don't you step up and identify yourself
for the record.
Ms. Wicks. I am Anne Wicks, the Courts' Executive Officer.
We briefed the Congressional staff in May, a full briefing of
our plans. We also, in October, did our fiscal year 2004 budget
submission to OMB, and did a full briefing.
Senator DeWine. That was when?
Ms. Wicks. In October of this past year. At that time, OMB
felt that we weren't quite far enough along in the planning and
study for the capital projects. Since that time, as you all are
aware, we have completed the D.C. Courts' Master Plan for
Facilities, at the first of this year, which has been provided
to OMB. We are now at the point where we are nearly complete
with the Judiciary Square Master Plan, the first draft of that
plan will actually be presented in part tomorrow to the
National Capital Planning Commission.
So we're at the point now where OMB should have information
so that they feel we are very far along, and we are setting up
a meeting with OMB and GSA representatives to go through and
show them that we do have detailed plans at this point.
Senator DeWine. That's going to be at what level?
Ms. Wicks. Well, we will be meeting with Mark Schwartz, who
is the branch chief, and then after we brief him, I would hope
that he would help us set up something, as far as meetings
which will help us with this.
Senator DeWine. Well, I can't say this in--there aren't
strong enough words for me to urge you, Judge Wagner, Judge
King, you're going to have to go sell this. It is not going to
happen unless OMB is on board. It does not make me particularly
happy that they have that much power, but that is what the
facts are. If the Administration does not come forward next
year with this in their budget, it will not happen. This is a
chunk of money.
Now, I happen to support it, I think it's very important, I
think you have a plan, I think it's a viable plan, I think it's
essential for the future of the District of Columbia, the court
system. But if you don't sell it to OMB and sell it to the
Administration, it will not happen. Would you like to comment
on that?
Chief Judge Wagner. That's an excellent reminder, Senator,
and I appreciate that, and I guess my experience in the past
has been consistent with what you just stated, and we will make
every effort to make that happen at the executive branch.
Senator DeWine. Okay. I mean, it's just not going to
happen, GSA can't make it happen, and unless it comes up to the
level in that budget, it's just not going to happen. So, it
needs to come up here with the Administration strongly behind
it for it to have any chance of being done.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
And you know, that's where we have a major thrust on this,
I believe is 2005, isn't it? We're talking about how much money
in 2005, Mr. Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, in fiscal year 2005 for the D.C.
courthouse project, we're looking at $62.6 million, and for the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion, we're looking at $48.9 million,
for fiscal year 2005.
Senator DeWine. Now if you don't get that, what happens?
Chief Judge Wagner. For the capital budget request?
Senator DeWine. Right, what Mr. Nelson just said.
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, I don't think that, if you're
talking about for 2004, I'd like to----
Senator DeWine. I'm talking about 2005. I mean, what I'm
saying is you have to be worried, I'm worried about 2004, but
I'm also saying, they're thinking about 2005 now. They have
already submitted 2004. You know, you need to be on dual
tracks, you need to be worried about 2004, but you also need to
be worried with OMB about 2005, and unless you start to make
the case with people at OMB who are going to be ultimately
deciding your fate and unless somebody--you know, you need to
get out there, you need to be traveling around with them, you
need to be showing them around. You need them to see your
vision and unless they get it, it's pretty easy to say well,
that's just a lot of money and we can't do it.
Chief Judge Wagner. Senator, we're going to work on that,
and I'm glad you reminded us. We have done this type of
strategy before, and I think that we can get support from the
White House and OMB.
Senator DeWine. Well, I pray that you can but I just want
to put it into perspective. $118 million would be one-fourth of
the entire District of Columbia Subcommittee, our
subcommittee's allocation. Now think about that. Now I'm for
you, I am for it. You don't have to sell Mike DeWine and I
don't think you have to sell Mary Landrieu. Don't spend your
time worrying about us.
Go talk to the Administration. Go talk to OMB. Spend a lot
of time talking to them.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will do that, and we appreciate your
support.
Senator DeWine. I'm for you, it has to get done. If it
doesn't get done now, it will have to get done later. We have
kids to worry about, we have projects to deal with, it has to
get done, but you have to go sell them.
Let me move to a more immediate problem, and that is soon
enough, but let me move to a more immediate problem. Given that
the President's budget request is $36.6 million less than what
you are requesting, what are we going to do, or what are you
going to do if we can't deliver that money for you and if you
end up with, this subcommittee and this Congress ends up giving
you exactly what the President has requested? And that, let me
just tell you, is a distinct possibility. I'm not happy to tell
you that.
Judge King, Judge Wagner, let's just assume that you get
what the President says you should get. So that's 36, by my
calculation, $36.6 million less than you want, or maybe a
better way of saying that is less than you requested. I'm sure
you want more than that, but less than you requested. So what
gets cut?
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, I am saying it would have a
significant impact on some critical areas.
Senator DeWine. Well, tell me what.
Chief Judge Wagner. The Moultrie building has about 10,000
people coming through it every day. Since September 11th
everyone has been concerned about safety and security, as we
have. A part of the funding that we have requested, which we
would not be able to do if the President's numbers were enacted
would be to increase the number of court security officers for
our court building. We would not be able to finance other
facilities, security improvements, which are detailed in our
study, that is the monitors, the audio-video devices, the types
of things that you need to upgrade security in these kind of
uncertain times.
We need to invest in our implementation of the IJIS system,
Integrated Justice Information System, and some $4 million we
would not have in order to do that. We wouldn't be able to
enhance our strategic planning which is going to guide our
progress over the next 5 years. We wouldn't be able to invest
further in accurately creating trial records, which is critical
to a court of record. We asked for $1,624,000 to improve the
record of court proceedings. Those are just some of the items
that we have requested that I think are critical to our
functioning in the next fiscal year.
Senator DeWine. Well, I think it would be helpful for this
subcommittee if you prepared--I know we have just hit you with
this orally, but I think today--well, you have obviously seen
the President's budget before today, but we're going to need
from you, and if we are able to see if this is what you end up
with, we need to see a more detailed description of where
you're going to go.
Chief Judge Wagner. I'm sorry?
Senator DeWine. I need to see a more detailed description
of where you want to go, assuming that's what you end up with.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will be glad to submit that.
Senator DeWine. Why don't you submit that for us please.
What were your discussions with OMB in regard to your, the
2004 budget preparation? I'm looking at this pretty significant
cut. What were your discussions with OMB?
Chief Judge Wagner. I think Ms. Wicks could answer that.
Senator DeWine. I would be interested in what kind of input
they had from you.
Ms. Wicks. We provided them with a full budget submission
as we provided to Congress, detailing all of our budgetary
needs. We also provided them with studies and reports that
supported various parts of our budget request.
Senator DeWine. Did you have face-to-face contact with
them? Did you do interviews with them? I'm interested in the
process.
Ms. Wicks. I understand. I can't recall specifically this
past October, whether we did sit down with and meet with them
and walk through the budget. We had done face to face meetings
with them over the summer for the capital request and the space
planning. I can't recall, once we hit the fall and submitted
the full request. I believe at the time OMB had already started
the process; I think the President had speeded up the process
for them this year because of other issues, and so I think they
were very far along by the time we met with them.
Senator DeWine. Who would they have dealt with, you?
Ms. Wicks. They would have dealt with me and our Fiscal
Officer and staff in our offices.
Senator DeWine. Well, you would have remembered if they had
talked to you, wouldn't you?
Ms. Wicks. Well, I have so many meetings in a day, I don't
recall sitting down face to face with them at the time we
submitted the budget, but I do recall face to faces prior to
that.
Senator DeWine. Do you recall talking to them on the phone?
Ms. Wicks. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. What were they interested in?
Ms. Wicks. They were interested in more detailed plans and
reports on the facilities issues. We had several telephone
conversations in October trying to appeal the President's
budget and talking through what we felt were priority issues
for the year for reconsideration on appeal. Our focus was
security issues, facility issues primarily, for the courthouse.
We sent over security studies, the U.S. Marshals Service had
done surveys and studies of our building because they provide
primary security in the building. And we provided as much
information as we could--we sent over a box of reports and
information during the appeal process. We tried to talk through
with them what we felt about the importance of the issues.
And we actually, I recall being advised by them that the
Courts should consider themselves lucky because we did get a
slight increase in the President's budget compared to the 2003
level, where other agencies got nothing or got cut, so that was
their response to us.
Senator DeWine. Well, as I said, Judge, I'm interested in
getting from you a summary, at least, of where you would make
your cuts in regard to your proposal versus the President's
funding level.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will submit that for you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The information follows:]
D.C. COURTS CAPITAL REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2004--PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENTS FROM COURTS' REQUEST TO PRESIDENT'S
RECOMMENDATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts' Preliminary President's
Request Adjustments Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtrooms and Judges Chambers.................................. $1,950,000 .............. $1,950,000
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades.......................... 16,220,000 ($7,450,000) 8,770,000
Restoration of Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue............. 4,519,000 .............. 4,519,000
Restroom Improvements........................................... 1,100,000 .............. 1,100,000
Elevator and Escalator.......................................... 2,000,000 (1,000,000) 1,000,000
Fire and Security Alarm Systems................................. 6,500,000 (6,500,000) ..............
General Repair Projects......................................... 7,740,000 .............. 7,740,000
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion................................... 1,200,000 (1,200,000) ..............
Master Plan Implementation--Development Studies................. 550,000 .............. 550,000
Integrated Justice Information System........................... 11,110,000 (5,088,000) 6,022,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 52,889,000 (21,238,000) 31,651,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARISON OF COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, let me ask you, if
you look at construction plans for the Courts in the District
of Columbia, how does that compare with the courthouse
construction plans in other States or other cities? Is that
possible to compare them? I know this is kind of maybe in some
respects more complex, at least to me it looks complex.
Mr. Nelson. That's a good question, and it depends how
complex the courts projects are, but in the size that we're
dealing with, a design time frame for court projects usually is
about 14 to 18 months, and then construction depending on the
size, is about 24 months to 36 months, 2 years to 3 years for
construction.
This is complex for the Moultrie Courthouse because of the
additions that we're doing. You have an occupied building that
we will be dealing with. We tried to work on the schedules for
the projects so we could fine tune them where we get them done
as quickly as we could, because they were stressing the need
that they needed for the project, and I think we have a
realistic schedule for the design for the Old D.C. Courthouse
and for the Moultrie Courthouse.
PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Senator DeWine. So the summary, though, would be what? This
doesn't look out of the ordinary?
Mr. Nelson. No, it does not look out of the ordinary. For
the renovation work for D.C. Courts, it looks like it fits in
line with what we would be doing for a renovation projects. And
then for the additions that we're doing for Moultrie, they look
in line with the time frame for other projects.
Senator DeWine. This looks like a big chunk in one year.
Why is that? Why is there such a big chunk in 2005? Can that be
dealt with in some other way or is that just the way, is that
the way that it's preferred to deal with? Explain that to me.
Who prefers to deal with it that way, is that the courts or is
that you?
Mr. Nelson. I think it's how the master plan has been laid
out.
Senator DeWine. But why was it laid out that way, is my
question. Whose preference is it?
Mr. Nelson. Well, it's the Courts' preference for how
they're going to be moving people while the renovation gets
completed, and then when the work gets done in Moultrie
Courthouse, so there is a domino effect between those two
buildings for moving people around.
Senator DeWine. Maybe I wasn't clear. Could you spread that
money out over time, is my question. For budget purposes, could
you spread that out?
Mr. Nelson. For awarding construction projects, you have to
have all your construction funds in the fiscal year that you
make the award. And right now, both of those projects are
scheduled.
Senator DeWine. Is that your rule?
Mr. Nelson. It is a requirement in OMB Circular A-11,
insstructions for preparing the budget.
Senator DeWine. OMB's rule.
So that's what we're dealing with?
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. So you have to have funds before you start
the project?
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. That's not your problem, it's our problem.
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. And then they have to live with that
basically.
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. All right, thank you all very much. Does
anybody have any other comments? Judge Wagner.
Chief Judge Wagner. I just want to thank you again for your
support, for holding this hearing, for working with us on this,
and we will try to work on that other branch to get help.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Well, you work on them. Go sell.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF SISTER ANN PATRICK CONRAD, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, NATIONAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL OF
SOCIAL SERVICE, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF
AMERICA
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. Today we begin the subcommittee's second hearing within
6 weeks regarding the foster care system in the District of
Columbia. On April 2 we heard testimony that revealed a number
of serious problems and shortcomings with the District's Child
and Family Services Agency.
It is imperative that CFSA address these problems and
protect the lives of this city's children. Clearly, the
paramount reason for exposing CFSA's failures is to discover
ways to make lives better for the most vulnerable and precious
of citizens, our children. That's why today's hearing will
focus on ways that this subcommittee can target resources
towards new initiatives aimed at improving the foster care
system in the District of Columbia.
Before we hear from today's panel, I think some of the
points that were raised at our earlier hearing bear repeating,
so briefly: First, the General Accounting Office has determined
that CFSA is not meeting the official requirements of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act. This law, which I helped pass
and get signed into law in November of 1997, includes a number
of very specific provisions. It requires States to change
policies and practices, of course also the District of
Columbia, to better promote children's safety and adoption, or
other permanency options.
In fact since this law has been in effect, adoptions have
increased by nearly 40 percent nationwide. But, according to
the GAO, CFSA is not meeting the important requirements of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Another troubling finding that the GAO testified about is
the District's inability to track its children in foster care.
In fact, data is not even available for 70 percent of the
District's children in foster care. This is true even though
the District has invested resources in a new automated
information system that has been operational now for over 3
years. How can we track these children and determine their
well-being if they are not even entered into an automated
system, or certainly not fully entered into that system?
In addition, the chairman of the National Association of
the Council for Children testified that children wait weeks or
months before a foster care placement is available. Some more
of the children are waiting at group homes or overnight at CFSA
offices. They are often placed in whatever home has a vacancy,
irrespective of the needs of that particular child or the
preference of the family.
With the findings from last month's hearing as our
backdrop, I will now turn to today's panel. These witnesses
will describe their experiences with CFSA and will provide
ideas about ways that we can better protect our children.
Tragically, most children in this system have been traumatized
by neglect and/or abuse. Then add separation from their
caregivers. We should see to it that they do not experience
additional, and I might say avoidable traumas, because of a
failed foster care system. I look forward to hearing our
witnesses describe ways that we can work together to fix this
system.
Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for oral remarks;
however, we do have your written statements in front of us,
which will be made a part of the record. Let me just say that
the 5-minute rule we have, but we will be a little lenient in
regard to that, as we have some excellent witnesses and are
very anxious to hear your testimony.
Let me introduce the entire panel and then we will begin to
hear from all of you. Judith Sandalow is executive director of
the Children's Law Center. The Children's Law Center is a
nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to
children, their families, and foster and kinship caregivers in
the District of Columbia. We welcome you and thank you very
much for being with us.
Marilyn Egerton is the deputy director of the Foster and
Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center. This center assists foster,
kinship, and adoptive parents in the District of Columbia
secure supportive services. Thank you very much for being a
witness.
Sister Ann Patrick Conrad is an associate professor with
the National Catholic School of Social Service at The Catholic
University. NCSS is one of the top 20 schools of social service
in the Nation. Currently, 3,500 NCSS alumni are serving in the
fields of child welfare, mental health, social policy, social
justice and social work education. Sister, thank you for
joining us.
Jacqueline Bowens is the vice president for Government and
Public Affairs at Children's Hospital, and is also joined by
Dr. Joseph Wright, who is the medical director for Advocacy and
Community Affairs at the hospital. Children's is the only
hospital in the area dedicated exclusively to children's
health. The hospital currently runs the DC KIDS program, which
provides comprehensive healthcare services for children in D.C.
foster care. We thank both of you for joining us here this
morning.
Damian Miller is a 20-year-old student at Hampton
University. He has been in and out of D.C. foster care most of
his life, having lived in a total of, I believe, seven foster
and group homes. Damian has accepted an internship at the State
Department this summer. Damian, thank you very much for being
with us today.
In no particular order, we will start with--Sister, do you
want to start first, and we will just go from right to left?
Sister Conrad. Thank you.
Senator DeWine and members of the subcommittee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about some
options that I feel are available to the subcommittee to
enhance services in the District. I speak as a former dean of
the School of Social Service, as an experienced health and
family service worker, as the chair of the board of Catholic
Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, and also as a board
member of the Council on Accreditation of Child and Family
Services in New York.
I want to commend the members of the subcommittee for your
interest in the children of the District. It can really be said
that the mark of a truly compassionate civilization is the way
we treat our least fortunate, and so clearly, the children of
the District in need of substitute families through foster care
and adoption are among the persons who should be considered as
part of this group, whom we sometimes refer to as the real
human resources for the future.
Most recently, as I'm sure many have had the opportunity to
speak and talk with persons who have been in foster care and
adoption, I know we are going to have this opportunity today,
but one of the things that I think we want to be very aware of
is that the potential of persons who are in care is something
that we want to capture as a society and to grow and to
develop. I have had the opportunity to review the hearings of
the April meeting and I find that certainly the road to change
for the District has been a slow and arduous path, but one of
the things that is a serious and grave concern today is that
childhood is a very short experience, and it leaves a lasting
imprint, and this is particularly true for disadvantaged
children.
So for this reason, it is urgent that the future path be
directed toward quality service, and the point that I want to
make strongly is sustainability of the services, lest any child
be lost in the system.
At the School of Social Service we have worked over the
years to provide a sound curriculum in the field of child
welfare, and many of our students do go into this field. We
have also joined with our social work education colleagues in
this metropolitan area in providing continuing education and
ongoing training for social workers who are already in the
field.
A point that I want to make is that what our graduates and
what our students often find is that although they come into
child welfare with a real passion to meet the needs of children
and their families they serve, and they are deeply interested
in the clinical well-being of the children, very often what
they experience is that the responsibilities sometimes of
excessive documentation, support services, transportation,
crisis intervention, leave them little time to engage in some
of the really best practices that we attempt to teach them in
the School of Social Service. So this makes a real tension for
them.
Some feel that there is actually minimal or no public
recognition for a job well done, yet at the same time they have
a tremendous fear of the sense of sensationalism in the public
arena with little or no shared responsibility when deficiencies
do arise. So a major point, I think a major recommendation that
I think that we can do in the future is to truly affirm the
positive examples of competent foster care and adoption
services and to provide ways that there is public recognition
for our child welfare workers. I think this is a very basic.
At the same time, speaking from my experience with the
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, we've sat
down in the past couple of days and we have had telephone
conferences as late as yesterday. As I'm sure you know,
Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese is one of the largest
nonprofit providers, service providers in the District, and the
Charities contract with CFSA for foster homes for children,
many of which become adoptive homes, and also for independent
living services for young men and women, as well as for teenage
mothers and their children.
For the most part, the staff reports that their working
relationship with CFSA has improved tremendously over the
years. Now you have to remember that we're talking about people
that remember the days when the District did not make its
payments for foster care parents and when all of our budgets
had such tremendous deficits that we began to say, can we
really contract with the District. So with that perspective in
mind and with the perspective in mind that staff had often
tremendous problems in communication and in collaboration with
CFSA, what they find now is that CFSA, they feel is very
appropriately demanding an increased accountability. For
example, with case plans that require identified goals, service
plans for children and families, and timelines to be made
available.
But as was brought out in the earlier testimony, the data
system, the basic data system is often down, or just not
available to their use. And what they're finding is that it's
only very recently that they've been able to get a real
technological responsiveness in this regard. But I want to make
the point that that responsiveness does seem to be coming.
The other point that seemed to be very, very important in
my talking with the staff is that in the amount of change that
has taken place in CFSA, there are, as one would expect,
infrastructure disruptions. But what has been happening more
recently that they do find helpful is the strengthening in
communications. There are now monthly meetings that allow CFSA
to provide information, and also that allow the contractors to
be able to ask questions as they need them.
A point of major concern, and I know it was discussed
before but I wanted to reiterate, the fact that it's taking as
long as 90 days to complete the licensing of foster homes and
this, the staff finds very, very difficult in them being able
to move children into a care system.
Based on all of this then, I think it's important that we
recognize that foster care was initially developed in our
country as a response to children who were orphaned either as a
result of a mother's death, accident, a father's dying in the
war, physical health problems. The children were generally,
they were fairly healthy and well adjusted experiences, and
they could fit into foster homes much more readily.
However, the current situation is not the case. Children
now come into foster care because of abuse, family violence,
community violence, drug situations, substance abuse, many
other problems. So the children who come are already
traumatized. As was pointed out, what we find is that in many
ways the health care, the mental health care in the District,
all of the social workers described the mental health care,
what we find is that the mental health services that really
could deal with the trauma that the children experience are
particularly overwhelmed in the District. And so a second
recommendation that we feel, and I think much more work could
be done on this to flush it out even more fully, is that the
District really needs to develop specialized mental health
services, staffed by professionals who are experienced in
meeting the special and differential needs of young and older
children who are in need of care.
Many of the judges, as you know, order mental health
evaluations, and yet, sometimes the staff available or the
services available leave children on a waiting list, they tell
me, for as long as a month. Now this is not acceptable in
trauma situations.
So in the older days of foster care, we had such things as
the child guidance clinic or the child mental health clinic,
that was truly tied in specifically with foster care and
adoption, and understood those services in a special way. This
seems to be very imperative for the District to move much more
rapidly and strongly in this direction.
The final area that I want to point out is that some gains
have been made during the period from child welfare
receivership and beyond. We can identify a number of directors
who each have made their own contribution. Yet at the same
time, we know for any system when there is frequent and rapid
change, it's very possible to move to a burnout or what many of
the social work professionals are calling today, the mental
health professionals are referring to as compassion fatigue.
What I would like to bring to our attention is the fact
that it becomes very, very important to think about the future
of the services and to begin to talk about the fact that across
the country, many agencies have moved into the area of
accreditation. I served and have been involved in the
development of the Council on Accreditation of Family and Child
Services for a number of years, and we have been very strong
advocates that the D.C. metropolitan area move into this
accreditation process.
If you're not familiar with this particular process, it was
formed in 1977 at a time when the Child Welfare League of
America, the Family Services of America, and a number of the
church-sponsored or faith-based organizations were really
experiencing a tremendous desire to begin to set standards for
child welfare organizations. At the current time, COA, the
Council on Accreditation, accredits more than 1,400 public and
private organizations that serve children and families. And the
advantage of this is that this is a national organization that
sets national goals, it readily updates the standards for child
care, and they hold accountable in an objective way the staff
from an administrative point of view, as well as from a
services point of view.
Most organizations that move into the process, it's a stage
process, that requires first an application process, a self
study and the self study in itself has the organizations look
very carefully at their own processes, what needs to be done,
how do they have strong quality assurance programs. And these
are monitored, and there are standards set for how this can
happen. My recommendation is that the District move into this
accreditation process and that they contract with service
providers who are also accredited. This is happening across the
country. Many States and local jurisdictions are given a
timeframe by which they require that the agencies that they
work with have some form of accreditation, and have moved in
that area.
To the best of my knowledge, only three agencies in the
District have been accredited by this process. These are the
Family and Child Services of Washington, Lutheran Social
Services of the National Capital Area, and Progressive Life
Center. And currently, Catholic Charities is in this process
and will move toward it.
We feel that the advantage of an accreditation process for
the District is that it will assure that all CFSA children and
families receive confident and holistic care based on regularly
updated standards regardless of who the service provider is. It
would certify that CFSA and provider agencies adhere to highest
standard of management practices regardless of administration
or staff turnover.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Several years ago at Catholic University, the National
Association of Social Workers sponsored a conference on child
welfare and at this time there was some of the early moves to
move away from the formal receivership. At that time the
receiver who was in office at that point in 1998 committed
herself to moving toward an accreditation process and to
contracting with accredited organizations. Unfortunately, it's
my understanding----
Senator DeWine. Excuse me, Sister. You are way over time.
I'm liberal, but not that liberal.
Sister Conrad. Thank you. Much more is in the written
material.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad
Senator DeWine and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony about the options available to the
Subcommittee to enhance child and family services in the District of
Columbia. I speak as an experienced child and family service social
worker; as former Dean of the National Catholic School of Social
Service (NCSSS), The Catholic University of America; as current
Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of Washington; and as a member of the Board of Directors of
the Council on Accreditation of Child and Family Services, New York. I
want to commend the members of the Subcommittee on your interest in and
commitment to the children and families of the District of Columbia who
are vulnerable and in need of our special support and concern. It can
be said that the mark of a truly compassionate civilization is the way
we treat those who are least fortunate. Clearly, the District children
in need of substitute families through foster care and adoption are
among the persons who should be considered as part of this group and
whom we sometimes refer to as the human resources of the future.
Most recently I had the opportunity to meet the family of a former
Catholic Charities' foster child who was later adopted by his foster
family. They reminisced over their experience of foster care and
adoption, pointing out how very proud they are of their adopted son,
now a married adult and father of a growing family. He completed his
education, served in the Gulf War and currently serves as a career
Federal civil servant. This family continues to sustain a close and
supportive relationship with each other that benefits not only the
immediate family members and their offspring but also the community in
which they live. In many ways, this is an exemplar of the outcomes that
quality professional child and family service can produce when a social
service agency, foster families, and the community work together.
I have had the opportunity to review former testimony provided to
the Subcommittee in your April hearings and have followed the various
transitions in the District of Columbia Child and Family Service Agency
since the LaShawn Order. There is no question that the path to change
over the subsequent years has been slow and arduous. However, the
experience of childhood is short and leaves a lasting imprint--
particularly so for our Nation's poor and disadvantaged children. For
this reason, it is urgent that the future path be directed toward
quality service and sustainability, lest any child be lost in the
system. Therefore, my comments are directed to these ends: quality
service and sustainability.
Our School of Social Service at Catholic University has had a
continual interest in the welfare of children and have worked to
provide a sound curriculum in child and family service that prepares
social workers to pursue careers in the complex and changing field of
Child Welfare. We have also joined with our social work education
colleagues in the Washington Metropolitan area to provide training and
continuing education for social workers in this field. It has been our
experience that child abuse, family violence, and the drug culture are
among the many social phenomena that require heroic efforts on the part
of today's caseworkers and case managers. Many have a real passion to
meet the needs of the children and families whom they serve and are
deeply interested in the clinical well-being of the children. Yet the
responsibilities of extensive documentation and support services such
as transportation, crisis intervention and the like leave them hard
pressed to find the time to engage in best practices. Some feel that
there is minimal to no public recognition for a job well done, yet they
fear extensive sensationalism in the public arena with little or no
shared responsibility when there are deficiencies. As a start, we need
to affirm positive examples of competent foster care and adoption
services and to provide public recognition for our child welfare
workers.
As you most likely know, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of
Washington is among the largest private non-profit social service
providers in the District. Our financial audit shows that 85 cents of
every dollar goes into client service. The agency contracts with the
Child and Family Service Agency (CFSA) to provide Foster Home Care for
children--many of which become Adoptive homes--and Independent Living
Services for young men and women as well as teenage mothers and their
children. For the most part, staff report that their working
relationship with CFSA is good and mutually supportive and that
increased accountability to CFSA is being appropriately demanded. An
example is that case plans which contain identified goals, service
plans for children and families, and time lines are to be made
available in a timely manner through the automated FACES data base.
Unfortunately, the system has been frequently ``down'' and it is only
recently that workers are experiencing greater responsiveness to their
difficulties in this regard. They describe other infrastructure
disruptions such as lack of information about whom to contact for
particular types of needs, but note that they are encouraged by CFSA to
report these problems when they occur. To address the issues and
strengthen communication, CFSA holds monthly provider meetings which
allow agencies the opportunity to raise issues and concerns as well as
to provide a vehicle for CFSA to transmit necessary information to the
service agencies. Additionally, Charities staff find that the process
of licensing of foster homes has been lengthy--taking as long as 90
days to complete, because CFSA has been short of staff to carry out the
review process. These concerns are not new and have been discussed in
previous hearings. In summary, the Catholic Charities staff find that
communication and coordination with CFSA are in transition from a
crisis orientation to a more consistent working relationship.
It is important to recognize that foster care was initially
developed in an earlier century as a response to children who were
orphaned as a result of a mother's death in childbirth, the father's
death in a war, or caretaker deaths from pneumonia, tuberculosis,
polio, accidents, etc. The children were generally healthy, adjusted
children who fit easily into a family where the mother was at home and
the father was the sole breadwinner. This is not the case today!
Children of this century come into foster care as a result of physical
or sexual abuse, domestic violence, community violence, substance
abuse, severe neglect, abandonment, and other social problems. These
children are frequently not healthy, happy children who simply need a
home. They are traumatized children in need of many more supports. They
are traumatized first by the neglect and/or abuse they have
experienced; then by separation from the primary caretaker; again by
placement with strangers; and yet again by re-placement for troubled
behavior when the initial placement threatens to disrupt. Too often,
our child care system ignores the initial mental health stresses and
compounds them with further forms of trauma such as movement from one
home to another, often more harmful than the initial trauma. Although
judges frequently order psychiatric evaluations in emergencies, the
services are described by social workers as ``overwhelmed'' and so
backed-up that foster children can be a month or longer on the waiting
list.
Compliance with current Federal Law (the Adoption and Safe Families
Act) requires that children be returned to families or placed for
adoption within a year. While basically sound in terms of permanency
planning, this requirement places intense psychological stress on
children and on the child care system. We need to make the assumption,
then, that long waiting periods for mental health care are unacceptable
and need to be remediated. The District needs to develop a specialized
mental health service staffed by professionals who are experienced in
meeting the special and differential needs of young and older children
who are in our care.
Finally, and very importantly, there is the issue of strengthening
and sustaining the gains that have been made. We need to recognize that
during the period of the Child Welfare Receivership and beyond there
have been at least five directors whom I can identify. At NCSSS, we
reached out and collaborated with them all. Each brought important
gifts and talents to the table and in his and her own way moved the
system along. However, with each change there was ambiguity and
disruption for the workers, the children, the families and the
community as the environment and expectations changed. While a certain
amount of challenge is useful for any system, continual transitions can
lead to burnout and what is known today as ``compassion fatigue.'' Over
the years, I and several of my colleagues have been involved in the
development and work of the Council on Accreditation of Family and
Child Services (COA) and have been strong advocates that the foster
care and adoptions services in the Metropolitan area and the agencies
with whom they contract engage in this process. We see this as a way of
stabilizing the gains that have been made while at the same time
placing the responsibility for long-term oversight in the hands of
experienced professionals.
The Council on Accreditation was founded in 1977 through the
combined efforts of the Child Welfare League of America, the Family
Service Association of America as well as Jewish Family Services,
Catholic Charities U.S.A., Lutheran Family Services and other
experienced family and child serving agencies. Their purpose was to
promote standards of care based on best practices that could be used
across the United States and Canada. Today, more than 1,400 public and
private organizations serving over six million individuals, children
and families are accredited. With its recent international thrust,
family and child care agencies in the Philippines and other
underdeveloped countries struggling for financial and human resources
have become interested in the process. They see accreditation as a way
of sustaining the transformative efforts they have undertaken. COA
provides standards for agency administration as well as for service
provision in 60 unique service areas. The process includes four basic
phases: First, an application is submitted by the applying
organization. Eligibility criteria require that the organization
provide at least one of the services for which COA has accreditation
standards; that it be in operation for at least one year at the time of
the on-site review; that it hold all applicable licenses or
certifications required to operate; and that it demonstrate sufficient
autonomy and independence to permit review as a separate entity.
Second, a self study is completed which addresses all areas of
organizational management as well as service standards. During the self
study, the agency undergoes a systematic quality improvement process
and strives to demonstrate to COA and to the peer review team that it
is in compliance with all standards. The self-study process takes
between four and eight months and involves participatory self-study and
change where needed. Next, a site visit is made by a team of peer
reviewers knowledgeable and experienced in the accreditation process.
In the final phase, an accreditation decision is made by the COA
Accreditation Commission. Most organizations complete the entire
accreditation process within 12 months but an organization facing an
internally or externally imposed deadline may opt for an accelerated
time line.
To the best of my knowledge, only three agencies in the District
have been accredited. These are Family and Child Services of
Washington, Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, and
Progressive Life Center. Currently, Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of Washington is in the final stages of the process. This
means that although they may be in compliance with current legal
requirements, neither CFSA nor many of its contractor agencies have
been systematically evaluated against national standards of best
practice.
You may already be aware that at a conference on child welfare held
at Catholic University in 1998 sponsored by the Metropolitan Chapter of
the National Association of Social Workers and co-chaired by Dean
Richard English of Howard University School of Social Work and myself,
a former CFSA Receiver committed her administration to work toward
accreditation. Some staff work in this regard was begun. Unfortunately,
it has been my understanding that work toward compliance with the law
eventually took precedence and I am not aware that accreditation has
been pursued since that time.
However, in light of the continual and increasingly complex
challenges to competent and responsible child welfare today--the
challenges of physical and sexual abuse, domestic and community
violence, substance abuse, etc.--and in spite of the strides that have
been made through receivership and beyond, it is imperative that an
objective and experienced system of oversight such as that provided by
the Council on Accreditation be required for the District of Columbia
which holds CFSA and its contractors to clear and measurable national
standards within a three to four year time line. This provision will
serve the District of Columbia by:
--Assuring that all CFSA children and families receive competent and
holistic care based on regularly updated standards, regardless
of service provider;
--Certifying that CFSA and provider agencies adhere to high standards
of management practices regardless of administration and staff
turnover;
--Providing a work environment that is safe and supportive of on-
going professional development for all staff; and,
--Ensuring that on-going oversight of the child and family services
of the District is carried out by an experienced and committed
professional organization, thus reducing the amount of time and
direct action needed by government officials such as Congress
and the Appropriations Committee.
Failure of the Appropriations Committee to act in this regard and
to provide the needed resources could compromise the future progress
and sustainability needed to meet today's child welfare challenges. The
District of Columbia needs and deserves to be on a par with national
standards of foster care and adoption as well as other child and family
services.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important
issue--the future of our vulnerable and neglected children in the
District of Columbia. With appropriate resources and systems, they,
like the former foster child I described earlier, can and will become
an integral part of our human resources of the future.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Miss Egerton. You're next. We
have been joined by Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF MARILYN R. EGERTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
FOSTER & ADOPTIVE PARENT ADVOCACY CENTER
Ms. Egerton. Good morning, Senators. My name is Marilyn
Egerton. I am a D.C. foster kinship and adoptive parent. In
addition, I am the deputy director of the Foster and Adoptive
Parent Advocacy Center, commonly known as FAPAC. We are very
appreciative of your inclusion of foster parents' voices into
these hearings and thank you for inviting us to participate and
to share our experiences with the reform efforts of the D.C.
child welfare system.
In the 12 years that my husband and I have been foster
parents, we have fostered over 25 children, had well over 50
social workers, and I have been active as a member of foster
parent leadership through three changes in administration.
I would like to start my testimony by pointing out some of
the positive changes that have happened during this
administration. These changes include the successful closure of
the respite center in the CFSA building. This was a place where
children were living, often for days at a time, while placement
workers tried to find a home for them. As additional success,
the majority of these children are going into individual foster
homes as opposed to congregate care facilities.
Also at the insistence of the foster parent leadership, a
CFSA mandate requiring all staff to give the name and number of
their supervisor on their outgoing voice mail message enables
us to immediately go up the chain of command when we cannot
reach our social workers. This is a huge accomplishment for us.
We've worked very hard and very long to get it.
Third, the accessibility of upper level management to both
the foster parent leadership and the individual foster parents
has been extremely commendable.
Fourth, the development of a new placement information
packet through a joint effort of foster parents and staff to
address a serious issue of the lack of information given when
children are placed in their homes. The packet has been
developed and when CFSA workers actually begin using them, this
will be another major improvement.
Fifth, the introduction of disruption conferences, which
utilize clinical expertise to try to prevent disruptions.
And sixth, principal deputy director Leticia Lacomba's
creation of joint working groups of foster parents and staff to
revise and impact policy and practice guidelines.
Despite the good intentions and real improvement we have
seen, the tasks ahead for CFSA regarding its foster parent
community are still great. There are many areas in which the
support and services we receive are inadequate to meet the
needs of our children. These areas include, one, the need for
the infrastructure of CFS to improve to accommodate the changes
being made at the upper level. As a result of this process,
problem resolution often goes around in circles. Hours that
could be appropriately spent parenting are often spent in
frustrating efforts to seek problem resolution.
Second, the reliance on social workers for routine tests
that could be accomplished by administrative support like
looking up a Medicaid number or Social Security number. Quite
frankly, I'm perplexed that the agency does not utilize
administrative support for these clerical tasks within the
social work unit, freeing the social workers to actually
practice social work.
Third, although the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the
upper level has been real and significant, the attitudes of
true partnership have not yet reached the front line. Workers
often invalidate our experience and when it comes to the right
to make a decision, they exclude, ignore and/or rebuff the
foster parent's input.
For all the children currently living in my home, I have
been invited to participate in a total of one administrative
review, at which parenting plans and progress are to be
discussed. We have been assured very recently that the
technological and logistical barriers to notification have been
resolved and that consistent notification of administrative
review will now be implemented. We hope to see evidence of this
in the immediate future and we trust that our notification of
court reviews will be next.
Fourth, the inability of social workers to consistently
access resources both within CFSA and from the community. We
recommend that social workers receive training in this area.
Fifth, the lack of sufficient numbers of infant daycare
slots in the District of Columbia. It is an issue and it is a
barrier to particularly working families fostering infants in
the city.
Sixth, the lack of quality and timely mental health
services. Our children are wounded. Many have suffered
emotional and sometimes physical abuse and all have suffered
much loss by the mere fact that they have been torn away from
everything that they are familiar with. It is outrageous that
their mental health needs have been addressed in such an
inadequate manner. We do not know the answer, I don't know what
it is, but it is a problem that is so paramount that it cannot
go unaddressed. And just to say that we understand that the
mental health, Department of Mental Health has control over the
mental health stuff, but we don't think it's enough for the
agency to just say okay, that's their responsibility. And much
like special ed, it may fall on the DCPS, but if our children
are not getting what they need from those agencies, then we
feel it is the responsibility of CFSA to find a way to get it
for them.
Seventh, the lack of adequate Medicaid numbers and cards,
this creates barriers to health care for our children.
Eighth, the lack of an operating medical consent to treat
policy leaves us as well as the hospitals confused about who
can sign for what treatments.
And ninth, the lack of availability of and access to
respite care. All parents need a break from their children at
some time. Biological parents have the option of sending their
children to spend a weekend with their relatives or family
friends, or to visit a classmate for the weekend. As foster
parents, we don't have that option unless those parents can
meet many criteria, including obtaining all the clearances that
we as foster parents have to obtain.
This puts us in a very tough position. Not only are we
asked to parent without significant breaks, we are parenting
children who often have serious issues. And I can say that I
know placements that have disrupted, I have experienced
personally a placement disruption in my home because of a lack
of respite care. And when I requested respite for a child who
was having very severe emotional and mental health issues, I
was told respite did not exist, but I know of foster parents
who get it. But I was told it was unavailable and did not
exist.
And so, the crisis in my home escalated to a point where
the placement disrupted and that child was moved to what is
called a therapeutic home, where once a month--where in a
therapeutic home they receive respite every other weekend, they
get in-home counseling, they have a staff available around the
clock. Needless to say, CFSA is paying exorbitant amounts of
money to have this child parented in that home when all I asked
for was respite once a month, and then he would not have been
torn away from his brothers, who are still with me, and he
would not have had the experience of yet another move and an
introduction into yet another family.
I believe that many seeds have been planted under this
administration which can lead to very positive change for
foster families at CFSA, but many have not yet blossomed into
actual day-to-day improvement. Responsiveness, accessibility
and inclusiveness of the upper level's response to foster
parents have been real and beyond rhetoric. However, we have
much further to go with the infrastructure in CFSA to implement
the philosophy of the upper levels for the principles of best
practice.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, we do think that the agency is on the right
path. We believe that. However, we must acknowledge and support
the necessity for them to develop an infrastructure that will
facilitate the kinds of changes essential for our children to
receive the care that they deserve. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to foster parent concerns at this hearing
as an individual foster parent as well as the deputy director
of FAPAC. I will continue to be available to assist in system
reform in any way that I can, and to work with CFSA to develop
its partnership with this foster parent community. Thank you,
Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marilyn Egerton
Good morning. My name is Marilyn Egerton, and I am a D.C. foster,
kinship and adoptive parent. In addition, I am the Deputy Director of
the Foster & Adoptive Parent Advocacy Center, commonly known as FAPAC,
an organization that assists foster, kinship and adoptive parents of
children in the D.C. child welfare system to secure services and help
to create system change.
We are very appreciative of your inclusion of foster parent voices
into these hearings and thank you for inviting us to participate and to
share our experiences with the reform efforts of the D.C. child welfare
system.
In the 12 years that my husband and I have been foster parents, we
have fostered over 25 children, had well over 50 social workers, and I
have been active as a member of the foster parent leadership through 3
changes in administrations. Currently living in my home are my foster
grandson, the infant son of one of my older boys who has ``aged out''
of the system, my foster teenage son and my three adopted school aged
children. In addition, we continue to parent four young adults who we
raised in foster care. They have aged out of the system and now live
nearby and although they no longer live in our home they are still very
much a part of the family. With this perspective of history, I feel
qualified to discuss changes we are currently experiencing under the
administration of the Director, Olivia Golden, and the Principal Deputy
Director, Leticia Lacomba.
Although everyone agrees that there is still a tremendous amount of
work to be done at CFSA, I think it only fair to point out some of the
positive changes that have happened during this administration which
have brought, and have the potential to bring many more, significant
changes in the lives of children in the D.C. child welfare system and
their foster/kin/adoptive families.
Over the last two years, this administration and staff in
partnership with the foster parent community has been able to close
down the respite center that was located on the first floor of the CFSA
building. This was a place where children were living, often for days
at a time, while placement workers tried to find a home for them. Can
you imagine being a child who was just recently removed from all that
is familiar to you--your family, your friends and your community? Only
to spend those crucial first few days sleeping in an office building
and not in the comfort and safety of the loving home and arms of foster
parents trained and willing to help them through this most difficult
time. This is a very personal issue for me. As a member of Foster
Parents United for Support and Change, a local foster parent support
group, I worked very hard to combat this situation. In previous years
and during previous administrations, at the end of our monthly
meetings, members who had vacancies in their homes would go down to the
respite center to see if there were any children we could take home who
were sleeping at the agency. It was tragic and poignant to see children
of all ages who could not be placed anywhere else living for days in an
office building. To have lessened the need for this center so much so,
that it could be eliminated all together is quite an achievement. When
we add to this the fact that not only are children being placed without
having to spend the night at CFSA, but that most children are being
placed in actual homes with loving foster and kinship families, and not
in congregate care, it is clear to us that this in an amazing
accomplishment.
Another major problem we have had for years and years has been the
lack of accessibility of our social workers, supervisors and
administrators. In fact, it was so bad that many foster parents were
convinced that once caller ID went into the agency, their calls were
actually being screened out by workers. At the request of foster
parents, CFSA has mandated that each staff member have an outgoing
voice message that reflects the name and number of their supervisor so
that if we cannot reach our worker we can immediately go up the chain
of command. This may sound like a small innocuous change to many, but
I, like most foster parents whom I know, have been in situations with
my own children over the years when I have called and left many
messages for my children's social worker(s) to request vital
information like a Medicaid number, options for therapy for my
child(ren), shot records or daycare requests. And, because I didn't
know who the social worker's supervisor was, or I didn't know the
supervisor's number, my only options were to sit and wait days and
sometimes weeks for a social worker to get back to me or for my husband
or me to take a day off of work and go down to CFSA and act ugly until
someone helped us. Having this information readily available on the
outgoing voicemail message has been very helpful for those situations
in which accessing services are contingent upon the ability to reach
our workers in an expedient fashion. In addition, the accessibility of
upper level management's to both foster parent leadership and
individual foster parents has been extremely commendable.
Another extremely serious problem we have had absolutely forever
has been the lack of information given to foster parents about the
children we are taking into our homes. Children have historically been
placed without our being told imperative medical, psychological, and
behavioral information, because that information was not communicated
intra-agency to the placement workers. Imagine being a foster parent
who takes a child into your home and finds out that the child sets
fires, but you were not told. Because of this, children were often
placed into homes that were not prepared for them, and the placements
broke apart, or as we say, ``disrupted.'' In the last few months foster
parents and staff have worked together on the development of a new
``Placement Information Package''. The agency has promised to uphold
the expectation that all relevant information available to the agency
will be passed onto foster parents through this package so they can
make appropriate decisions about placements in their homes. When CFSA
workers actually begin using them, this will be another major
improvement.
In these last years, as a member of the foster parent leadership, I
have spent much time at CFSA. My current experience is that there is
active and diligent work being done towards improvement and reform.
Staff, administration and foster parent leadership have put in many
hours working on systemic issues. Foster parents have experienced
significantly improved appreciation and inclusion from the upper level
and a more acute consciousness of what we need to care for our
children. We have seen much more energy spent on trying to address the
issues of multiple placements, such as the introduction of Disruption
conferences, which utilize clinical expertise to try to prevent the
disruption of placements. We hope that these clinical interventions
will be increased to include wrap-around services that will permit a
``traditional'' foster parent to maintain a child they love in their
home instead of having to transfer them to a much more expensive higher
end therapeutic home to get services, as has been the case. We
specifically recognize Clinical Services Administration, under Dr.
Roque Gerald, for work in these areas.
One of the major issues for the District of Columbia's foster
parents, and indeed nationwide, is the lack of inclusion in decision-
making. This decision-making exclusion is two-fold and includes
decisions about the individual children in your home as well as
decisions about agency policy, regulation and practice. Nationwide,
this lack of inclusion is sited as one of the major reasons that foster
parents quit fostering. When a system can not retain its foster
parents, any recruitment efforts, no matter how successful, are like
recruiting into a bucket that has a hole in the bottom.
To address the concern about lack of inclusion into agency policy
and practice, Ms. Leticia Lacomba, Principle Deputy Director, began to
work directly with joint working groups of foster parents and staff to
revise and impact policy and practice guidelines. Involving foster
parents in true partnership with staff and administration in this way
has been a tremendous step forward and we want to acknowledge her for
this accomplishment.
Unfortunately, inclusion into the professional team for the
children in our home has not been yet achieved, and will be discussed
as we move into the discussion of the many challenges still ahead.
Despite the good intentions and real improvement we have seen, the
tasks ahead for CFSA regarding its foster parent community are still
great. There are many areas in which the support and services we
receive are inadequate to meet the needs of our children.
Although we applaud the accessibility of the upper level
administration to its foster parent community, many of the issues
brought up to that level should have been resolved at lower and middle
levels. What we see is that the infrastructure of CFSA has not yet
improved to accommodate the changes being made at the upper level. As a
result, balls are still always dropping on the lower and middle levels,
problem resolution often goes around in circles, and the person who
needs help gets bounced from one staff or unit to another. In addition,
units themselves are often out of alignment with each other in the
information they give to our families and in the processes they create.
This causes much confusion to anyone trying to access services. Hours
more appropriately spent parenting is spent in frustrating efforts to
seek problem resolution. It is our recommendation that communication
between units as well as internal to units be acknowledged as important
job functions of program administrators and time be allotted for this
purpose.
Another infrastructure issue I would like to comment on is the
reliance on social workers for routine tasks that could be accomplished
by administrative support staff. When foster parents have to call
social workers for something as simple as a birth certificate number,
they may have to call over and over to reach a worker. This in turn
clogs up the worker's voice mail which may make them less accessible to
others. I can not tell you the countless times that I have had to call
a social worker to get a social security number for one of my children.
Quite frankly I am perplexed that the agency does not utilize
administrative support for these clerical tasks within the social work
unit, freeing the social workers to actually practice social work. It
is our recommendation that CFSA assign one administrative assistant per
(X) number of social workers for this purpose.
In addition, although the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the
upper level has been real and significant, the attitudes of true
partnership have not yet reached the front lines. Many of the District
of Columbia's foster parents have been operating as caseworkers
themselves for years, handling all on their own the daunting tasks of
finding resources for their children. Many have had no regular visits
from workers, no phone calls, no help, no after hours support at all,
and as such stand alone. Despite that, workers often invalidate that
experience and when it comes to the right to make decisions, exclude,
ignore and/or rebuff the foster parent's input.
It is this inclusiveness into case planning for the children in our
homes that is seriously lacking. In my own experience, for all the
children currently living in my home, I have been invited to
participate in a total of ONE administrative review, at which
permanency plans and progress are to be discussed. Since these reviews
are supposed to be happening every six months, either they are not
happening at all or they are happening without my presence, input or
feedback. In my ENTIRE experience as a foster parent, I have never been
informed about a court hearing from my social workers, although I
regularly attend due to notification from our children's GAL's. The
agency is out of compliance with The Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) on both of these forms of notification. We have been assured
very recently that the technological and logistical barriers to
notification have been resolved and that consistent notification of
Administrative Reviews will now be implemented. We hope to report back
to you on the successful intervention of this assurance. We trust that
our notifications of court reviews will be next.
There is much work ahead to address the complicated issues of real
partnership between line workers and foster parents. We acknowledge
that the agency has taken a first step by inviting us to participate in
the training that new workers receive. I am personally very excited
about the possibility of participating in these trainings. I think it
is vital to a successful working relationship that the worker have a
real understanding of how what s/he does or says may effect the foster
parent's ability to open up to them and trust them, thus impacting the
quality of care our children receive. It is imperative that social
workers understand that they must give foster parents the same respect
that they give the other professionals involved in the care and
treatment of our children. We are the ones who are caring for these
children day in and day out. Although I am very excited about these
trainings, it is my hope that this is just the beginning. It is my hope
that we will get to the point where we can expand this training to
allow us to work also with those social workers who have been around
for a while. After all, it was a veteran social worker with many years
of experience who told my husband and me that we were too strict with
my 17-year-old son when we put him on restriction for constantly acting
out in school and having multiple suspensions. She recommended that he
go into independent living. When we objected, saying that we had been
parenting him since he was 11 years old and that we were 100 percent
sure that he was not mature enough to handle the freedom that comes
with an independent living program, she pushed for it and got it
anyway. From the moment he entered the program my son went on a
downward spiral that landed him in a psychiatric facility. There it was
determined that he needed a more structured environment and we were
asked if he could come back home to us. Although this particular
incident occurred under a previous administration, lack of input into
decisions about our children still continues. I feel this is a good
example of the danger that can happen to our children when decisions
are made by people who see them at the most once a month, and often
much less, without taking into serious consideration the input of those
of us who are parenting them every day.
I think that it would be beneficial if we also recommend that
social workers be given more training on how to access resources, both
within CFSA itself and from the community. Access to resources remains
a big problem for us. There is a lot of inconsistency in this area.
Securing resources often depends upon the knowledge, workload and
sometimes even personal feelings of your workers. A strong example of
this lack of resource consistency is day care. Foster parents who live
in the District of Columbia are entitled to day care services through
the Office of Early Childhood Development. However, some workers can
access it fast, some have to be taught by their foster parents or GAL's
how to access it at all, and in fact one private agency has told their
families that day care is not even available! Again this is a personal
issue for me. My foster grandson was placed with us at the ripe old age
of two months old and in spite of many, many phone calls and inquiries
from both my husband and me, our little Jay was seventeen months old
before daycare was secured. Had it not been for the untiring help of
family and friends, as well as compassion and flexibility of my
husband's and my employers we would not have been able to continue to
parent this child who has known us as his grandparents since the day he
was born.
One resource is so very absent from the fabric of this city that it
demands separate mention of its own. That resource is quality and
timely mental health services. Our children are wounded; many have
suffered emotional and sometimes physical abuse and all have suffered
much loss. It is outrageous that their mental health needs have been
addressed in such an inadequate manner. We do not know the answer,
however, this problem is so paramount that it cannot go unaddressed.
Another huge issue for us is Medicaid. Medicaid numbers may not be
given to us until our child has been in our home for weeks or months.
This creates a very serious situation when we need prescriptions
filled. In addition, our numbers often become inactive, creating the
inability to access services. Many of us have been at doctor's offices
or pharmacies when the numbers have become inactive and we have had to
leave without the services we need for our children. In addition, the
lack of an operating Medical Consent to Treat Policy leaves us as well
as the hospitals confused about who needs to sign for what treatments.
We have been trying to get the agency to develop and implement a
medical consent policy for over a year and a half, but to our knowledge
there has been no significant progress made. This is of utmost urgency
to us, because sooner or later a child will die because of the
confusion surrounding what foster parents can or cannot consent to.
Another issue for foster parents is the lack of availability of
respite care. All parents need a break from parenting sometimes.
Biological parents have the option of sending to their child(ren) to
spend the weekend with a relative or family friend, or to visit with a
classmate at his/her home. As foster parents, we don't have that option
unless those persons can meet many criteria, including obtaining all
the clearances that foster parents are required. This puts us in a very
tough position. Not only are we asked to parent without significant
breaks, we are parenting children who often have serious issues. Can
you imagine all of a sudden the number of children in your family
increasing by four? It happened to me three years ago. I got a call
about a sibling group of four boys, ages 6, 8, 10, and 12. This was
quite an undertaking as I am sure you can imagine. As delightful as the
boys were, we began to notice almost immediately that one of our
children had some pretty severe emotional problems and we began to seek
out help for him. When it was all said and done he was diagnosed with
severe depression and intermittent explosive disorder. It took about a
year and a half for him to be diagnosed and for the doctors to
determine the proper medications in the proper doses to help stabilize
him. During that time our home was in constant turmoil with crisis
after crisis involving him, while we were still trying to effectively
parent his three siblings and my adopted daughter. When we asked for
respite once a month so that we could regroup and be better able to
parent our children we were told that respite was not available. The
situation escalated to the point that the placement disrupted and he
was placed in a ``Therapeutic'' home where the city not only pays
significantly more for his care, but the therapeutic foster parents get
respite every other weekend. This was very traumatic for all of us. He
was not only separated from us, but also from his siblings who had been
the only constant in his life. Mine is not the only story. Many foster
parents can tell of situations where they feel access to respite would
have enabled them to continue fostering a child rather than having the
placement disrupt. I really believe that respite can be a big part of
decreasing the number of disruptions as well as increasing foster
parent retention. And a foster parent who is happy and wants to remain
a foster parent is more likely to actively recruit other potential
foster parents for the agency. Providing respite for foster parents is
a win/win situation for all involved.
In conclusion, I believe that we are seeing many seeds which have
been planted under this administration which will lead to very positive
change for foster families at CFSA, but many of those seeds have not
yet blossomed into actual day-to-day improvement. There is still a
great deal of work to do. Responsiveness, accessibility and
inclusiveness of the upper level to its foster parents have been real
and beyond rhetoric, as demonstrated by the cutting edge partnership
lead by Ms. Lacomba. We have come very far in these ways. However, we
have much farther to go before the infrastructure of CFSA supports and
implement the philosophy of the upper level or the principles of best
practice. To summarize, some specific areas we need to see improvement
in are:
--After hours crisis intervention for foster families outside of the
general hotline;
--Quality and timely mental health evaluations and therapy;
--Consistently active Medicaid numbers and cards;
--Easily and consistently accessible emergency and planned respite
care for foster parents;
--Timely day care;
--Operating Medical consent to treat policy;
--Increased team building efforts between social workers and foster
parents as well as between birth parents and foster parents;
--Training of all social work staff on resource availability;
--Strengthening communication between units so that information given
to families is both accurate and consistent;
--Clear and consistent systems for problem resolution which free up
foster parents to spend our time and energy parenting our
children instead of going around in circles fighting for
services.
Again, in closing we do believe that the agency is on the right
path, but we must acknowledge the great need for them to develop an
infrastructure that will allow for the kinds of changes necessary to
give our children the care they deserve. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak to foster parent concerns at this hearing. As an individual
foster parent as well as the Deputy Director of FAPAC I will continue
to be available to assist in system reform in any way I can, and to
work with CFSA to develop its path of partnership with its foster
parent community.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Ms. Sandalow.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH SANDALOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER
Ms. Sandalow. Good morning, Senator DeWine, Senator
Landrieu. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
today about the solutions to problems facing abused and
neglected children in the District of Columbia.
As you know, the Children's Law Center helps at-risk
children in the District of Columbia find safe and permanent
homes, and the education, health and social services they need
to flourish, and provides comprehensive legal services to
children, their families and foster, kinship and adoptive
parents. My testimony today is focused on remedies that involve
the Child and Family Services Agency, and that can be
accomplished with targeted and specific Federal funding.
The first days in foster care often determine the outcome
of a child's life. When a child is injured in a car accident,
an ambulance rushes the child to a hospital where a team of
doctors and nurses drop everything to save that child's life.
We all recognize that without this extraordinary effort, a
child could die or be permanently disabled. That same urgency
and those same resources should attend to the removal of
adduced and neglected children from their homes.
In fact, every day in the District of Columbia, children
are permanently scarred because we don't treat these first days
in foster care as an emergency. What is right for children is
also right for the D.C. budget. Early and intensive
intervention on behalf of children will speed reunification and
it will speed adoption and it will prevent the financial and
human costs of increased homelessness, incarceration and
welfare dependence that is found among adults who spend their
childhoods in foster care.
I propose that Congress fund a pilot project within CFSA to
provide early and intensive intervention for children as soon
as abuse or neglect is reported. What you might ask, should
such an emergency team do? On the first day that a child is
removed from her home, an emergency team of social workers
should be interviewing the child, their siblings, their
parents, their neighbors, to find the nearest relative, a
person who is appropriate to be a temporary caregiver while
that family is restored. The emergency team should have access
to a flexible fund to buy beds, clothes and if necessary, food,
to ensure their relative can bring a child into their home
immediately.
One of our clients, a grandmother, has been waiting 45 days
for benefits, while CFSA will not provide emergency funding for
her to feed the grandchildren who she has taken into her home
on an emergency case basis. The emergency team should provide
drug treatment, homemaker services, parenting classes
immediately for children and families so they can be reunified.
All of these tasks and many more that I highlight in my written
testimony, must be done within the very first few days that a
child is removed from her home.
Just as we staff the emergency room 24 hours a day and we
would never consider closing it after business hours, we must
have a child welfare emergency team 24 hours a day. Where a
child is removed from her family, she needs an opportunity to
visit her brothers and sisters and her parents in order to
enhance the chance of reunification, but also to help her with
that transition as she moves away from her birth family. But
last week, a social worker said in open court at the District
of Columbia's Family Court to a mother who was begging to see
her children, that she and her children could only visit
together 1 hour a week, and the reason that she gave was
because CFSA didn't have the resources to staff a visitation
center for longer hours that would provide more frequent
visits.
Can we really tell a child that she can't see her brothers,
sisters and parents more than 1 hour a week because she has to
give other little children the chance to see their families?
Get in line, little girl, behind all the other children who
need to see their families. I urge the committee to appropriate
funds to CFSA to build and staff visitation centers in the
community.
Each center should be staffed by a social worker trained to
work with parents on their parenting skills. And most important
of all, the center should be open in the evenings and on
weekends so that children don't have to miss school to see
their families, and that parents can maintain employment so
that they can bring the children back to live with them.
Forty percent of all foster children in the District of
Columbia are teenagers. Despite this staggering figure,
unfortunately, CFSA has a woefully inadequate program to help
teenagers prepare for adulthood. Today I would like to focus on
one particular issue, which is helping teenagers find jobs, and
that may be important to me because I am the parent of teenage
boys who came to me out of the foster care system when they
were in their preteen years, and I know how important it is for
their development that they be able to find jobs. In part, they
will have me as a safety net but other foster children won't
have that kind of safety net.
How is it that CFSA can help teenagers find jobs and give
them the jobs skills necessary to make them productive
citizens? One very simple option is to partner with local
businesses to provide a job coach just like they do for
developmentally disabled adults, to ease that new foster child
into a job. I am confident that there are corporations in this
city that would partner with CFSA. I understand that in
California they reserve a certain number of government jobs for
foster children entering the system to help them meet that
transition. Well, they're part of our government family, so
they save some jobs for them. Those are both very simple
solutions, I think.
But no matter how many programs are available or what
philosophy there is in the child welfare system, the quality of
the individual social worker is successful to the successful
system.
Senator DeWine has introduced legislation to provide loan
forgiveness for lawyers and social workers who serve children.
The Children's Law Center strongly supports this legislation
and believes that it will increase the pool of highly qualified
lawyers and social workers.
Talented well-trained social workers, frequent family
visits and early intervention won't help children if there are
no services to help children heal, to rehabilitate parents and
to support families. The District of Columbia has an extremely
limited number of mental health providers. There are very few
drug treatment beds. Homemaker and intensive in-home services
are almost nonexistent. CFSA should be clamoring at your door
asking for the funding to provide these services. They should
have a comprehensive plan for developing and funding service
providers.
Although I applaud their recent efforts to evaluate the
quality of service providers, and I understand that they are
vigorously evaluating the outcomes of the service providers
that they do have, I am disturbed by their silence regarding
increasing the availability of services.
PREPARED STATEMENT
A foster child is by law in the legal custody of the
government. The government therefore has the right and the
responsibility to parent that foster child, to meet the needs
of every child as if she were our own child. I thank each of
you in particular for taking that responsibility seriously, and
for calling for supporting measures that will give every foster
child the promise of a safe and loving home.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judith Sandalow
Good morning, Chairperson DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of
the Committee. My name is Judith Sandalow, and I am the Executive
Director of The Children's Law Center here in Washington, DC. The
Children's Law Center helps at-risk children in the District of
Columbia find safe, permanent homes and the education, health and
social services they need to flourish by providing comprehensive legal
services to children, their families and foster, kinship and adoptive
parents.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
solutions to the problems facing abused and neglected children in the
District of Columbia. At The Children's Law Center, we serve as the
voice for many children. They share their fears and their hopes with
us. Because the solutions I propose today are informed by these
children and their experiences, I would like to start by sharing with
you some of their stories.
Sam, Tony and Terry were removed from their mother's home on a
Friday evening and placed in a temporary group home. The very next day
their aunt came to court and offered to have them live with her.
Understandably, she did not have three beds in her home, nor did she
have the money to pay for them. The CFSA social worker told the judge
it would take three weeks to buy beds for the aunt and, until then,
suggested that the boys stay in a group home. Only because The
Children's Law Center purchased beds for the boys that afternoon were
they able to be with their family and avoid spending three weeks in a
group home.
Seven-year-old DeMarco and nine-year-old Shawn were taken from
their mother's home by the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency when
it was discovered that their mother physically abused them. Despite the
fact that Shawn and DeMarco have a loving and capable grandmother, CFSA
put Shawn and DeMarco in a foster home. Only after their grandmother
contacted The Children's Law Center were the children allowed to see
their grandmother and, with more advocacy by The Children's Law Center,
were the children allowed to live with her. The CFSA social worker
admitted that she had not interviewed the children to find out if they
had relatives nearby. DeMarco and Shawn spent a month living with
strangers during the most traumatic moment of their lives, when they
could have been with the grandmother they had known and loved all their
lives.
Federal assistance can have an important, direct and measurable
impact on the District of Columbia's abused and neglected children. My
testimony is focused on remedies involving the Child and Family
Services Agency that will make a difference to Shawn, DeMarco, Sam,
Tony and Terry and that can be accomplished with targeted and specific
funding.
EARLY AND INTENSIVE INTERVENTION
When a child is injured in a car accident, medical personnel have
no qualms about stopping traffic to get an ambulance to the scene. A
helicopter or an ambulance rushes the child to the hospital where a
team of doctors and nurses drop everything to save a child's life or
prevent permanent disability. A social worker contacts the parents,
provides counseling and helps the family plan for the child's
convalescence. We all recognize that without this extraordinary effort,
a child will die or be permanently disabled.
The same urgency and the same resources should attend the removal
of abused and neglected children from their homes. In fact, every day
in the District of Columbia children are permanently scarred and
irrevocably deprived of their childhoods, their emotional well-being
and their chance to become productive citizens because we do not treat
these first moments, these first days in foster care as an emergency.
What is right for children is also right for the D.C. budget. Early
and intensive intervention on behalf of children will speed
reunification and adoption, will reduce the number of children who
languish in foster care at great cost to our city and will prevent the
financial and human cost of increased homelessness, incarceration and
welfare dependence that are found among adults who spent their
childhoods in foster care.
I propose that Congress fund a pilot project within CFSA to provide
early and intensive intervention for children as soon as abuse or
neglect is reported.
What would such an emergency team do? There are three things that
must be accomplished quickly: (1) find the best home for the child as
fast as possible; (2) provide services and support to the child to
repair the damage caused by abuse and to reduce the trauma of being
separated from her family; and (3) provide the entire family with the
services necessary to reunify them.
How would an emergency team accomplish these goals?
--On the day a child is removed from her home, social workers should
interview the child, his or her siblings, neighbors and
relatives to find an appropriate temporary caregiver for the
child. Frequently, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins
don't learn that a child is in foster care for weeks or months.
--Quickly conduct criminal records checks, review the child abuse
registry and do a home study of the caregiver's home so that
the child can move in immediately.
--Have access to a flexible fund to buy beds, clothes and if
necessary food to ensure that a relative can bring a child into
her home immediately, without forcing the child to stay--scared
and alone--in a group home or foster home while the relative
finds the money to prepare her home.
--Convene a meeting of the child's family within 24 or 48 after
removal to see what resources the extended family can provide.
Often, family members can step in to assist an overwhelmed
parent, can arrange visits in their home for the child or can
even bring a child to live with them while the parent is in
recovery.
--Provide transportation to the child's home school, so that she is
not further traumatized by having to adjust to a new school and
a new home at the same time.
--Gather medical records from the child's pediatrician and area
hospitals to ensure that medical treatment and medication are
not disrupted.
--Provide drug treatment, homemaker services, parenting classes and
other services a birth parent needs so that a child can be
safely reunited with her parents.
--Do thorough medical and mental health assessments of children and
provide mental health services to assist children during this
traumatic time.
--Arrange for a child to talk on the phone with brothers, sisters and
other family members during the initial, traumatic hours and
days after removal.
--Provide transportation for frequent visits between children, their
siblings and important family members to reduce the trauma of
removal and maintain the familial bonds in preparation for
reunification.
All of these tasks must be done within the first few days after a
child is removed from her home. Just as we staff an emergency room
around the clock and not only during business hours, we must staff a
child welfare emergency team 24 hours a day.
MAINTAINING FAMILY TIES THROUGH VISITATION
In 1989, when the ACLU was preparing to file a class action lawsuit
against the District of Columbia to address the needs of abused and
neglected children, they interviewed local child advocates. One of
these advocates who had worked with neglected children for years and
was a founding member of The Children's Law Center, asked for only one
thing. She said, ``if you can get family visits for foster children so
that they can visit their brothers and sisters and their parents and if
you can get those visits to happen on weekends and in the evenings so
that children don't have to miss school to visit their families, then I
will believe that your lawsuit made a difference.''
Fourteen years later, this simple wish has not been granted.
Fourteen years later--in fact just last week--a social worker said in
open court to a mother who was begging to see her children that she and
her children could only visit together one hour each week because CFSA
didn't have the resources or the staff to have longer or more frequent
visits.
Can we really tell a child that she can't see her brothers, sister
and parents more than one hour a week because she has to give other
children the chance to see their families?
I urge the committee to appropriate funds to the Child and Family
Services Agency to build and staff visitation centers in the community
so that children can see their brothers, sisters and parents as often
as is necessary for them to maintain their family bonds.
Today, just like 14 years ago, foster children visit with their
parents in partially furnished offices--artificial environments that
are a far cry from the apartments and houses in which families usually
interact.
I envision visitation centers that feel like a real apartment, with
a living room that has games, books, a television and a radio. I
picture a kitchen or at least a microwave oven, so that parents could
show their love the way most parents do--by cooking a meal for their
children. I imagine children playing in the center's backyard, a
backyard that has a swing set and a basketball hoop. With an
opportunity to visit in this home-like setting, parents could work on
parenting skills and children could enjoy their brothers and sisters.
Each center should be staffed by a social worker trained to work
with parents on their parenting skills. Most important of all, the
centers should be open in the evenings and on weekends so that children
do not have to miss school and parents can maintain their employment.
PREPARING TEEN FOSTER CHILDREN FOR ADULTHOOD
Forty percent of all foster children in the District of Columbia
are teenagers. Despite this staggering figure and the additional
Federal funding that has been made available by the Chafee Act, CFSA
has a woefully inadequate program to help teenagers prepare for
adulthood. Today, I would like to focus on addressing one particularly
important issue--helping teenagers find and hold jobs.
CFSA social workers do not help teen find work, they do not help
teens fill out job applications and they certainly do not create job
opportunities for teenagers.
How can CFSA help teenagers learn the basic job skills necessary to
make them productive citizens? CFSA need look no further than their
back door for a solution. The See Forever Foundation, started by David
Domenici, son of Senator Pete Domenici, and by James Forman, Jr., owns
several businesses that are run by teenagers, including a catering
business and a print shop. The teenagers handle all aspects of the
business, from marketing, to accounting to preparing and delivering the
product.
A business run by foster children would give these young people the
training they need to become successful and independent adults.
A simpler option that might help more teens more quickly would be
for CFSA to partner with local businesses to guarantee that there were
jobs available to teen foster children. If CFSA hired a job coach who
worked with teens during their first weeks on the job--in a manner
similar to job coaches for developmentally disabled adults--I believe
that many employers would commit to hiring foster children.
There are many other areas in which CFSA fails teen foster
children. I am pleased to announce that beginning this Fall, The
Children's Law Center will be able to devote more of its resources to
advocating for teens. Because of the generosity of the Equal Justice
Works Foundation and the Public Welfare Foundation, we have hired a
lawyer who will help to train social workers and other child advocates
about strategies for helping teen foster children make the transition
to independence and adulthood.
RETAINING AND TRAINING CAPABLE SOCIAL WORKERS
No matter how many programs are available or what philosophy
governs a child welfare agency, the quality of the individual social
workers is critical to a successful system. The April 2003 report by
the GAO on the challenges confronting child welfare workers supports
the observations of The Children's Law Center's staff. Repeatedly, the
best social workers tell us that they are leaving CFSA because they
have extraordinary administrative burdens with no secretarial support,
that their caseloads are so high that they are worried about making
mistakes that will jeopardize children's safety and health and that the
quality of supervision they receive is extremely poor.
CFSA Director Olivia Golden testified before this committee just
last month that she was working to reduce caseloads for social workers.
Reducing caseloads by hiring high quality social workers must continue
to be a top priority for Ms. Golden. She must also focus on retaining
and training social workers. This committee may be able to assist Ms.
Golden by proposing legislation and targeting funding toward
initiatives that will increase social worker retention.
Senator DeWine has introduced legislation to provide loan
forgiveness to lawyers who represent children. The Children's Law
Center strongly supports this legislation and believes it will increase
the pool of highly qualified lawyers who serve children. Similar
legislation to provide loan forgiveness to child welfare workers would
help ease the financial burden on these dedicated individuals.
I also urge the Committee to consider providing funds to CFSA
targeted toward providing administrative support to the social workers
who work directly with children and families. Social workers spend a
tremendous amount of time completing paperwork. As recently as last
Fall, social workers were required to fill out requests in triplicate
to renew each child's Medicaid eligibility. In addition, social workers
have little assistance in transporting foster children to evaluations,
doctors' appointments, family visits and therapy.
SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Talented, well-trained social workers, frequent family visits and
early intervention won't help children if there are no services to help
children heal, to rehabilitate parents and to support families. The
District of Columbia has an extremely limited number of mental health
providers. There are very few drug treatment beds. Homemaker and
intensive in-home services are almost non-existent. CFSA should be
clamoring at your door, asking for more funding to provide these
services. They should have a comprehensive plan for developing and
funding service providers. Although I applaud their recent efforts to
evaluate the quality of service providers, I am disturbed by their
silence regarding increasing the availability of services.
The short-term cost of providing services may be great, but the
long-term benefit in personal and financial savings is extraordinary.
For one D.C. family, it made all the difference. After the death of his
wife, a father of three children was extremely depressed. He managed to
hold down a full-time job, get dinner on the table and was available to
his children every evening after work. For some reason, however, he
couldn't manage to get the children dressed and ready for school in the
morning and so the children missed school frequently. Rather than
provide limited early morning homemaker services, CFSA sought to remove
the children from his home. Only after the father's lawyer intervened
did CFSA agree to provide services to the family. Obviously, the
emotional and financial cost of splitting up this family pales in
comparison to the short-term cost of helping them through this crisis.
The Children's Law Center receives dozens of calls each year from
relative caregivers and foster parents who want to keep a child in
their home, but cannot handle the extreme behavioral and emotional
needs of their child without assistance that CFSA refuses to provide.
One foster mother called The Children's Law Center distraught because
she had been trying to get services for her foster children for months.
At the end of her rope, she had asked the social worker to remove the
children unless CFSA gave her some in-home support and respite care.
Three days later, she couldn't bear to hear them crying on the phone.
The children had been with her for a year, called her Mommy, and were
begging to come back to her. She wanted them home, but needed in-home
mental health services to address their extreme behavioral problems.
Only after intervention by The Children's Law Center were the services
provided and the children returned to the foster mother they had come
to love.
CONCLUSION
A foster child is, by law, in the legal custody of the government.
The government, therefore, has the legal right and responsibility to
parent that foster child. To me, this means that we must treat every
foster child as if she or he is our own child.
Thank you for taking that responsibility seriously and for calling
for and supporting measures that will give every foster child the
promise of a safe, permanent and loving home.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much, very helpful. Miss
Bowens.
STATEMENTS OF:
JACQUELINE BOWENS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
DR. JOSEPH WRIGHT, MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR ADVOCACY AND COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS, CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
Ms. Bowens. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator
Landrieu. Thank you very much for providing us with this
opportunity to address the committee today about our role in
caring for children in Washington, DC's foster care system. I'm
Jacqueline Bowens, Vice President of Government and Public
Affairs at Children's Hospital, and joining me this morning is
Dr. Joseph Wright, who is the medical director of Advocacy and
Community Affairs, as well as the medical director of the DC
KIDS program. I'm going to spend a quick few moments giving you
some background on the DC KIDS program, and turn it over to Dr.
Wright to speak to some of the challenges we face in our vision
for the future.
The District of Columbia Kids Integrated Delivery System,
DC KIDS, is a collaborative effort between CFSA and Children's
Hospital to provide comprehensive health care services to the
children in foster care in the District of Columbia. The
arrangement allows for this vulnerable population of children
to be evaluated and treated in a child-friendly pediatrics
specific environment and provides for support, information and
navigation of the complex systems of care for foster parents
and their foster children. There is no paper work to complete
and no cost to the foster parents of child. All children under
the age of 21 and under the care of CFSA living with a foster
family or in a group home are eligible for enrollment in the
program.
The agreement between CFSA and Children's Hospital provides
coordination of ongoing healthcare services for children in
foster care. First a child is brought to Children's DC KIDS
assessment center for an initial screening before their first
foster family placement. This initial screening is done by
dedicated staff who complete a medical portfolio on each child
before certifying that they are healthy enough for placement to
a foster home. In addition, each time that a child's placement
is disrupted, they return to Children's for a new assessment
before being sent to their new placement.
The child is enrolled in DC KIDS at the time of the initial
assessment. Within 10 days, the DC KIDS program arranges for a
comprehensive physical examination and a mental health
evaluation to identify necessary services for the child and
family. These may include early and periodic screening,
diagnosis and treatment of illnesses, inpatient specialty care,
and prescription services. From that point forward, the DC KIDS
staff assists the foster families in navigating the complex
health care system to provide for ongoing treatment for their
foster child, everything from scheduling and confirming
appointments to arrangement of transportation for specialty and
follow-up services. The DC KIDS outreach coordinators are
available to educate foster parents, social workers, in-service
providers.
We are again, very proud of the relationship that we've had
in the DC KIDS program, and I'd like to just quickly talk about
some of our successes since taking on the program. We each feel
that we've come a long way since our first days on the job with
DC KIDS. We have increased enrollment by over 400 percent. When
we first assumed the program, there were less than 1,000
children actively enrolled in the program; now we care for over
4,000. Since May 2001, we have had 3,053 children come through
our assessment center, and 1,870 children have returned for
visits due to a disruption in their placement.
We're also proud of the new technology we've developed to
make the process easier for social workers. We provide computer
terminals for the social workers on-site with all their
required forms online and readily accessible to them. This way
they can make productive use of their time while waiting for
their child's medical assessment to be completed. And we get
the information we need to accurately enroll the children in
the program. We work very hard to minimize the time that the
social worker spends on this process, reaching our goal of 90
percent or more of the cases triaged in less than 2 hours by
July 2002.
Also, upon our assumption of the program, Children's also
requested the creation of a new system to provide foster
families with the prescriptions and other pharmaceutical items
they needed in order to care for their children once they left
our care. Working with CFSA, we developed a new electronic
prescription pad that creates a voucher that is now accepted at
a network of pharmacies throughout the city, allowing families
to have 24-hour access to prescription services.
These are just a few of our achievements with the program.
At this point I would like to turn it over to Dr. Wright, who
can address some of the challenges and our vision for the
future.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH WRIGHT
Dr. Wright. Again, Senator, we would like to thank you for
allowing us to testify this morning. Jackie has already told
you about some of the successes that we have achieved in the
first almost 2 years of involvement with this program and I
will address some of the specific challenges that we face.
One that you have heard repeatedly this morning is in the
area of mental health. This is a struggle citywide due to the
lack of capacity for mental health services. There are simply
not enough providers, beds and programs to adequately serve the
children in this region, and not just the kids enrolled in DC
KIDS, but for all children. As you might imagine, the DC KIDS
population is especially vulnerable in this area. More than 50
percent of these children require some type of mental or
behavioral health intervention, and most on a ongoing basis.
Children's Hospital has a 12-bed inpatient psychiatric unit
which cannot absorb all the needs of this population. Further,
our facilities are not equipped with the quiet rooms and
restraints necessary to primarily treat severely mentally ill
and out of control patients. As a result, we have tried to
establish partnerships and collaborations with other community
providers to whom we can refer DC KIDS when we are unable to
primarily provide services. In this regard we serve as the
coordination point, managing the care that these children
require.
The same situation exists with dental services. There is a
nationwide shortage of pediatric dentists and we feel the
shortage in the District as well. Many of the DC KIDS requiring
dental care are children with special health care needs and
must be seen by dentists who are appropriately trained. In
order to address this problem, Children's has purchased half
the time of two pediatric dentists who work at Sharpe and Mamie
D. Lee, the District's two public schools dedicated to the
special needs population. These dentists are dedicated to
provide dental services to our DC KIDS population. While this
arrangement has helped, it is insufficient.
Let me address briefly court-ordered mental treatment.
Children's works hand-in-hand with the judges in the Family
Court to ensure appropriate health care services are provided
to this vulnerable population. However, there are no better
advocates for these children than the judges. Their
sensitivities to these children's needs demand their strict
attention, which they provide. However, a growing concern for
our institution and the DC KIDS program is the amount and
nature of court-ordered medical treatment that we are
experiencing.
As cases are adjudicated, specific medical treatment or
therapy is frequently ordered without any physician
consultation. As the medical provider for these children, we
are forced to comply with the court order even if it is
medically inappropriate. Unfortunately, such court-ordered
referrals are continuing to grow. From October 2002 to April
2003, the number of court-ordered outpatient referrals grew
from 10 percent of our referrals to nearly 20 percent. We have
begun to educate the judges about the difficulty of these very
specific orders for medical care, but we have a long ways to
go.
Now, I want to make it very clear. We realize that the
judges are passionate advocates for these children. In the best
interests of these most vulnerable kids in our population, we
simply feel that it is our obligation to help educate all
involved in their care, including the Family Court, about the
best ways to work together.
Lastly, an internal challenge that we face is the
appointment no-show rate. In some areas, this is as high as 50
percent. Even though we coordinate transportation services for
these families, it does not help. This results in a negative
domino effect. Children are not getting necessary care,
frustrated physicians who block out sessions to treat DC KIDS
only to have none of them show. The problem is then compounded
by other needy children in the community who may be waiting
several weeks for an appointment.
Now at Children's Hospital we continuously strive to make
things better, and I would be remiss if we didn't offer some
ideas and potential solutions for the problems that I have
identified. Jackie has already alluded to our ideas in the area
of information technology and we envision an assessment program
that will be a model for the rest of the country. This
assessment process will build on the foundation already
established.
The first step will be complete integration of the CFSA
computer system with our system in the DC KIDS program.
Currently, as we enroll children at the time of their initial
assessment, this often occurs before CFSA has confirmed
placement. As a result, it requires a DC KIDS staff member to
contact the social worker or CFSA to locate the child in order
to make their follow-up appointments. This causes a tremendous
bottleneck in waiting for the address and contact information.
If we were fully integrated with the CFSA system, we could
simply log on to the child's file and see the placement
immediately after it is entered into the system by the social
worker. This would save immeasurable time.
We also envision a program that makes health care for
foster children as accessible as possible to the foster family.
Transportation is one of the biggest barriers for our foster
families, and we know that it contributes substantially to the
aforementioned no-show rate. We believe that if we owned a DC
KIDS shuttle and driver that were dedicated solely to providing
transportation to foster families and children for their
appointments, more foster children would receive their care in
a timely manner.
I have already mentioned our dental facilities. Currently
we do not have the facilities or space to cover all the needs
of children at Children's Hospital. We are land-locked and do
not have room for expansion. Our vision for the future,
however, includes a system of community-based partners to
provide all services needed by the DC KIDS children. We are
making strides towards that goal with the recent awarding of a
State innovations grant from the Department of Health and Human
Services that we will be implementing in conjunction with the
D.C. Department of Health to develop state-of-the-art
community-based dental programs at the District's two special
needs schools.
Lastly and clearly the most difficult clinical element in
managing the DC KIDS program is the mental health capacity
issue. The number of patients seeking acute care for mental
health problems has exploded at our institution over the past 2
years. The volume for such crisis has more than tripled since
the closure of the emergency psychiatric facility on the campus
of D.C. General in 2001.
Because of the aforementioned physical limitations at our
institution, we know that we must develop partnerships with
other community providers, but there are some things that can
be done immediately as well. For example, we are planning new
programs to operate a mental health urgent care center at
Children's Hospital in the evenings and on the weekends. We
believe this will help alleviate some of the strain that is
being felt by our emergency department. We believe this mental
health urgent care center will help to redirect patients
currently occupying beds in the ER that are needed for children
with medical and surgical emergencies.
Our proposal is currently being considered by the D.C.
Department of Mental Health and they have agreed to provide
funding for a psychiatric social worker. However, ideally,
funding is needed to support three social workers, a security
guard, a disposition staff, and one full-time position in order
to properly support such a program. Above all, the DC KIDS
population needs stability. What is best for these children is
a comprehensive health system that addresses their emotional,
medical and educational needs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It is critical that they involve stable foster families and
consistency among providers when they seek this treatment.
Children that face disruption in placement as well as
fragmented medical care will have their baseline problems
further compromised.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
and will be happy to answer questions at the end of the panel.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline D. Bowens and Dr. Joseph Wright
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to address
the committee today about our role in caring for the children in
Washington, DC's foster care system. I am Jacqueline D. Bowens, Vice
President of Government and Public Affairs at Children's Hospital.
Joining me today is Dr. Joseph Wright, who is the Medical Director of
Advocacy and Community Affairs, as well as the Medical Director of the
DC KIDS program.
BACKGROUND ON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
Children's Hospital is a 279-bed pediatric inpatient facility
located in the District of Columbia. For over 130 years, we have served
as the only provider dedicated exclusively to the care of infants,
children, and adolescents in this region. It is our mission to be
preeminent in providing health care services that enhance the well-
being of children regionally, nationally, and internationally.
The Children's system includes a network of five primary care
health centers located throughout the city, and a number of
pediatrician practices throughout the region, providing stable medical
homes for thousands of children. We also operate numerous regional
outpatient specialty centers in Maryland and Virginia, providing access
to high quality specialty care right in the communities that we serve.
We are proud to be the region's only Level I pediatric trauma center.
Children's Hospital serves as the Department of Pediatrics for
George Washington University medical school, and runs a highly-
respected pediatric residency program, providing education and
experience to the next generation of pediatricians, pediatric
specialists, and pediatric researchers. We also conduct significant
research within Children's Research Institute, with funds from the
National Institutes of Health, the Health Resources Services
Administration, the Department of Defense, and countless private
funders. Our researchers have received national recognition for recent
breakthroughs including identification of the gene associated with
matasticizing brain tumors, and discoveries related to muscle
development for muscular dystrophy patients.
Recently Children's Hospital was named as one of the nation's ``Top
Ten'' pediatric institutions in the country by Child Magazine, based on
stringent quality and outcomes measures. Our Hemotology/Oncology
program was ranked fourth in the nation. We are the only such facility
in the region to receive this honor.
Locally, we also work in collaboration with the District of
Columbia Department of Health to operate the District's School Health
program, employing all the school nurses in the public schools,
including 21 charter schools. And we are very proud of our affiliation
with the District's Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), in which
we work in conjunction to operate the medical program for children in
foster care called DC KIDS.
BACKGROUND ON THE DC KIDS PROGRAM
The District of Columbia Kids Integrated Delivery System (DC KIDS),
is a collaborative effort between CFSA and Children's Hospital to
provide comprehensive health care services to the children in foster
care in the District of Columbia.
The DC KIDS program was first established by CFSA as a medical
management model. The initial contract went to the former Public
Benefits Corporation and DC General Hospital. Prior to the closure of
DC General Hospital and the PBC in early 2001, CFSA approached
Children's to absorb the program on an emergency basis ``as is,'' with
the intent of eventually establishing a more formal long-term
relationship--which we did. Children's assumed the DC KIDS program on
May 1, 2001 after a rapid transition. Our current agreement runs
through December 31, 2003.
The arrangement allows for this vulnerable population of children
to be evaluated and treated in a child friendly, pediatric-specific
environment. It provides each child with a continuous and coordinated
system of services. DC KIDS supports, informs and navigates the complex
systems of care for foster parents and their foster children. There is
no paperwork to complete, and no cost to the foster parent or child.
All children under 21 years of age and under the care of CFSA, living
with a foster family or in a group home, are eligible for enrollment in
the program.
The agreement between CFSA and Children's Hospital provides
coordination of ongoing health care services for children in foster
care. First, a child is brought to the Children's DC KIDS assessment
center for an initial assessment, before their first foster family
placement. This initial screening is done by dedicated staff who
complete a medical protocol on each child before certifying that they
are healthy enough for placement into a foster home. In addition, each
time that a child's placement is disrupted, they return to the
Children's for a new assessment before being sent to their new
placement.
The child is enrolled in DC KIDS at the time of the initial
assessment. Within 10 days, the DC KIDS program will arrange for a
comprehensive and thorough physical examination and a behavioral/mental
health evaluation. Once completed, necessary services for the child and
family are identifed, such as:
--early and periodic screening
--diagnosis and treatment of illnesses
--dental services
--immunizations
--eye care
--hearing services
--mental health services
--substance abuse services
--developmental services
--in-home services
--inpatient and specialty care
--prescription services
From that point forward, DC KIDS assists the foster families in
navigating the complex health care system to provide for ongoing
treatment for their foster child. The DC KIDS team schedules and
confirms appointments, and arranges for families to receive care at the
Children's Health Center and therapists located in close proximity to
their neighborhoods. When that is not possible, the staff arranges for
transportation--this occurs most often for specialty and follow-up
services. DC KIDS outreach coordinators are available to educate foster
parents, social workers and service providers by answering questions
about enrollment and eligibility.
OUR SUCCESSES
Increased Enrollment
We at Children's Hospital feel that we have come a long way since
our first days on the job with DC KIDS. We have increased enrollment by
over 400 percent. When we first assumed the program, there were less
than 1,000 children actively enrolled in the program--we now care for
over 4,000. Since May 2001 we have had 3,053 children come through our
assessment center, and 1,870 children have returned for visits due to a
disruption in their placement.
Enhanced Technology
We are proud of the new technology we have developed to make the
process easier for the social workers. We provide a computer terminal
for the social workers on site, with all their required forms on line.
This way they can make productive use of their time while waiting for
the child's medical assessment to be completed, and we get the
information we need to accurately enroll the children in the program.
We have worked very hard to minimize the time that the social worker
spends in this process, reaching our goal of 90 percent or more of the
cases triaged in less than 2 hours by July, 2002.
Pharmacy Vouchers
Upon our assumption of the program, Children's also requested the
creation of a new system to provide foster families with the
prescriptions and other pharmaceutical items they needed in order to
care for these children once they left our care. Working with CFSA, we
created a new electronic prescription pad that creates a ``voucher''
that is now accepted at a network of pharmacies throughout the city--
allowing our foster families to receive both prescription and over-the-
counter products for their new foster child.
DC KIDS CHALLENGES
While we are very proud of these achievements, we acknowledge that
there is so much more that needs to be done to overcome the challenges
that Children's, CFSA, and the entire system faces.
Mental Health
One challenge that is a struggle city-wide is the lack of capacity
for mental health services. There simply are not enough providers,
beds, services and programs to adequately serve the children of this
region--not just children enrolled in DC KIDS, but for all children.
The DC KIDS population is a very vulnerable one. More than 50
percent of these children require some type of mental or behavioral
health service, most on an ongoing basis. Children's Hospital has a 12
bed inpatient psychiatric unit, which cannot absorb all of the needs of
this population. Children's Hospital does not have the facilities such
as quiet rooms and restraints that are needed to treat the severely
mentally ill; patients needing that type of care must be treated
elsewhere. As a result, we have tried to establish partnerships and
collaborations with other community providers to refer our DC KIDS
population when we are unable. We serve as the coordination point,
because we simply cannot provide all of the services needed. More of
this collaboration needs to be done.
Dental Services
The same situation exists with dental services. There is a nation-
wide shortage of pediatric dentists, and we feel that shortage in the
District as well. Many of the DC KIDS that need specialized dental care
are ``special needs'' children, and must be seen by a dentist that is
appropriately trained. In order to address this problem, Children's has
purchased half the time of two pediatric dentists who work at two of
the District's special needs schools. These dentists are dedicated to
provide dental services to our DC KIDS population. While this
arrangement has helped, it is insufficient.
One recent strategy has developed with the award of $450,000 in
funding from the Department of HHS, through a State Innovations Grant
to the District of Columbia. The District was one of five states to
receive this grant, which is intended to spur states into finding new
and innovative ways to improve access to health care. Children's
partnered with the DC Department of Health to create a program with two
state-of-the-art dental clinics in schools for children with special
health care needs. The centers will use telemedicine tools to link
patients with pediatric dentists and hygienists. This will allow us to
focus on the provision of dental services to the most vulnerable
children, a population which includes many foster children. It is one
step towards a comprehensive ongoing strategy in this area.
Focus on Young Children
Another challenge that Children's faces with this population is the
orientation of our facility primarily on younger children, as the only
acute care facility solely dedicated to pediatrics in this region.
Although we are licensed to treat patients up to age 21, and do so, we
have met challenges in providing for the unique needs of the older DC
KIDS population. As with mental health, to meet this challenge, we have
had to build partnerships and collaborations with outside community
providers, serving as the coordinator of those services instead of the
primary provider.
Court-ordered Medical Treatment
Children's works hand-in-hand with the judges and the Family Court
to assure appropriate health care services are provided to this
vulnerable population. There are no better advocates for these children
than the judges. Their sensitivities to these children's needs demand
their strict attention, which they provide. But a growing concern for
our institution and the DC KIDS program is the amount and nature of
court-ordered medical treatment. As these cases get adjudicated, often
times a specific medical treatment or therapy will be ordered without
any physician consultation. As the medical provider for these children,
we are forced to comply with a court order, even if it is medically
inappropriate for the child. Our physicians have great difficulty in
treating a child in a manner they feel in unnecessary, regardless of
whether the court has ordered it or not. For example:
--It is common to receive an order to admit child for an inpatient
psychiatric stay for a specified number of days. The child may
not need to be admitted for that period of time--they may be
appropriately released in half the time. But because of the
order, the child may be required to remain in the inpatient
psychiatric unit for the full number of days prescribed in the
court order. These types of social admissions are not always in
the best interest of the child.
--Another example is a court order for occupational therapy within 14
days. But an occupational therapist cannot treat a child
without a physician's order. So DC KIDS must first arrange a
visit with a physician for an evaluation before an appropriate
occupational therapist can be scheduled. It is usually
extremely difficult to accomplish this within the short time
frame usually ordered by the courts.
Unfortunately, such court-ordered referrals are continuing to grow.
From October, 2002 to April, 2003, the number of court-ordered
outpatient referrals grew from about 10 percent of our load to nearly
20 percent. We have begun to educate the judges about the difficulty of
these very specific orders for medical care, but we have a long way to
go.
We want to make it very clear--the judges are passionate advocates
for these children. They demand the very best of service and care, with
the children as their number one priority. Our task is to educate CFSA,
the judges and the Family Court, social workers and families about the
best ways to work together.
Transportation Problems
Another internal challenge we have with this population is the high
rate of ``no-shows'' we encounter. We make every effort to expedite and
facilitate appropriate medical care for these very vulnerable and needy
children--but it is to no avail if the foster family does not bring
them to their appointments. Even though we coordinate transportation
services for them, it often does not help. The result is a negative
domino effect: children, who are not getting necessary medical care;
frustrated physicians, who block out entire days or afternoons to treat
this population, only to have none of their appointments show up; and
other needy children in the community who may be waiting several weeks
for an appointment. We've got to find a better way.
OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE
At Children's Hospital we continually strive to make things better.
We have ideas and solutions for which we are searching for ways to
implement.
Information Integration
We envision an assessment program that could be a model for the
rest of the country. This assessment process would build on the
foundation we have created. The first step would be complete
integration with the CFSA computer system.
Right now, when we enroll the children at the time of their initial
assessment, often this is before CFSA has confirmed their family
placement. This requires a DC KIDS staff member to contact the social
worker or CFSA to locate the child in order to make their follow-up
appointments and comply with the 10-day window to complete the physical
and mental health assessment. Waiting for address and contact
information creates a major bottleneck in the system. If we were fully
integrated with the CFSA system, we could simply log into the child's
file and see the placement immediately after it is entered into the
system by the social worker. It would save immeasurable time.
In addition, integration would eliminate duplication of effort.
Right now, we keep the medical records and CFSA keeps the complete
record. The medical information gets entered in at Children's, and then
has to be manually re-entered into the CFSA system. Placement
information gets entered into the CFSA file, and then has to be
manually re-entered into the medical record. There is a lot of
exchanging of information and data that could be completely eliminated
if the two systems were integrated.
Dedicated Transportation Service
We also can envision a program that makes health care for foster
children as easy and convenient as possible for the foster family.
Transportation is one of the biggest barriers for our foster families,
and we know that it contributes substantially to our ``no-show'' rate.
If a foster parent is unable to get the foster child to a scheduled
appointment, it is a delay in care for that child. Although the DC KIDS
program helps make transportation arrangements, it is an ongoing
problem. We believe that if we owned a DC KIDS shuttle and driver that
was dedicated solely to providing free transportation for foster
families and children to their medical appointments, more foster
children would receive their care in a more timely manner.
Education and Training
We also believe there would be great benefit and improvement of the
system if there were opportunities for outreach and education--to
families, to judges, to social workers, and other partners who touch
the lives of these children. Annual training for all these groups, we
are certain, would go a long way.
Mental Health Models
One of the most difficult pieces of this is the mental health
capacity issue. Because of our physical limitations at our institution,
we know that we must develop partnerships with other community
providers. But there are some things that could be done immediately as
well. For example, we are planning to pilot a new program to operate a
mental health urgent care center at Children's Hospital for nights and
weekends. It would be housed in the outpatient psychiatric department
as a mental health urgent care center in the off hours. We believe this
will help alleviate some of the strain that is being felt by our
emergency room. When St. Elizabeth's closed, we were told to anticipate
an increase of about 10 percent in our emergency room. Instead,
emergency room visits for mental health crisis have tripled in the last
ten months. We believe this mental health urgent care center will help
to redirect patients that are currently occupying medical/surgical beds
in the emergency room that are needed for children with physical
issues. Our proposal is currently being considered by the DC Department
of Mental Health, and they have agreed to provide funding for one
social worker. But the rest we are scraping together for this pilot, to
see whether or not it would be beneficial for the patients and for the
facility. Ideally we need funding for three social workers, a security
officer, a disposition staffer, and one full-time physician to operate
an ideal program.
We also would support the expansion of the DC Department of Mental
Health 24-hour access help line and mobile teams. This would allow
patients to contact DMH directly, and receive care right in their
community. Not every child needs to come to the hospital--they do now
because that is the only place they know to get services. But expansion
of community services like the mobile teams could be very helpful.
Another component that is lacking for the DC KIDS population is a
day treatment program. Often a child is not in need of hospitalization,
but they also need more structure and care than weekly therapy. A day
treatment program is a structured ``in-between'' step that could be
very valuable for those children who are in between hospitalization and
less rigorous treatment they can receive in the community.
Above all, the DC KIDS population needs stability. They come to us
with developmental issues, and problems with attachment and trust. What
is best for this kind of vulnerable population is a comprehensive
mental health system that addresses their emotional, medical, and
educational needs. It is critical to have the involvement of stable
foster families, and consistency with the providers that they see for
treatment. Those children that face disruption in their placement,
coupled with fragmented care that shuffles them from provider to
provider, only worsens their problems with attachment and trust.
Stability is key.
Children's hopes to utilize current research that suggests more
targeted cognitive behavior psychotherapy, carefully re-evaluated every
3-4 months, will lead to better outcomes--better resilience, better
social skills, and better adjustment in the future.
Dental Care
Our current facilities will not cover all the dental needs of the
children. We are land-locked, and have no room for expansion. Our
vision of the future of dental services includes a system of community
based partnerships to provide all the services needed by DC KIDS
children.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you
today. We are very proud of our efforts in caring for this vulnerable
population, and look forward to even greater successes with the DC KIDS
program in the future.
We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator DeWine. Doctor, thank you very much. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF DAMIAN MILLER, STUDENT, HAMPTON UNIVERSITY
Mr. Miller. Good morning, Senator Landrieu and Senator
DeWine, and distinguished guests, for the privilege of allowing
me to address the committee on concerns that I have and things
that need to be improved, as well as the positives of the D.C.
foster care program. First, let me say, my name is Damian
Miller. I am a rising senior at Hampton University. I have been
part of the D.C. foster care program since the age of 7 on and
off. I have had a very unique experience, to say the least,
with some positives and some negative things.
First, let me focus on the areas that I feel need
improvement, starting, I would like to say that I think the
training for many parents should be more intense and with this
training, I think that there should be an emphasis on treating
the kids like they are part of the family. I know in many homes
that I have been in, I found that things like family picnics,
we were not included in. Also, other youths of my age were not
included in things like that, simple things like allowing the
kids to play with other kids in the house and use the
refrigerator, and just do things that are part of the family. I
think that is definitely essential and a part of making them
feel like they are in the family and that you really care about
them.
Also, I think that the training should encourage the
parents to attend PTA meetings and reward you for good behavior
and, you know, academic achievement. I feel that I was always
punished when I did bad, but when I came home with good grades,
I wasn't rewarded, and I think that with any child, you should
definitely reward them, you know, not just always hound them,
and I think that should be an important part of the training.
Also, I think it's important that we rid the system of
parents that are in it for the money. I think that there are
many parents that I have been with that I feel are definitely
in the system, you know, for a check. And even good foster
parents, I remember being in good foster homes, and I would
have good parents, but the fact that the agency would allow
them to bring in three or four extra kids, they were doing a
good job with me but when you brought in three or four other
kids, I mean, can they really handle that? And it definitely,
you know, played a negative effect on my placement with them.
I think that workers should make sure that the funds are
actually used for the kids. A lot of the clothing allowances
and things of that nature, I missed out on, and other youth
that were in the home with me, they didn't receive adequate
funds to go clothing shopping, an allowance, you know, and
teaching them good economics, that wasn't something that was
taught to me in these homes. And I think social workers should
really go out of their way to make sure that these funds are
really being used to better the youth and not just for the
parents.
And part of that, I think that there should be a limit on
how many kids that a person can get, and not just based upon
home size. Just because they have four bedrooms, you know,
doesn't mean that they should have four or five or six kids. It
should be based upon, you know, are they working well with two
kids, you know, should you put this third kid in. I think that
that's something that should be looked at and not just the size
of the house.
Also, I think that recordkeeping is something that's very
important, and I know one of the panelists touched on that.
Social Security cards, birth certificates and things of that
nature, I cannot tell the committee how many times I have tried
to apply for summer jobs and things of that nature, and a
simple copy of my Social Security card could not be found or a
birth certificate or things of that nature. I think vital
recordkeeping is essential and definitely something that needs
to be improved within CFSA.
I think that one thing that should be expanded is family
visitation time. Agencies like For Love of Children provide
once-a-month time when foster kids are allowed to see their
parents. I think that that's a very positive thing and I think
that should be expanded to all agencies, because as Senator
Hillary Clinton's book says, it takes a village to raise a
child, and I think their families should be included in that
village.
I think that helping better the relationship with the
families is definitely a must. I think that these sessions were
always great to me because I would meet uncles and cousins that
were coming, encouraging me with better grades, and like I
said, I think the visitation thing is very important and should
be expanded.
The positive areas that I think should be expanded and the
great improvement I have seen, programs like CFSA's Keys for
Life has been extremely positive for me. In this program youth
are encouraged to excel academically and given money to pursue
a higher education. Like I said, it has been a very positive
experience, and in fact I would call it the most positive out
of my years in the D.C. foster care system. It has given me an
unbelievable opportunity to attend college and definitely
encouraged me along with many other youths to better ourselves
and our future.
The first semester at Hampton University during my freshman
year I didn't do so well, and Keys for Life really stayed on me
and kept me focused to better myself, and since then, I'm a
rising senior now and I have been on the dean's list ever
since. So programs like Keys for Life are definitely essential
and a great way to help youth.
I think that one thing I have seen improvement in over the
years is that social workers today are not as swamped with
caseloads like they used to be when I first came into the
system. It was very hard to even talk to my social worker, but
now that's something that has improved and I think that it's
critical that it improves even more, because when you have a
social worker that's not swamped with caseload, they can give
the youth individualized attention which definitely is always a
positive.
And I think something that's also important is mentors. I
have had mentors over my years in CFSA and they have helped me
a great deal, and I think that should be something that should
be mandatory for all youth if possible, that they be given a
mentor or someone to look up to and provide guidance to them.
And also, lastly, I would like to mention programs like the
Orphan Foundation. Providing internships on Capitol Hill for
youth this summer, CFSA will be providing internships because
of the Orphan Foundation, and programs like that are positive.
Thank you for allowing me to come and testify.
Senator Landrieu [presiding]. Thanks to all the panelists
today for coming here and presenting well-put-together
presentations, and for concentrating on some of the positive
efforts that are being made, and still being forthright in
pointing out some of the weaknesses that still need to be
addressed.
Senator DeWine will be back with us. He had to make a
quorum for another committee, but he does have questions, so I
will take the first round and he will be back shortly.
Damian, just start with you. For the record, if you can
remember, how many foster care placements and social workers
have you had since the age of 7?
Mr. Miller. Sure. Approximately nine placements and maybe
eight to nine social workers also.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. I wanted to get it on the record
and I want to thank Damian for being here and sharing his
experience and his commitment to advocate for the 9,000
children or so that are within the universe of this discussion
this morning, and as well as the 500,000 children in the
country today that are in the foster care system. Without
leaders like Damian, we would have an even harder time trying
to figure out some of the solutions. Obviously one of the goals
of our work is to try to achieve one placement, at the most two
per child and one social worker for each child, to give him or
her the consistency over time. There will be turnover, so one
is not always going to be possible, but that ideally would be
our goal, one case worker, one placement, one judge, one
permanency plan, and that is what I would like us to keep in
mind as we think about Damian's future and how hard he has
worked and how much he has achieved under these difficult
circumstances.
Senator DeWine and I are very pleased to be part of the
agencies and offices that will be offering internships. Damian,
I might specifically request you, since I have met you now, but
we are not supposed to pick our young people for the summer.
But both Senator DeWine and I look forward, given our
experience this last summer, of having these interns come into
our office.
Let me ask just a couple of questions. One, there are so
many, but one I would like to pursue is this seemingly model
that's developing here with Children's Hospital. Ms. Sandalow,
I think the car accident analogy that you referred to is an
excellent one. We would not leave a family involved in a car
wreck on the highway and not give them immediate attention.
This is exactly the same kind of thing that happens when there
is basically a breakdown or a wreck in a family, and that
emergency care, the first 24 to 48 hours is crucial for the
health and development of either that group of individuals or
one individual that has been the victim of such an accident. It
seems as though we're developing a fairly good model here with
Children's Hospital and with DC KIDS to do that early
evaluation.
My question is, you were saying that you have seen 4,000
children. I think there are 9,000 in the universe. Am I looking
at the right number? What is preventing, or what is stopping
the system or slowing it down for all the children that are
removed from the home to get to this evaluation center where a
lot of wonderfully good things could be done in the first 24 or
48 hours? Medical records could be compiled, an evaluation
could be conducted, a social worker or case worker could make a
fairly quick assessment of the appropriate temporary placement,
preferably a kinship placement, which is what we always like to
reach to, a kinship placement or a neighbor, until an
appropriate maybe interim placement can be made, and then the
work begins to try to move that child either back to
reunification with the family, or on to a permanent adoption.
In the new Federal law it refers to temporary foster care of no
more than 18 months.
So let's talk about what might be a barrier for setting
that as a model, maybe Miss Bowens and all of you could
comment. Is that the model we're trying to achieve, and what
are the barriers?
Dr. Wright. Let me just start by saying the point of entry
for children into the DC KIDS program is either an initial or a
change of placement, so that the universe of children who are
in stable homes and represent perhaps the 5,000 that represents
the gap between the 4,000 that we have enrolled and the
universe of children, are not accessible to us through the DC
KIDS model. However, let me also say that the full universe of
children in foster care is a population in which we are very
interested and would very much like to access those children
for the purposes of some of the things that Damian has
validated for us, which is very encouraging to see, to hear,
that we're interested in education, we're very much interested
in mentorship and working with the families in the foster care
system, the entire foster care system and not just the ones
that enter into the DC KIDS program because there has been a
change in placement.
And one of the barriers that I alluded to in my testimony
was from the standpoint of information technology, we have
access only to the kids in the DC KIDS database, and there is
not an interface there.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you for your clarification. Did I
understand you correctly that after the initial placement that
every child that has come into the D.C. system has to be
evaluated at your center?
Ms. Bowens. No. We only have access to the children since
we assumed the program, and that would only be under the
assumption that they were still in the homes that they were in
when they first came into our care. Any children that have been
enrolled prior to, we don't have access. The bottom line is
that we don't have the information on the foster care family.
What would be great is actually to have the list of all the
foster care families, so that we could outreach to them and
provide them with information and education about DC KIDS. For
example, issues about Medicaid numbers and things like that,
many of the families are not even aware that the program
exists. So if we had access to them and were able to educate
them, some of the things that were mentioned earlier probably
could be minimized.
Senator Landrieu. I may be misunderstanding, maybe I heard
the testimony wrong, but I'm trying to determine when the car
accident occurs, are the children in the car accident brought
to you?
Ms. Bowens. No.
Senator Landrieu. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I
thought you testified that was an early initial evaluation.
Ms. Bowens. No. When children first go to CFSA, then CFSA
will bring, the social worker will bring children to Children's
Hospital for an initial assessment.
Senator Landrieu. Right, an initial assessment sometime
after that car accident.
Ms. Bowens. Yes, exactly. I'm sorry. Very, very quickly,
within 24 hours, those children will come in for an initial
assessment. We don't have any idea of where they're going, it's
just kind of the social worker is there with them, we'll do an
initial assessment just to make sure that they are healthy
enough to be placed. We then work diligently to work with CFSA
to find out where those families are then located, so that we
can provide their follow-up primary care visit and a mental
health evaluation.
Senator Landrieu. But in that stop, do you do a
comprehensive evaluation of the child's general situation so
that you could provide foster parents with some meaningful
information about a general initial evaluation of their
physical health, maybe some of their initial experiences, the
reasons they were--you know, a packet that would be helpful to
what Mrs. Egerton said about having some information as a child
comes into a foster care home, do you provide this information?
Ms. Bowens. We don't, we would love to. I mean, we have
actually reached out to the agency, because many of our
physicians get extremely frustrated because the children come
in, we have no medical record information, no background
information, so we are not poised right now to be able to do
that, because like many of the other panelists have said, we're
chasing after information to be able to make those appropriate
assessments. But our initial assessments when they first come
in, again under that label of assessment, are to just make sure
that the child is healthy enough to be placed, and then we
provide the follow-up comprehensive evaluation. But then the
struggle there is, we don't have the requisite information.
Senator Landrieu. It's a very limited evaluation of the
child.
Ms. Bowens. The initial, that's correct.
Senator Landrieu. Ms. Sandalow, would you like to comment,
or Miss Egerton, if we could help develop this system, would
that be helpful? We want to create systems that are simple,
streamlined and work, and not add any other bureaucratic
layers. Can you comment on that system as it exists today and
what you would like to see?
Ms. Egerton. Well, that actually happens prior to the child
being placed with me. It would be divine, and we have been
fighting for a very long time to get adequate information on
our children when they come to us. The realities though, in all
fairness to CFSA, is that they're chasing down the information
as well. When they go into a home to take a child out in the
middle of the night and the parent is in opposition, the parent
isn't standing there saying, well, wait a minute, let me get
you the Social Security card and Medicaid card. That doesn't
happen, and so CFSA is chasing the information down also.
The evaluation happens before the child is placed with me,
so I really can't speak to the evaluation itself, but we would
like a situation where they go to that evaluation and from that
evaluation come to us with a full medical screening, with a
mental health evaluation, with all of the pertinent medical and
mental health information available to us, absolutely. And if
we can figure out a way to do that, that would be beautiful.
Ms. Sandalow. But we need the combination of the medical/
mental health screening. We need adequate social worker
resources at the very beginning to pull that together. The
Foster and Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center, which I'm proud to
be on the board of, has done an extraordinary job in their
efforts to put together the concept of a placement passport,
which would carry that information. If a child comes to your
home who is HIV-positive, we want to know so we can give
adequate medication. That has been a struggle.
So there is a medical and mental health piece that comes,
but there are also things as simple as has the child been in
the system before. It is common for a child to be returned home
and then he will come to you 2 years later and you are not told
that. My own children have been in and out of care twice. It
took 2 years for me to figure that out, until they were
emotionally able to unlock that. I didn't learn it from CFSA.
Those kinds of records could be pulled in.
And I think most important is to focus CFSA on adequate
social worker resources in the first few days, to pull together
family. We had a case recently where we represented a child who
had been living half-time with her father in a normal split
custody situation and CFSA did not know that there was a father
involved. And we figured it out and we had to tell them. So
here's a child who could have moved straight to her father, and
it took an outsider to tell. So that kind of intensive
interview of the family members and the neighbors, and a family
caucus, it is a model being used around the country.
Senator Landrieu. I would like to follow that up for a
minute. I know Senator DeWine has questions, but I think this
is a very important component to obtain this initial placement
assessment by getting the general information from family and
neighbors, so an accurate assessment can be made. The hospitals
need this, the foster care parents need this, and the judges
need this information eventually so that they can make good
determinations for the children.
Could we comment about what exists now? Is there any model
in the District of that group social worker intensive
evaluation? If so, where is it working? If not, how could this
committee help to get that initial assessment, which I think,
that and the technology piece are the two things that we
perhaps could be most helpful with.
Ms. Sandalow. I think that the funding assets should go to
CFSA as a targeted type of project. I shared my testimony with
a few people who--yesterday, who said this emergency team,
shouldn't that be true for every child? And you'd think that
the goal would be for CFSA to be given some pilot money to
develop it internally, because obviously our hope is, if it
works, if they can make it work and they have the funds to do
it, that they can expand that even more for all the kids.
I don't think it's happening in any of the private agencies
right now. Our structure is that when a child comes into the
system, it is CFSA who touches them first. So I think that they
need to be focused on that job.
Senator Landrieu. Let's take one minute, if you would, to
describe in 30 seconds what this team would look like. How many
people would be on it, would there be a team leader? Does
anybody have a comment?
Ms. Sandalow. I'm a lawyer, so I don't think I'm the expert
you want, but it is--I can tell you what we do. In essence, we
step in and act like what we call the SWAT team that we're
hoping to, and we do it ourselves. And we have one lawyer
working tirelessly around the clock. I think two or three
social workers. The important thing is passing the information
on. That needs to happen. And you can go to hospitals after
hours and get medical records, we can coordinate that. What
we're talking about is a team of social workers who have the
time as well as, and I think this is very important, flexible
funding.
I think you mentioned, Senator, we should try to place
children with relatives. Most of the relatives are not well
off, they can't absorb extra children in their home without
some assistance. Grandmothers who may be on SSI are wonderful
caregivers, but they need some flexible funds to ease the
transition. So it needs to be social workers with access to
some flexible funds, access to the resources of Children's
Hospital.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more
question, and I want each of you to comment for the record. Do
you think it would be a wise policy for us to try to put these
evaluation teams together for the first initial assessment with
the medical evaluation coming as close to an assessment as
possible, more comprehensive than just the physical well-being
of the child to, if we could identify a relative or neighbor,
to make an emergency 30-day placement based on the
recommendation of at least two certified social workers, if
that would be the best, for at least 30 days until we can find
a more--not to say more appropriate, that may have been a very
appropriate placement, but a certified foster home, assuming
none of these relatives have been certified for foster care,
most of the neighbors are not certified for foster care. But
yet, they may be the best short-term placement for these
children until a more--and I want an answer yes or no, a short
comment, because this is a big issue in trying to loosen up, if
you want to use the word loosen up, but make a greater pool of
placement opportunities that would help to ease this traumatic
time for a child. Or should we stick to the policy of you can't
place a child unless they're a certified family? Sister.
Sister Conrad. I would certainly support the idea of as
much flexibility as possible. The one area that strikes me
immediately in your question is the notion of neighbor, and in
many cases this would seem to be appropriate. However, if the
child is being removed from a dangerous situation, if we're
talking about the neighbor next door or down the street, we may
simply be endangering the neighbor as well as the child
themselves. And so in a very broad sense, yes, but with that
notion, that our concern is safety in care, that perhaps a
neighbor would be much further away than down the street.
Senator Landrieu. Miss Egerton?
Ms. Egerton. I actually have to agree with that. I think
that's a real concern for--that's a real concern for foster
parents. Even trying to keep children in their same
neighborhood, if the child or children have been pulled out of
very dangerous situations, and those parents can see that child
going back and forth to that particular home, it can be an
issue.
I think that there needs to be some room left for
flexibility. It sounds wonderful, right off the top it sounds
like a wonderful thing, but you would put the agency in a
position of monitoring unlicensed homes if you do that, which
brings in a whole other dynamic. And as a foster parent, I
would say it isn't always a bad thing for that emergency
placement to come to me. The reality is, I raised six kids to
adulthood who came to me as emergency placements who were only
supposed to stay with me 4 weeks, and they stayed with me from
11 or 12 years old to adulthood. I have one who came in at 17
and was only supposed to stay a month, who stayed until he aged
out.
So, they called me not specifically because I could, you
know, everything matched up or this was the child I wanted, or
I matched the needs of the child, or because I would be able to
answer the phone in the middle of the night. So it's not always
a horrible thing either. I just think there definitely needs to
be some room for flexibility.
Ms. Sandalow. Unequivocally yes, with the additional
problem that the District of Columbia has, which is a lot of
those people live in Maryland, so anything that we can do to
address the problem, because many of our extended families are
in Maryland.
Ms. Bowens. Not to be redundant, but I agree. I think that
that would be great, but I think we do have to retain the
flexibility because emergencies will happen and we don't want
to have a situation where we again have a backlog of children
waiting while we search out neighborhoods and families, and so
there will be that ongoing need for emergency placement. So I
think what ultimately the other panelists have said as well,
but again, we need flexibility.
Dr. Wright. Just to echo the flexibility mantra, but I
would also like to address your question about the composition.
I think that you have alluded to the fact that any such team
would need to be multidisciplinary, because these children and
families present with a multitude of issues, and the model that
I alluded to in regard to emergency or urgent mental health
assessment is one that suggests the need for several
disciplines to be involved and a point of contact.
Mr. Miller. I do agree with the rest of the panelists. I
feel that if you can place a child in an emergency placement
with a relative, that would be great, but that relative should
not be in that community, and they should be--like you talked
to about the economic burden, maybe grandparents are not able
to support an extra child and things of that nature. So I think
that if it's possible and reasonable, I think we should work to
do that, because that would ease the transition.
Senator Landrieu. Was there a relative you could have been
placed with?
Mr. Miller. I think that with economic help, I think that
that would have been definitely possible, and it would have
eased my transition to be with relatives.
Senator Landrieu. Would you have liked that?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I would have, Senator. I very definitely
would have.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeWine [presiding]. Let me apologize to all of you.
I had to attend another hearing actually, we call it a Senate
markup, we were moving a poison control bill that we passed out
of committee just a few minutes ago. So that's where I was and
now I'm back, so I may ask some of the same questions that
Senator Landrieu asked, because I obviously did not hear some
of your answers.
I would like to get into an area that I know has been
covered a little bit, and that is the question of Children's
Hospital contract between, a medical contract between
Children's Hospital and CFSA, and make sure I understand the
nature of that contract.
How do you deal with a child that has a chronic medical
problem such as, let's say asthma, and how do you know that kid
has asthma, for example? How does that child get in to you? In
other words, you know, we know that asthma is a preventable
problem, and unless that child ends up in your emergency room,
asthma is something that you try to keep he or she out of your
emergency room, and if it's something that's severe enough,
you're dealing with every day, that child is taking medication
every day. How do you know that child who maybe has been in the
system for a long time, how do you reach out and get that kid
in so that kid is being seen by your specialists or whoever he
needs to be seen by?
Dr. Wright. Well again, I will reiterate that the point of
entry into our system only occurs with initial placement or
change of placement. So provided that that has occurred, we as
part of our screening do inquire about the presentation of
chronic illness. And actually as we speak, we are developing a
pilot program for the DC KIDS program within which we have
identified a physician who would specifically work with those
children who have complex medical conditions. In other words,
this individual would be the primary physician for that cohort
of children who have asthma as an example, or who might have
any host of medical conditions that are actually more
predominant in this population than in the population at large.
This individual, as I said, we are piloting this right now, and
this individual would be identified as the follow-up physician
from the point of assessment, and then be involved in the care
of--the ongoing care of that child through specialty care or
whatever care the child needs. But we are sensitive and
recognize that that is an issue and a problem that we want to
identify as early on as possible, and that's the reason why we
are instituting this pilot program right now.
Senator DeWine. But the big picture is that you have--how
many children do you currently have, what I would call open
case files?
Dr. Wright. Four thousand, five hundred that are enrolled
in the DC KIDS program.
Senator DeWine. Those are foster children.
Dr. Wright. That's right.
Senator DeWine. And that's out of a total of how many kids
that are in the foster care program?
Dr. Wright. I believe we heard this morning that the
universe is somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000.
Senator DeWine. Okay. So instantly we know that we have a
problem, right? I know I'm repeating what has been said, but to
me this is a real problem.
Ms. Goode. No.
Senator DeWine. Okay. We do have a problem or we don't have
a problem. Who's saying we don't have a problem?
Senator Landrieu. They're saying they don't have that
number.
Senator DeWine. Okay, step up to the microphone and
identify yourself for the record please.
Ms. Goode. Good morning, Senator.
Senator DeWine. Good morning.
Ms. Goode. I am Brenda Goode, Public Information Officer
for Child and Family Services. Let's help get these numbers
straight. There are 3,200 paid placements in foster care.
Ms. Sandalow. But many more children under the supervision
of the Court.
Ms. Goode. That's correct, but 3,200 paid foster care
placements and about 8,000 children in the system total. So, a
number of those children are being monitored in their homes
with their parents.
Senator DeWine. Well now, what does all that mean?
Ms. Goode. Eight thousand children in the system, of which
3,200 are paid foster care placements. And then we have the
remainder of the kids who are being monitored at home with
their parents.
Ms. Sandalow. But other kids are placed with kinship
caregivers.
Senator Landrieu. It would be very helpful if you all could
give us for the record today, I would appreciate this,
literally just a record of the universe, okay? Because we need
to have those numbers.
Senator DeWine. Well, I'm getting apples and oranges now.
The point is, the public policy issue is how many, as a matter
of public policy, should we be providing medical care for.
Isn't that the public policy issue?
Ms. Bowens. All of them.
Senator DeWine. All of what universe? I'm getting an 8,000
number or a 3,200 number?
Ms. Goode. Right, the 8,000 is the entire universe of
children that we have cases open on at the current time, but
3,200 is the number who are placed in foster care. So right
now, DC KIDS only serves our children who are in foster care.
Ms. Bowens. But we also serve the children who are under
the jurisdiction of child protection as well, so we serve both.
Ms. Goode. All right. So you serve all the court-involved
kids.
Ms. Bowens. Correct.
Ms. Goode. We have a number of kids in the system for other
cases in court.
Ms. Sandalow. I understand from the Family Court that it's
slightly over 5,000 children who are court involved.
Senator DeWine. That includes the foster kids?
Ms. Sandalow. That includes children in foster care and it
includes children who are still, there's an open court case but
they may have returned home to their parents or whatever but
they didn't close the Court's involvement, and the children who
are with relative caregivers who are not licensed paid
providers.
Senator DeWine. So, are we all agreeing that that's the
universe, that as a matter of public policy, the District of
Columbia has agreed that we want to take care of their health
needs?
Ms. Sandalow. Most of the children----
Senator DeWine. Hold on. I want to get her. Since you
represent the CFSA, would you like to answer that?
Ms. Goode. What was the question?
Senator DeWine. My question is, do we agree as a matter of
public policy, CFSA had said that that is the number that you
want to provide medical care for, and that is 5,000, whatever
the figure was.
Ms. Goode. Yes. But we also provide Medicaid services for
other kids, so that if you're not part of DC KIDS or not court-
involved, we still provide medical services for the families
who are involved with us.
Senator DeWine. But if I have a 5,000 figure, and what's
the figure, 5,000 what?
Ms. Goode. Five thousand court-involved kids.
Senator DeWine. Five thousand court-involved kids, and
you've got, the hospital has open files for how many?
Ms. Bowens. About 4,000 children year to date, we have been
tracking and following.
Senator DeWine. All right. So we are missing a thousand. Do
you agree with that?
Senator Landrieu. One of the issues, Mr. Chairman, is that
they only have files for kids that have had a change in their
placement.
Ms. Bowens. And since we took over the program, there are
many more children----
Senator Landrieu. They're not really lost, it's just that
they didn't come into the system because they are in a stable
place now, but I understand that your enrollment in DC KIDS is
about 4,000; is that correct?
Ms. Bowens. That is correct. We only track those children
who have had an initial placement or a change since 2001
basically, so any children who may have been in a home for
many, many years and did not have to come for an initial
assessment through us would not necessarily be in the program.
Now we've done some significant outreach working with the
agency to bring more in, but there is obviously a large group
of folks we do not have access to.
Senator DeWine. And I'm not finding fault with Children's.
Ms. Bowens. I understand that.
Senator DeWine. All I'm simply saying is, does that mean
that those children are not getting medical care?
Ms. Bowens. No, it does not mean that.
Senator DeWine. What does it mean?
Ms. Bowens. It means that we are not coordinating all of
their health care services and they then are left to kind of
navigate on their own. So the foster family may have to work to
get the Medicaid card, to schedule appointments. We are able to
kind of fully manage the care for these children.
Senator DeWine. Let me ask it this way then.
Ms. Bowens. Okay.
Senator DeWine. Would we all agree as a matter of public
policy that it would be better if those thousand were picked
up?
Ms. Bowens. Yes, and I think the agency would agree with
that as well.
Senator DeWine. Well, let me ask the agency. Does the
agency agree with that?
Ms. Goode. Yes.
Senator DeWine. Okay. Then why can't we get it done?
Ms. Goode. You're asking me--you started out by saying that
you didn't understand the contract between CFSA----
Senator DeWine. Yeah, and now I'm asking a different
question. Can you answer that question?
Ms. Goode. I know that's a contracting issue, and I don't
know the answer off the top of my head.
Senator DeWine. I'm not sure it is a contracting issue.
Ms. Bowens. No, it's not a contracting issue. Part of the
issue is that we need to do a better job of outreaching and
accessing the families, and being able to educate them that the
service is available to them. I mean, that is the largest
obstacle.
Senator DeWine. Well, my only point is, if we have decided,
you have decided that this is a good way to provide medical
care and you're doing it for four-fifths of these kids, why
don't you figure out a way to do it for the other fifth of
these kids? That's all I'm saying. I didn't devise the system,
I didn't say it was the best system, but it seems to me as an
outside lay person, you as the experts decide it is the best
system, and it seems to me it is the best system, it looks like
we have the experts here who are doing it, and why do you just
say we've got a fifth of these kids and we're just not going to
worry about them? And it seems to me, I worry about them. I
don't get it, why don't you worry about them?
Ms. Goode. And I simply don't know the answer off the top
of my head.
Senator DeWine. My only point is why?
Ms. Goode. I will be happy to take that message back.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. If these are the best folks that
we've got, and I think it's good you have a contract with them,
and I just think if we get the rest of these kids in the system
so they can get kind of the holistic approach to health care,
and we know it's good and it's particularly good with kids, and
we can get prevention in there and get somebody paying
attention to them, that's the way we want to treat these kids,
and if we're missing some of them, we want to get them into the
system. That's all.
Let me turn to Miss Egerton, if I could, and you made some
interesting comments, and I appreciate the fact that you said
that things are getting better. And I think that was, you put
it in perspective and I think those of us who can be critical
up here need to understand that, so I appreciate you saying
that.
But I am intrigued by some of the things you said, and I
want to read from your written testimony. You say, social
workers often invalidate our experience, and when it comes to
the right to make decisions, exclude, ignore and/or rebuff the
foster parent's input. I wonder given your vast experience, if
you can give me an example. And obviously, don't use names, and
obviously don't use anything that we could tie them to any one
person, but could you give me an example?
Ms. Egerton. I could give you some examples. One major
example is the fact that there is supposed to be these
administrative reviews that happen every 6 months, and in my
history of fostering, I think I have been to 2 or 3, in 12
years. And even, you know, as much as things have gotten better
over time, even recently, I have not been invited to an
administrative review.
Senator DeWine. Why is that, do you think? You know the
system as well as anybody.
Ms. Egerton. I know the system pretty well and I am not
sure if that is because they are not happening or if that is
because they are happening without me; either way it's a
travesty.
Another example, a very personal example would be, I have a
son who at 17 was having some very serious behavioral issues in
school, and we were putting him on restriction. And so his
social worker came in, and this is a child who I have been
parenting since he was 11 years old, who had been in 8 homes in
the 18 months prior to coming to me and was only supposed to be
there for a couple of days while they got a residential
placement for him, and he ended up there. And he's my baby
today, and he's aged out.
But he at 17 years old went through some serious stuff, and
his social worker just came in and said we were too strict, and
that he should be in an independent living program, he didn't
need the kind of restrictions we were putting on him. And I
said you cannot do that, he is not mature enough to cope with
the independent living programs that we have out there. And she
fought me, she won, she got him into the independent living
program. The moment he went in there, he went on a downward
spiral, he ended up in a psychiatric facility for an extended
amount of time. And when they did release him from that
facility, they would not release him back into an independent
living program. They called us and asked us if he could be
released back to us, and we would not take him back because of
the structure--or if we would not take him back, then they
weren't going to release him until they found a setting with
the kind of structure that he needed.
Senator DeWine. Well, at least they learned.
Ms. Egerton. But the fight was put up by the social worker
who did not see my son even once a month, okay? And I was
parenting him every single day.
Senator DeWine. So you had all your years of experience.
Ms. Egerton. And my husband and I were saying you cannot do
this, you cannot do this. We asked them for certain supports
for him. My son went down to his social worker, sat at her desk
and asked for certain support and said okay, I have some real
problems and I know it, and I have to get it together, and the
solution that they came up with was to put him in independent
living in spite of our protests.
And I think that that example, though I will point out that
that particular example did not happen under this
administration, it is a classic example of how absolutely
dangerous it can be to ignore the input of the person who is
parenting these children every day all day.
Senator DeWine. I think that's a great summary. I mean,
it's a scary thing. You also tell us that although this
incident occurred under a previous administration, the lack of
input in decisions about our children still continues.
Ms. Egerton. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. And that's even more frightening. Why do
you think that is?
Ms. Egerton. In my position as an employee of FAPAC, and
also as an active member of a local foster parent support
group, I interact with a lot of foster parents going through a
lot of issues and they are brought to me constantly. Foster
parents will tell me that a particular child is therapeutic and
they need more services for this child, and they have a social
worker telling them that child is not therapeutic, you don't
know what you're talking about, we're just going to take the
child away from you. I can't tell you how many foster parents I
have had call me with that issue where the social worker just
absolutely rebuffs what they say their child needs, and they
feel that very often the social worker's personal feelings are
involved and that the social workers sometimes make judgments
about the underlying motivation for a foster parent requesting
more services for their child, yet you know, ultimately that
foster parent is just working toward a larger check.
And let me say that I have worked with some fabulous social
workers, so this is not a blanket statement to say that all
CFSA social workers are lousy, it's not that at all. I have had
some social workers use some of their skills to get me calmed
down in some situations, so my hat's off to them, there are
some wonderful ones. But there are still some social workers
out there who are not accepting the fact that we do know what
we're talking about and that when we say our children need
certain services, the answer is not to decide that you just
want to put yourself in a position to get more money for that
child. The answer is to hear what I have to say and to act on
getting those services for those children.
Senator DeWine. Do you think that sometimes the problem is
that they don't have those services?
Ms. Egerton. I think absolutely, I think sometimes the
problem is the services are not available, but I also think
that sometimes the problem is that the social worker doesn't
know that the services are available or have access to those
services for my child. I have been in situations where I have
known about services that would help my child and the social
worker did not, and I had to school that social worker. And I
know lots of foster parents, particularly those who have been
it a long time, who have been in that situation.
Senator DeWine. Mary?
Senator Landrieu. Is there an annual evaluation of foster
parents that is conducted by CFSA?
Ms. Egerton. We have to get recertified every year and we
have a support group that used to be called monitors, the
terminology for a support worker assigned to us who visits us
periodically throughout the year and regularly at yearly
intervals takes us through the motions of getting recertified,
so we go through all the clearances again and the medical
evaluations, we go through a stack of paper work discussing
what we can and cannot do.
Senator Landrieu. You have been through this evaluation
now, and as one of our outstanding foster parents, what would
you recommend to either streamline that process and make
everybody, save everybody a lot of time, but also get the job
accomplished? Because what we want, I think, the purpose is to
identify the foster parents who are doing a very good job and
recommend that they be continued, and then to eliminate those
that are not doing a good job. So, I don't know if you would
know how many foster parents are eliminated each year.
Ms. Egerton. I don't know.
Senator Landrieu. If anybody in the audience knows, I would
like to know, if possible, how many foster families are
eliminated every year through that evaluation process. And Ms.
Egerton, what would you recommend, one or two or three things
that could be done differently that would make that process
work better for you, better for the system, that you would like
to share with us?
Ms. Egerton. Wow, that's a good question. I think that for
one, if there were more consistent and regular interaction
between the social workers or the support workers and the
foster parents, it may be a lot easier for the workers to know
what kind of job we're doing. I think that maybe, you know--I'm
not really sure, honestly I'm not sure. I think that it would
probably be a good thing if we had some kind of evaluation
where they talk to us about our strengths and weaknesses, and
we talk to them about our strengths and weaknesses.
As it stands, we do, we are required to do a certain amount
of training all year, 15 hours of training throughout the year,
but what does not happen is nobody sits down with me and says
okay, here is what we see as your strengths, here are what we
see as your weaknesses, what do you think about that, what
training can we get.
Senator Landrieu. In all of your years of foster care, no
one has sat down and done that?
Ms. Egerton. No.
Senator Landrieu. And when they evaluate you as a foster
parent, do they focus on your parenting skills, your
relationship with the children, or do you find that their
evaluation is concerned more about, you know, the home, the
physical environment, or your recordkeeping capabilities, and
what kind of records you are required to show them year after
year after year?
Ms. Egerton. They very seldom come to my house, truthfully.
When I was trained I was told that I was required to keep a
list of the children who come into my home who are placed with
me, when they are placed, and their social worker. We are
encouraged to give social workers copies of children's report
cards, copies of health evaluations, although we don't get
written copies of health evaluations, just so you all know. And
any, you know, any other printed information we get, we are
encouraged to give our children's social workers copies of
that. I keep copies of it all. I keep a file on my children. I
don't know that I have ever been told beyond that list that I'm
supposed to.
Senator Landrieu. Have you had the same monitor every year?
Ms. Egerton. I had the same monitor for a very long time
and I recently, I think the last 2 years, I got a different
one.
Senator Landrieu. Can somebody in the audience tell me how
many monitors we have? We have 3,000 foster homes; how many
monitors do we have?
Ms. Sandalow. But I think it's important, Senator, that
CFSA does not monitor Maryland homes, that Maryland monitors
Maryland homes, and I think 60 percent of our children are in
Maryland homes.
Senator Landrieu. Of these 3,000 homes, for just homes
where D.C. children reside, how many of them are in the
District?
A Voice From Audience. About 250 homes.
Senator Landrieu. Only 250 homes are in the District of
Columbia, and the rest of the homes of those 3,000 are either
in Maryland or Virginia?
A Voice From Audience. No, we don't have 3,000 homes. I
will have to get back to you with accurate numbers.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to have
these numbers to do any of this work.
Senator DeWine. You will.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, before this meeting is
over, someone has to take responsibility to provide at least to
me and to my staff an accurate accounting of the universe of
what children we're talking about. We would really like to
help, but we're having a very difficult time, and I don't want
to take the time in a public meeting, but in 24 hours I have to
have on my desk what the universe of the 8,000 children under
the jurisdiction of CFSA is, and I'm going to ask them to give
me this universe. How many children are under the jurisdiction
of the courts, how many do you have that aren't under the
jurisdiction of the courts? How many that are under the
jurisdiction of the courts are living in traditional homes, how
many are living in group homes, how many are living in
therapeutic homes, I think those are the three categories, and
if there's a fourth one, please add that. And of those homes,
where are the homes? Are they in the District of Columbia, are
they in Maryland, are they in Virginia?
And we need these numbers before we can sign off on--the
chairman and I agree that we spend--at least I spend half of my
time trying to figure out that's not the number, that's not the
number, and I'm tired of doing that. I want to focus on the
solutions to the problems. So being able to provide an accurate
list of that would be very illuminating to me, to begin with,
and I'm getting very different information. So with that said,
I have to have that in 24 hours, but this has been very
helpful.
One of the things we want to do is recruit more foster
parents in the District of Columbia. This is a major problem
that has been identified, and while I, and I think the chairman
believes that we have want to have regional cooperation, if
there are children who can be well placed in Maryland, we don't
want to deprive them of the opportunities to have placements
with relatives or good parenting homes just because they happen
to live outside the concentrated and very artificial district
that was created for totally other purposes, for the benefit of
the Nation, so we should not hold children responsible for
that, but to improve foster care to what some experienced
foster care parents do, and we could recruit more, do better
evaluations, et cetera, et cetera.
Ms. Egerton. I think that, if I can just say this, that if
we could retain more of our foster parents, your recruitment
efforts would be----
Senator Landrieu. Less than a third.
Ms. Egerton. Absolutely, because we would actively recruit.
Right now today, I have to say, I'm a little more willing to
recruit today than I have been in years. And I for a long time
absolutely refused to, and not only absolutely refused to
recruit, but had made up in my mind, when the children I was
fostering aged out, I was quitting, because the system was so
horrible and because I felt so unsupported and unappreciated.
As we see CFSA begin to give us the tools to do the things that
we need to quality parent our children, we will recruit for
you. I am a District of Columbia resident, have been my entire
life, I'm one of those few native Washingtonians, and I would
recruit. And I would guarantee that the people I bring in would
be just like me and would be great foster parents.
Senator Landrieu. That's what we want to hear.
Ms. Egerton. But you have to take care of some of the
issues that we are fighting. We must have care for our kids, we
must have adequate healthcare for our children, we must be at
the decisionmaking table for our children, and when those
things happen, we will go out and recruit.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
[Clerk's Note.--Additional submitted statements were
received by the subcommittee and are included here as part of
the formal hearing record. The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and others on this subcommittee,
as the United States Senator for the District of Columbia I wish to
express my support for this Committee's examination of the D.C. Foster
Care System. The foster children of the District of Columbia deserve
quality care and service, services that can only be provided with your
support.
I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today
and acknowledge the testimony they have given. When faced with the
challenge of reforming the Child and Family Services Agency not only
did they step up to make the changes necessary, they did so to the best
of their ability. However, it is the continuing need for change that
brings us here today.
Though we are all United States citizens, the residents of the
District of Columbia are not afforded the same rights as their
neighboring States. Therefore, we must rely on Congress to provide
needed support to the D.C. Foster Care System. Ideally, the District of
Columbia should not have to look to Congress for supervision. This is
just another example of the injustice the American citizens residing in
the District must suffer. While we will continue to fight to achieve
full rights as celebrated by those in surrounding areas, I urge you to
consider the needs of our D.C. Foster Care System as you would any
issue that affects your own constituents, including respect for local
sovereignty.
All Americans must care about all American children. However, we
must acknowledge the fact that to Ohio and Louisiana constituents the
D.C. Foster Care system is not a high priority. For that reason I
appreciate this committee taking the time to hear the needs of the
District of Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency. We must come
together and make effective judgments based on the needs of this
community, and despite the inconvenience of having to go through
Congress to make decisions about District spending, we welcome your
input on matters that affect the interests of our children.
Over the months since the end of Federal Court Receivership, the
District has made substantial progress in reforming Child welfare and
meeting the Federal Courts expectations. The witnesses who testified
here today, not only provided suggestions for improvement but also
justification to those suggestions. Several key issues must be taken
into consideration. The development of a team of social workers whose
primary goal is assessment and placement and an in-depth focus on
permanent one-time placements are essential. Additionally an extension
of the DC KIDS program as well as increased communication between
foster parents and social workers are resources that should not be
denied to the children of the foster care system.
In many foster care cases, the Child and Family Services Agency has
to make quick emergency placements. Often these placements are
disruptive to the child and the foster family. At times placements are
not available which can result in the child staying in group or intake
homes. Ideally, the Child and Family Services Agency would have the
funding available to create a team of social workers whose primary goal
is assessment and placement. This team of social workers would be able
to investigate different placements quickly in order to find the one
most suited to the child's needs. Kinship or extended family placements
can be more readily taken advantage of. In order to ease the transition
into a new home flexible funding would also be available for emergency
supplies such as beds, food, and clothes. These resources are
fundamental in ensuring that the foster child receives the best care
within the first few days of transitioning from the biological home to
the foster home.
Furthermore, the Child and Family Services Agency has a commitment
to ensuring that children grow up in permanent homes. These homes are a
necessary step in encouraging a healthy and normal lifestyle. They
should have the means to devote more time in keeping siblings together
and placing foster children with family members. Attention should be
focused on one permanent placement rather than moving children from
home to home. Foster children are taken from a traumatic home-life and
have to work to build trusting relationships with a new family only to
have to start all over again. The focus should be on finding the best
placement, not just on placement as quickly as possible.
The Children's National Medical Center already has a strong
foundation for quality health care being providing to the District's
foster children. With its DC KIDS program, foster children who have
recently been placed in foster homes are given premium health care.
However, the DC KIDS program does not help those kids who were placed
in foster care prior to 2001. The need to be able to reach those
children is great. With the development of the FACES program, a
computerized database of all foster children, medical records and
medical histories can be easily accessible to health professionals and
social workers. Often foster parents, social workers and medical staff
do not have adequate records that are needed for the care of the child.
The DC KIDS program should be more integrated with the FACES database.
This would not only enhance the DC KIDS program but would increase the
reliability of the Child and Family Services Agency. The foster
children of the District would receive quality care and there would be
accurate medical histories and data on record for the children in the
system.
The Child and Family Services Agency's commitment to bringing up
the services standard for all children can be met if the communication
between its social workers and foster parents was at a more productive
level. Currently social workers are overloaded with cases and are not
able to visit the children on a regular basis. They can not provide
important information, such as programs and opportunities, that the
foster parent and child can take advantage of because there is no time.
An increase in staff would not only solve administrative headaches but
could also lessen the workload on current social workers. Face-to-face
meetings should be arranged between social workers and foster parents
so that some sort of feedback session can be accomplished. Policy
changes frequently are not told to foster parents or even social
workers. These administrative hiccups need to end. Only with the
available resources can the Child and Family Services Agency become a
valuable asset to our community.
Senator Landrieu as you stated we would not leave a child involved
in a car wreck stranded without emergency care. So why do we continue
to leave the District's foster children stranded in this equally
critical time? The answer is a lack of resources. The District Foster
Care Services Agency must be given the resources it needs to take care
of foster children. Most children are taken from a hostile environment,
homes that can be both physically and mentally abusive. We need to do
all we can to ensure the next home is one that will promote a healthy
lifestyle so children of the next generation will not go through the
same vicious cycle. The Child and Family Services Agency has a deep
commitment to strong management and maximization of the quality of
care. They have dealt with strained relations among agencies,
increasing permanency placements, and have built a foundation of an
improving organization. Adequate resources are a critical part of
maintaining this momentum. The Child and Family Services Agency is on
the right path and as long as we continue to improve, the organization
will become a better place. Again I would like to thank Chairman
DeWine, Senator Landrieu, members of the subcommittee for listening to
the needs of the Child and Family Services Agency. I would also like to
thank the witnesses who gave testimony effectively expressing the
requirements necessary to care for the District's foster children. I
trust the members of this subcommittee will go out of their way to
ensure they have all the information that is required for this tough
decision. I look forward to further hearings on this topic and am happy
answer any questions. In closing, let me thank Ms. Adrianne Goffigan of
my staff, for her valuable assistance in preparing this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of CASA of the District of Columbia
Children being abused, neglected or not receiving mandated services
while under court ordered supervision is an unacceptable crisis. When
children become lost in the system that was put in place to protect
them, the abuse of these children becomes an overwhelming tragedy. CASA
of DC, Court Appointed Special Advocates of the District of Columbia is
a nationally accredited program to ensure that no child gets lost in
the system. CASA of DC's mission is to recruit, train and supervise
volunteers from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds to assist the
court in protecting the best interests of abused and neglected children
by advocating for a safe and permanent home for every child. Our
mission is to provide stability and hope to abused and neglected
children by being a powerful voice in their lives. By matching trained
community volunteers with children under court supervision, we can
ensure that the needs and best interests of the foster children in the
District of Columbia are met and can improve the decision-making
ability of judges in the Family Court system by providing an
independent evaluation that is geared to the best interest of the
child.
CASA of DC, Court Appointed Special Advocates for children of the
District of Columbia is the ONLY accredited CASA program operating in
the District of Columbia. Not only is the program the only program
recognized and supported by the National CASA Association, the program
receives technical and financial support from National CASA. In order
to make CASA of DC the showcase program for the Nation, the program was
designed from the bottom-up to ensure strict compliance with the
National Standards established by Judge David Soukup in 1977. In 1990
with the inclusion of the CASA Program in the Victims of Child Abuse
Act, Congress affirmed the use of volunteers in the otherwise closed
juvenile court systems and made provisions for the growth of the CASA
volunteer movement nationwide. CASA of DC is also recognized and
supported by foundations such as the Freddie Mac Foundation, the Gannet
Foundation and Microsoft.
Because the Metro D.C. area is unique, CASA of DC is working in
collaboration with CASA programs both in Maryland and Virginia and have
formed a working group entitled ``METRO DC CASA COLLABORATIVE''. The
purpose of the group is to work together to address the problems of the
Metropolitan area in the areas of abuse and neglect. In addressing the
regional issues of child abuse and neglect, the Metro DC CASA
Collaborative is working to ensure that no child falls between the
cracks because of jurisdictional issues.
In the District of Columbia, the Child and Family Services Agency,
[CFSA] was removed from six years of Federal receivership established
by the U.S. District Court in 1995 under the LaShawn A. v. Williams
decree. However, social workers continue to carry large case loads and
do not have time to provide the detailed, one-on-one attention that
every child in the dependency system deserves. The office remains
understaffed and children are not receiving the much needed services
once they enter the system. Children continue to have multiple
placements, few visits from the social worker and even fewer sibling
visitations. Additionally, court orders are often times not
implemented. Children in the system spend a median of 3\1/2\ years in
foster care. Thirty-two percent of the children spend from 4-9 years in
foster care.
Under a court ordered plan by Federal Court under the LaShawn
decree, CFSA must meet specific performance measures including:
--Compliance with ASFA ( Adoption and Safe Families Act).
--Increased visitation: Increase the number of visits children
receive from their social worker. (As of 2/2003, children in
foster care were only visited monthly by their social worker in
one-third of the cases).
--Reduce the numbers of placements.
--Children should be placed in the least restrictive environment.
CASA programs fill the void left by an overburdened system. Social
workers and attorneys carrying large caseloads. In this jurisdiction
there remains a high staff turnover rate, so caseworker effectiveness
remains low. Because of budget cuts and low salaries, many
jurisdictions face serious difficulties in recruiting qualified
motivated caseworkers. We continue to see child welfare workers who are
overworked, have less time, and are doing a less effective job for
children.
A CASA advocate will only carry one case at a time and advocate for
all children in that family.
The CASA program, historically has proven to be able to:
--Reduce the number of children in foster care.
--Reduce the amount of time a children remain in foster care.
--Ensures that court orders are implemented so that the child
receives medical, mental and educational services.
In the District of Columbia, approximately 1,500 new abuse and
neglect cases are brought before the Family Court each year. This
compounds the number of children already in the system which is
approximately 4,000. The goal of the CASA of DC program is to have a
trained CASA advocate for every child in the system. Each volunteer
advocate represents one family representing approximately 1-3 children
per family ranging from birth to 18 years of age.
Why volunteers? CASA of DC trained and certified volunteers act as
a multiplier for professional program supervisors. Volunteers work on
only one case at a time. This one on one ability provides closer
monitoring than can be cost effectively provided directly by
professional staff. CASA volunteers focus gives them the ability to see
and do more on behalf of the children that they represent. CASA of DC
volunteers receive extensive, ongoing training and close supervision
from the professional program staff. By the very nature of their
``volunteerism'' they empower themselves through their commitment of
time and energy. They stay with the case from beginning to end and
serve the program an average of 30 months.
Volunteers are also independent of bureaucratic constraints that
often keep those employed by our local institutions playing by rules
that frequently are too rigid or outdated to serve the best interest of
the children in foster care. Certainly CASA volunteers do not work in a
vacuum. It takes the strong support and guidance of local program staff
to facilitate their work. Careful screening, training, supervision, and
retention are essential to assure high quality volunteer advocacy.
Although paid staff play an integral role in the coordination and
management of the program, the traditional role of staff does not
include routinely working cases. The CASA Advocate will have closer and
more consistent contact with the children than the social worker or the
attorney. Another reason to have CASA advocates is its cost-
effectiveness. It is certainly more cost-effective to have one staff
person coordinating 30 volunteers serving 75 children as opposed to one
staff person carrying 25 cases with 60 children. Still, cost-
effectiveness is only a small component of our commitment to the use of
volunteers.
Volunteers bring a much needed outside perspective to our court and
child welfare systems. Their lack of past experience in the system not
only brings a fresh perspective to what we do, it opens our doors to
the community and helps raise public awareness of the plight of our
community's abused and neglected children.
To a child, having a volunteer working for them can make all the
difference. Hundreds of children across the country have been moved
when understanding the notion, ``you don't get paid to do this?'' It
shows to them the level of concern and commitment being made by the
volunteer. No, it's not part of their ``job.'' Volunteers are ordinary
citizens, doing extraordinary work for children, and along the way
bringing such passion, dedication, and effort to their work. In the
period from January, 2003-March, 2003, over 463 volunteer hours were
given to the children of our community. The significant achievements by
the advocates for the children represented includes but is not limited
to:
--Finding and retaining proper school assignment,
--Obtaining clothing,
--Obtaining school supplies,
--Locating tutoring services,
--Requesting child support and follow up with court and family,
--Ensuring dental appointment completed,
--Helping with housing,
--Monitoring the appropriate placements,
--Helping parents locate substance abuse program,
--Requesting an IEP in compliance with court orders,
--Assisting in locating summer camps,
--Ensuring medical and dental appointments are kept,
--Assisting in preventing the expulsion of a child,
--Locating therapy for the children,
--Informing the court regarding improper group home facility,
--Locating Saturday classes,
--Locating dance school,
--Locating GED classes,
--Locating independent living skills programs,
--Locating vocational training programs,
--Locating summer programs,
--Locating mentoring programs,
--Locating after school care, and
--Locating a more compatible foster placement.
In 1988, CSR, Inc., under contract with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, published the results of a study entitled,
National Evaluation of Guardians Ad Litem [CASA] in Child Abuse or
Neglect Judicial Proceedings. After analyzing five types of CASA models
the study found that:
``CASA volunteers are excellent investigators and mediators, remain
involved in the case and fight for what they think is right for the
child.'' The study concluded, ``We give the CASA models our highest
recommendation.''
As advocates for children, there are no phrases such as ``it cannot
be done'' because when it is in the best interest of that child, our
volunteers will zealously advocate for those interests no matter what
barriers come before them. There is a story about a man who was walking
on the beach and saw hundreds of starfishes dying on the sand so he
began to throw them into the sea one starfish at a time. Another man
was walking and saw the man's futile attempts to save the starfish when
he said to the man, ``You will never save them all.'' The man replied,
``Oh, but it does matter even if I save one starfish.'' And so, the
CASA program will continue to make a difference, one child at a time.
We thank the committee for allowing us to submit this written
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council for Court Excellence
The Council for Court Excellence (``CCE'') is an independent,
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the
administration of justice in the local and Federal courts and related
agencies in the Washington metropolitan area. While the Council for
Court Excellence is proud to have a number of judges among its active
and dedicated board members, it is important to note that no judicial
members of the Council participated in the preparation of this
testimony.
For more than 3 years, CCE has been privileged to work with the key
public agencies in the D.C. child welfare system--the Family Court of
the D.C. Superior Court, the Child and Family Services Agency
(``CFSA''), the Office of Corporation Counsel (``OCC'')--and others, to
reform the city's child welfare system so that every abused or
neglected child in the District of Columbia has a safe and permanent
home within the time frame established by the Federal and D.C. Adoption
and Safe Families Acts (``ASFA''). To assist the agencies in meeting
these goals, CCE has been tracking and measuring progress in child
abuse and neglect cases filed since February 1, 2000, the date the city
began implementing ASFA. In October 2002, we were pleased to issue a
public report summarizing the many early successes of the D.C. child
welfare system reform effort. This statement is intended to explain how
far the system reform effort has come and how much further there is to
go.
WHERE WE WERE
When CCE began its work with the agency leaders in late 1999, CFSA
was under Federal court receivership, relations among the agencies were
strained, and there was little awareness of ASFA's permanency
requirements. As reported on July 15, 1999, by the Federal court-
appointed Monitor of CFSA:
``Significant interagency issues remain unresolved . . .
Relationships between CFSA, the Office of Corporation Counsel, and the
Superior Court also remain problematic; each agency is highly critical
of the other's failings. OCC currently is understaffed to meet the need
for timely processing of abuse and neglect and termination of parental
rights petitions and CFSA's staffing and practice problems contribute
to friction between the agencies. The structure and resources available
in the Family division of the Superior Court make it difficult for the
court to provide timely legal action for children and families. (1998
Assessment of the Process of the District of Columbia's Child and
Family Services Agency in Meeting the Requirements of LaShawn A. v.
Williams, Center for the Study of Social Policy, July 15, 1999).''
WHERE WE ARE
Structural Improvements
There has been dramatic improvement since those early days. Perhaps
the most dramatic of improvements is CFSA's emergence from receivership
and establishment as a cabinet-level agency of the District of
Columbia. Other important structural reforms are: 1) the selection of a
new agency director, Dr. Olivia Golden, and a new management team; 2)
the agency's assumption of responsibility for child abuse cases in
addition to child neglect cases; 3) the publication of licensing
regulations for foster and group homes; and 4) the increased used and
usefulness of the agency's FACES data system.
Improvement in Agency Relations
There also is a new spirit of collaboration and cooperation among
agency leaders. CCE facilitates monthly ``Child Welfare Leadership Team
Meetings'' among the agency leaders, i.e., Dr. Olivia Golden, CFSA
director; Judge Lee Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the Family Court;
and Arabella Teal, Interim Corporation Counsel; and many others
including the leaders of the Department of Mental Health, the
Department of Human Services, D.C. Public Schools, etc. As trust and
communication among these leaders has grown, these meetings have become
more and more productive with team members identifying multi-agency
issues and setting-up work groups to address them.
For example, the enormous task of transferring to the Family Court
over 3,500 child abuse and neglect cases that were pending before
judges assigned to divisions outside the Family Court was accomplished
by a work group consisting of CFSA, the Family Court, the Department of
Mental Health, and OCC. Together they identified cases appropriate for
transfer and closure, and they prioritized the sequence for transfers.
In addition, CFSA is a member of several of the Family Court's multi-
agency committees on Family Court Act implementation. CFSA also is a
member of the Family Court's Training Committee which is organizing
monthly and annual interdisciplinary training sessions for judges,
social workers, and lawyers. It also is one of several agencies with an
on-site service representative in the Family Court's Service Center.
In addition to the monthly Child Welfare Leadership Team Meetings,
Judge Satterfield and CFSA director Dr. Golden meet on a regular basis
to discuss issues affecting both agencies. Together they worked out a
schedule that would allow social workers to spend more time with their
clients and less time in court. Relations between CFSA and the Family
Court are perhaps the best they have ever been.
Relations between CFSA and OCC have improved significantly. OCC
attorneys and CFSA social workers are now co-located at the offices of
the agency so that they may work more closely together in preparing
child abuse and neglect cases for court. What is more, OCC attorneys
are providing CFSA with legal representation in cases from filing of
the abuse/neglect petition through the permanency hearing stage. Before
the city made the commitment to increase OCC staffing, CFSA social
workers were represented only through the trial and disposition stages
of a child abuse and neglect case.
IMPROVEMENT IN ASFA COMPLIANCE AND MEASURING ASFA COMPLIANCE
The agency leaders have made steady measurable progress in
complying with ASFA and they are keenly aware of the need to track case
data to measure ASFA compliance. One of ASFA's most important
requirements is that a permanency hearing be held within 14 months (425
days) of a child's removal from home to decide the child's permanency
goal, i.e., reunification with family, adoption, or guardianship, and
set a timetable for achieving it. Data collected by CCE for cases filed
since 2000, shows significant and growing improvement with ASFA's
permanency hearing requirement:
COMPLIANCE WITH 425-DAY PERMANENCY HEARING DEADLINE \1\
[For Children Removed from the Home] \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Rate
Year Cases Filed (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.......................................... 32
2001.......................................... 43
2002.......................................... \3\ [54]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CCE's data is calculated through the third quarter of 2002 only. The
Court took over the responsibility of data tracking from CCE in the
fourth quarter of 2002.
\2\ 80 percent of children in abuse and neglect cases filed in the past
three years were removed from their homes. Thus, this data reflects
approximately 80 percent of child abuse and neglect cases filed in
each of these years.
\3\ We obtained this 2002 figure from the Family Court's first annual
report filed with Congress on March 31, 2003. The Court's permanency
hearing compliance rates for 2000 and 2001 were significantly higher
than CCE's. This 2002 compliance rate appears reasonable and more
reliable.
Data from the past three years also shows that the length of time
from filing of the abuse/neglect petition to trial or a stipulation has
decreased consistently. Indeed, data reported by the Court in its
Annual Report shows that the city is now in compliance with the trial
deadline established by D.C. ASFA, i.e., 105 days from filing of the
petition. The city also has made consistent progress in reducing the
amount of time from filing to disposition--the court proceeding focused
on remedying the conditions of abuse or neglect determined by trial or
stipulation to be true.
Through its FACES automated data system, CFSA has been successful
at compiling additional types of information that are relevant to
permanency. It tracks the number of entries into and exits out of
foster care, the reasons for exiting care, and the permanency goals of
children in care. It also tracks information on legal action toward
adoption and finalized adoptions. In an effort to improve communication
with the Family Court, CFSA has developed a function within FACES to
access information on the dates, times, and locations of court hearings
on child abuse and neglect cases. CFSA also is able to scan abuse and
neglect court orders into its FACES system. In addition, CFSA is one of
the most frequent users of JUSTIS, the District of Columbia's criminal
justice information system, which can be used, among other things, to
locate missing parents.
WHERE WE ARE HEADED
Much additional information is needed to properly monitor
compliance with ASFA. Because cases filed prior to 2000 are a large
part of the child abuse and neglect caseload, the city must obtain
permanency hearing information for these cases as it has done for cases
filed since 2000. Also, the city needs information on how many children
actually achieve permanency each year and how long it takes them to
achieve it. Indeed, the city should know how long it takes children to
achieve permanency for each permanency goal, i.e., reunification with
family, adoption, or guardianship. In addition, it will need
information on the rate of children re-entering the child welfare
system after the original petition is closed. This information is
essential to understanding and resolving the problems that delay
permanency.
Both CFSA and the Family Court are working to improve their
individual automated information systems so that they can access
information that will enable them to implement as well as monitor
compliance with ASFA. The Court's new automated system is expected to
be in place by July 2003. CFSA is revising its monthly data monitoring
as part of is plan to implement the final order in the LaShawn lawsuit.
In addition, the D.C. Mayor is working to create an automated system
that will integrate the individual systems of the Family Court, CFSA,
and the other child welfare agencies.
CONCLUSION
While there is much more work to be done, the D.C. child welfare
system is on the road to reform. It is headed in the right direction
and is moving at a quick pace. We have witnessed extraordinary
commitment of the city's child welfare system leaders, including Dr.
Golden, over the more than three years we have been involved in their
work. We can now document improving performance trends, which make us
optimistic that in the future the city's abused and neglected children
will be better protected, better served, and will spend less time in
foster care.
We have attached a copy of the Council for Court Excellence's
District of Columbia Child Welfare System Reform Progress Report to
this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of Kate Deshler Gould, Esq., National Association of
Counsel for Children, Washington, DC Chapter
My name is Kate Gould. I am an attorney and a mediator. I am one of
about 250 attorneys who are appointed by D.C. Superior Court to
represent children, parents and caretakers in child welfare cases. I
have been doing this work since 1994 and have represented many children
in the foster care system over the years. In my work I interact daily
with the Child and Family Services Agency and advocate regularly for
children in the foster care system.
SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT
I would like to share my perspective and some ideas for a plan that
could help to shorten the length of time children are in care and cut
down on multiple placements and failed adoptive placements. My
organization, the local chapter of the National Association of Counsel
for Children, is proposing the formation of a new type of mental health
clinic dedicated to the needs of foster children. It would serve the
children from the point of the traumatic removal through the closure of
the case, if necessary. It would be a resource for the child to work
together therapeutically to support reunification with the biological
family, as well as to promote stabilization of foster and adoptive
placements. It would save money in the long run by helping to stabilize
children and families sooner, enabling successful case closure at an
earlier date. Such a program is needed to replace the existing
patchwork system of delay, insufficient services and poor quality
services.
PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT SYSTEM
In order to present the proposed solutions, I first need to
describe the problems with the current system. The Child and Family
Services Agency uses a program called DC KIDS for all its medical
referrals, including mental health referrals. I have heard few
complaints about the medical functions of DC KIDS. The mental health
services provided by DC KIDS are another story.
Referrals for mental health services do not run smoothly. I have
cases where there are very long delays before a therapist is
identified. In one case, it took two months to identify a therapist.
After another two months had passed, I learned that therapy had not
begun because the therapist had met once with the children to do an
assessment, had to write a report, which then had to be reviewed by DC
KIDS in order for services to be set up. In this case, not only had
therapy been court ordered months before, but had also been recommended
in psychiatric and psychological assessment reports. I was calling and
threatening court action. The requirement for the therapist to assess
and report only served to delay the onset of badly needed services. I
worry about what the time frame would have been like without my
advocacy.
In another recent instance, a child for whom I serve as Guardian ad
Litem told me that in order to reschedule her therapy appointment, she
would have to contact DC KIDS. I checked with the social worker and was
informed that DC KIDS does indeed do the scheduling for psychotherapy.
This is an unnecessary encumbrance.
TRAUMATIZED CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Psychotherapeutic services are not routinely offered as part of the
services to the children removed, and yet, are universally needed. As
the Guardian ad Litem, I routinely ask for court orders to provide
these services. I have even been in the position of having to file a
motion in order for therapy to be provided to a very needy child. These
are not services that should have to be court-ordered in order to
occur.
Children who are in foster care or placed with relatives frequently
exhibit many signs of emotional disturbance. They may be aggressive,
oppositional, anxious, very needy, and they frequently have low self-
esteem. The reasons are obvious. They have been removed from their
parent and their home. They may have been traumatized by physical,
sexual or mental abuse or neglect that has precipitated the removal.
Next, they are nearly always traumatized by the removal itself. I have
never had a child removed from his or her parent, no matter how
deplorable the abuse or the conditions of the home, who did not
desperately want to return to the parent. Further, because of their own
behaviors as a result of all this trauma, these children can be hard to
live with and frequently do things such as steal or damage property
which make them unwelcome in the foster home. Consequently, we see the
additional trauma of multiple placements. Sadly, some children never
recover from this trauma and spiral down into a life of residential
treatment or juvenile delinquency.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES REDUCE PLACEMENT DISRUPTION
If a child removed from his or her parent were guaranteed the
services of a licensed psychotherapist as soon as the case comes in, we
would have a better prognosis for adjustment to the foster home or
relative's home, making placement disruption less likely.
There are other critical points when availability of good mental
health services is crucial. Many children come into the system with a
background that suggests the possibility of developmental delays or
educational problems. The patchwork of services that now exists
provides uneven quality of psychiatric, psychological and psycho
educational reports. These almost routinely have to be court ordered in
order to occur, and very often there is delay in obtaining these
services and the necessary reports. This information is essential to
getting the help that these children need in order to address the
problems that may be identified.
Good mental health services are particularly needed upon removal
from the home and for the adjustment period of about the first 90 days.
In order to effectuate reunification of the child with the biological
parent, family therapy may play an important role. If efforts toward
reunification with the biological family are exhausted and the goal is
made adoption, the child will need support and therapy to help to
process feelings of grief and loss. Another critical point is when a
pre-adoptive family is identified, and the child and family need help
to establish trust, and to bond.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EASE ADJUSTMENT IN ADOPTION PLACEMENT
I have had several cases where a pre-adoptive placement failed. It
is very sad to see a child removed from the home that all had hoped
would be that child's permanent family at last. In these cases, as
Guardian ad Litem, I have advocated for family therapy and supportive
services that simply did not exist. Child and Family Services certainly
does not have a program that routinely provides the kind of support a
family would truly need to adopt an emotionally fragile child from
foster care. In these sad cases of mine, the families have told me they
felt that they were left hanging with very little support to face this
enormous adjustment.
A CLINIC MODEL WOULD IMPROVE QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
Even if DC KIDS were to improve its service model, another problem
exists. Well-qualified psychotherapists are not now widely available
for foster children in the District of Columbia. There is frequent
turnover among therapists, just as with social workers. I have had
instances in my cases of therapists not showing up for scheduled
appointments, dropping out of sight without a final session to give
closure for the child, and failing to return telephone messages from
the Guardian ad Litem or social worker. While in some of my cases, I
have had excellent therapists who helped the child tremendously, in
general the agencies which currently provide mental health services to
foster children in the District of Columbia are doing an inadequate
job.
The Agency's position is that they are limited for the most part to
providers who will accept what D.C. Medical Assistance pays. D.C.
Medical Assistance pays a very low rate, and as a result, we find rapid
turnover, and poorly qualified therapists. Licensed psychotherapists
who will accept payment from D.C. Medicaid are very hard to find.
Frequently after long waits for identification of a therapist, a child
is assigned an intern. The problem with interns is that they are on the
job for a short term, usually only a period of three or four months.
Part of the therapeutic process involves trusting and building a
relationship with the therapist. Children with behavioral difficulties
resulting from neglect, removal and multiple placements frequently are
diagnosed with attachment disorder, or at least have issues with
attachment. This means that they reject others so they will not suffer
rejection, which leads to huge behavioral problems in the foster home,
at school, and with peers. The last thing most foster children need is
a therapist who will leave after a short period of time.
SEPARATE MEDICAL SERVICES FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
DC KIDS should separate out the mental health function from the
provision of medical services to the foster children, and a new agency
should be formed or contracted with to provide comprehensive mental
health services to the foster children of the District of Columbia. It
should have psychotherapists on staff who are licensed and well-trained
to work with children and families. Funds should be allocated to cover
salaries that are reasonable, which means significantly more than the
amount paid by D.C. Medicaid.
CONCLUSION: A MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC WOULD BE COST-EFFECTIVE
If funds for this purpose were reallocated from another function,
it would be cost-effective. A comprehensive mental health program for
foster children would save money by reducing the length of time spent
in foster care, and reducing the need for expensive services such as
residential treatment.
I appreciate your consideration of my suggestions.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. We'll end on that very positive note. Thank
you very much for your commitment to the children, and we thank
all of you for what you do for kids. We will continue to hold
hearings on our foster care system, this was the second and we
will have more in the future. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., Wednesday, May 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATWAR M. GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. Today we will hear testimony regarding the District of
Columbia's fiscal year 2004 local budget request. Mayor
Williams, Council Chairman Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer
Gandhi will present the city's budget and will discuss the
District's requests for Federal resources.
I want to first note that this past Friday, the General
Accounting Office released the results of its 18-month long
review of the financial health of the District. This important
study presents a troubling picture of the long-term structural
imbalance of the District's economy. This imbalance represents
a gap between the District's ability to raise revenue at
reasonable tax rates and its ability to provide services of
reasonable quality to its residents.
I recognize that the structural imbalance is driven by
expenditure requirements and revenue restrictions which are
beyond the control of the District's leadership. Clearly, the
city's revenue capacity would be larger without constraints on
its taxing authority, such as its inability to tax Federal
property or the income of nonresidents.
I agree that the city faces a troubling problem in the long
term. This report is the catalyst for serious discussions here
on Capitol Hill about how the Federal Government should protect
the financial health of our Nation's capital. Indeed, many of
the problems facing the city result from it being the seat of
the Federal Government. Therefore, to do nothing is not
acceptable. As chairman of this subcommittee, I will work hard
to ensure that we start exploring ways to avoid a financial
catastrophe for the District.
Now, let me turn to the District's fiscal year 2004 budget.
Before introducing our distinguished panel, I want to discuss
some of my priorities for this bill. First, I hope to provide
resources to improve the city's foster care system so that more
children have the opportunity to enjoy safe, permanent, and
loving homes. The hearings we have held this year on the foster
care problem have highlighted ways that we can help improve the
situation. I know that the Mayor and Ranking Member Landrieu
share this desire and I look forward to partnering with them on
this initiative.
Also, I would like to continue a 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. By
cleaning up the Anacostia River, we will expedite the Mayor's
proposed Anacostia waterfront development initiative, which I
wholeheartedly support. This development will ultimately
provide recreational and commercial opportunities for D.C.
residents and visitors.
I also want to ensure that efforts to construct
biodecontamination and quarantine facilities at Children's
Hospital and Washington Hospital Center continue to proceed.
These are a few of my priorities for this bill. Now I look
forward to hearing what the District's priorities are for
Federal funding and how the city has used the funds we recently
provided in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
Clearly, there are many worthy activities which will place
demands on the always-limited resources in the D.C.
Appropriations Bill. But I look forward to working with these
city leaders to continue to make life better for all who live,
work, and visit this capitol city.
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.
Senator Landrieu, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome our witnesses, and thank Chairman DeWine for calling
the annual hearing on the District's local funds budget. I look
forward to hearing from the city on the status of the
District's economy, current Federal funding priorities, and a
summary of the fiscal year 2004 local funds budget.
At this time, almost every city in the country is
struggling to maintain a balanced budget, much less deliver
adequate or even good services to their citizens. I am pleased
to see that the District has been careful to look ahead and
address looming budget pressures while maintaining priority
services. The city is in good fiscal standing, and I trust that
this environment will continue. However, long-term outstanding
economic pressures on the city and continued service challenges
in such areas as public education and child welfare will
require a new partnership with the District.
Under the temporary State fiscal relief package included in
the tax cut passed last month, the District will receive $94
million over 2 years. Considering current spending pressures of
approximately $50 million, I would be interested to learn how
the city is planning to spend these new funds.
In addition, substantial Federal funding was provided to
the District in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 ($122
million in direct response to requests made by the Mayor, out
of a total $512 million in the D.C. appropriations bill for
Federal responsibilities). The last 2 years have been
unprecedented in the amount of discretionary Federal dollars
that have gone to the city, as well as an increase in
congressional confidence in local leadership, resulting in
increased autonomy for the District of Columbia. Fiscal year
2004 has a much more conservative outlook as the committee
attempts to reconcile a weak economy, few proposed increases
for Federal discretionary programs and growing needs across the
Nation, as well as in the District. Chairman DeWine and I share
a commitment to the restoration of the Anacostia Waterfront,
assistance for charter schools, and enhanced security this
year. In this hearing, I hope we can identify the city's main
priorities and how best to address them with very limited
funding.
A more broad challenge was confirmed last week when the
General Accounting Office released a landmark report finding
that the city faces an annual deficit of $400 million to $1
billion between their revenue capacity and cost of providing
average services. The report, requested by Congresswoman Norton
and myself, found the underlying reason for the structural
imbalance in the city's budget is due to the high cost of
providing services in the District of Columbia.
The District is uniquely situated and requires a unique
relationship with the Federal Government; however, right now, I
am not convinced that more money is the answer. Many options
for funding have been discussed: a renewed Federal payment,
changing the tax collection ability of the District, or funding
directed to specific infrastructure in the District of
Columbia.
In this hearing I would like to discuss how to maximize the
benefit of existing Federal funding, such as Medicaid and
education. As I stated last week, we need to create a new
partnership with the District. We must examine the underlying
issues that create an imbalance and take a multifaceted
approach to addressing it, before the District goes back to
years of deficit.
One major benefit for the District, with no budgetary
impact, endorsed by President Bush, is to release the local
budget from annual Congressional approval. The concept of
budget autonomy for the District's local budget is building
momentum on the Hill and I hope it will be approved this year.
These are funds derived from locally generated tax dollars. The
last word on how the city's budget is expended should be made
by locally elected leaders, just like any other city. I urge my
colleagues to examine the benefits of this proposal as
legislation makes its way through Congress.
I would like for the Mayor and Council Chairman to comment
on how current and future general provisions--limitations on
spending local and Federal funds--will be addressed under
budget autonomy. I respect the city leaders' diligence in
implementing and upholding these ``social riders'' through the
years, against local pressure. I expect this same degree of
respect for the law will be maintained in the future. There are
legitimate means for Congress to provide guidance to the city;
however, it is my hope that at some point in the future
congressional interest in imposing riders will wane.
The committee has also held hearings this year on child
welfare in the District and discovered disturbing gaps in
service and care. Through Chairman DeWine's leadership I hope
we can discuss options for addressing this area as well. I
appreciate your attendance today and look forward to continuing
our partnership for growth and success of the city. The General
Accounting Office released a landmark report finding the city
faces an annual deficit, a structural imbalance, of $400
million to $1 billion. This amount is the difference between
the city's revenue capacity and the cost of producing average
services. The GAO report outlines definitively that there is,
in fact, a structural imbalance of the management and
efficiencies of the District. They are still constraints beyond
what is in your control to solve it, so I want to support the
chairman's concepts that he outlined this morning, whether we
have an internal study group or an external group, to come up
with some specific solutions. There are some ideas that have
been presented, but I hope that in your testimony this morning
perhaps you all would have some suggestions, and then we could
follow the chairman's lead in establishing a more specific
commission to come up with some solutions that Congress could
indeed take up.
I also want to support the chairman's efforts as we work
together to enhance and strengthen the foster care system. As
Mr. Mayor, you know, are I think painfully aware that the
District of Columbia is not the only entity by far in the
Nation that is struggling with this tremendous challenge. Just
yesterday there was a front page article in the New York Times
about the deplorable conditions of the New Jersey child welfare
system. I have to say that in Louisiana this is a tremendous
challenge for our State Government to keep the finances and the
management of a foster care system in a way that temporarily
removes children from homes so that they can be safe and
secure, and then re-engage or place them back with those
families or to move them to a permanent home through adoption
or through a foster family that looks as much like a real
family as possible, and that is something that the chairman and
I are firmly committed to working with you all, and we have had
several good hearings.
The only other two things I would mention briefly, I am
very interested in how we proceed in the future to provide
every child in this District with an excellent education. There
are any number of ideas that have come forward, work that is
underway, progress that has been made, but challenges that
remain. It is going to be a key focus of mine, Mr. Chairman, as
we move forward to see what the options are in providing an
excellent education system for every child, and to have the
Federal Government live up and stand up and step up to its
responsibilities in that regard. Again, the District of
Columbia is not in many instances that different from other
cities and States struggling to do the same, but I want to stay
focused on that.
And finally, parks and recreation does not always receive
the attention, and perhaps in some people's minds, in the
scheme of things relative to economic development and education
and health care it does not always take the priority that I
think it should deserve, because we have got to give our young
people something to say yes to, and it really underlines the
quality of life issue for the District, and while we have more
green space here than in many cities, and we are fortunate
because of the Federal Government, we still, I think, lack some
recreational opportunities for children, for young people, and
for adults that the suburbs in this area seem to have in
abundance, and I think that is a real problem when it comes to
economic development, attracting people back to the city,
keeping children and families engaged and productive in
positive expenditures of their time, so I want to continue--I
am glad the chairman agreed with me, and we invested some
direct Federal dollars to work with your local dollars in that
regard, but it is not just throwing more money, it is the
management and the way that the parks system will provide
recreational opportunities for children.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to give you
your seat back and go find----
Senator DeWine. You can stay there if you want to.
Senator Landrieu. All right. Well, I will stay here then.
Senator DeWine. Just don't get too----
Senator Landrieu. I won't get too--well, look, it's so
comfortable, I mean----
Senator DeWine. Don't get too comfortable there or too
accustomed to that.
I am glad I got the gavel back.
Senator Landrieu. You got the gavel back, and the chair.
Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Let me introduce our panel. Anthony
Williams was inaugurated as the fourth Mayor of the District of
Columbia on January 4, 1999. This past January, of course,
Mayor Williams began serving his second term in office.
Linda Cropp was sworn in on August 8, 1997 as the first
woman to chair the Council of the District of Columbia after
serving on the council for 7 years.
Dr. Gandhi is the Chief Financial Officer for the District
of Columbia, and is responsible for the city's finances,
including his $5.4 billion operating budget and bond
obligations.
Mayor, why don't you start off.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank the Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and
thank the other members of the committee for this opportunity
to testify on the District's 2004 budget and financial plan,
and wherever possible I will try to abbreviate my remarks,
recognizing that they have been submitted in whole in the
record.
This subcommittee has been a partner in our city's
revitalization over the last few years, and as Mayor, I think I
represent all of our citizens in saying that we are gratified
for the support and encouragement offered by the previous chair
and other Members, and certainly are pleased now to be working
with you, Mr. Chairman. Your support and encouragement for our
efforts to make our city shine are deeply appreciated and, in
particular, your devotion to our children at risk has been both
a consistent and long feature of your service, and it's a
welcome signal of Congress' joint bipartisan commitment in this
important area, recognizing Senator Landrieu's commitment in
this area as well.
In fact, this committee's members bring very valuable
experience in State-level management, and that gives you all a
unique appreciation for the challenges and constraints under
which the District must operate. I think we can rest assured of
a strong and vibrant relationship with you.
As you know, many cities and States across the Nation are
facing their worst budgetary challenge of the last 60 years,
and the District is no exception. Due to the economic downturn,
we experienced a decline in revenues of almost $370 million in
the first half of fiscal year 2003. This decline equates to a
10 percent loss in our local operating budget. Because the
economy has not yet recovered, these challenges have continued,
as you know, into the 2004 fiscal year, and we began
formulation of the budget with a projected gap of $114 million.
In facing these challenges, we not only continued our
record of sound fiscal management, we achieved, I think, a
level of responsible and conservative budgeting found only
among the most fiscally prudent governments in our country. As
a result, the fiscal year 2004 budget transmitted today is
balanced in current and future years. I am not saying it is
pretty, but it is balanced, and we can talk about that.
More notably, the District's leaders balanced this budget
entirely through budget reductions. No tax increases were
adopted, and not one dollar of the $250 million in cash
reserves, one of the strongest ratios of cash reserves in the
country, was used. In many instances, we were able to reduce
spending by using existing funds more wisely. In many other
areas, however, significant sacrifices were required. Most
notable among these is a deferral of key infrastructure
investments.
In making these sacrifices, we preserved existing funding
for existing schools and libraries, but could allocate no new
funding for the next phase of modernization. As a result,
current 10-year plans for renovating neglected schools and
libraries must be scaled back dramatically, leaving major
challenges in the education of our children. This sacrifice,
coupled with even greater reductions in roads, bridges, and
other buildings to me presents one of the greatest challenges
that we face today, and have not addressed, as you have
mentioned in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, in the
foreseeable future. In short, we have a significant problem.
Now, the Federal Government requires that the District
provide services like a State, but unlike every other State in
the Nation, we are prohibited by Congress from collecting a
nonresident income tax. This takes a tremendous percentage of
our potential tax base offline. As a result, the District must
fund expenditures far greater than the revenues provided
through a reasonable level of taxation. As you put it, it is
very, very difficult to maintain a reasonable level of service
at a reasonable rate of taxation.
Faced with this clash between needs and revenue capacity,
we have maintained a balanced budget through overtaxing of our
citizens and a deferral of critical investments which continues
to damage the viability of the District as a place to live and
operate a business, and I might add by way of operating a
business, the disproportionate taxation of our businesses is
actually far larger than the disproportionate rate of taxation
of our citizens, not to say that that is acceptable, either,
but for businesses it is particularly stark.
In specific terms, the amount of the structural imbalance
is between $400 million and $1.1 billion per year. This
estimate has been thoroughly analyzed and documented by the
Rivlin Commission, the Brookings Institution, and McKinsey &
Company. To independently assess this matter, the Members of
Congress, including Ranking Member Landrieu of this
subcommittee, requested that GAO conduct a full-scale analysis.
I would like to quote as Mayor several key findings that are
particularly significant to me.
1. The District faces a substantial structural deficit in
that the cost of providing an average level of public services
exceeds the amount of revenue we could devise by average tax
rates.
2. The District's per capita total revenue capacity is
higher than all State fiscal systems, but not to the same
extent that costs are higher. In addition, our revenue capacity
would be larger without the constraints on our taxing
authority, such as the inability to tax Federal property or the
income of nonresidents.
3. Addressing management problems, which we are committed
to doing, would not offset the District's underlying structural
imbalance, because this imbalance, as the Ranking Member has
said and you have said, Mr. Chairman, is determined by factors
beyond our direct control.
And finally, again as you have mentioned, if this imbalance
is to be addressed in the next term, it may be necessary to
change Federal policies to expand the District's tax base or to
provide additional financial support or some combination
thereof.
Through these findings that the independent--I want to
stress, independent--GAO has confirmed that the District cannot
compete, or--well, we cannot compete in the long term, and we
certainly cannot complete our financial recovery under our own
power. Instead, we must somehow address the Federal policies
that could force the District back into insolvency, which I
think would be a tragedy of just overwhelming proportions.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced the
Federal Fair Compensation Act, which I believe would go a
long--well, which I believe would address the situation, and I
believe that, as Congress moves through this study, it ought to
look first to the Federal Fair Compensation Act as a way to
address the problem.
Now, of course, the city must do its part in terms of
better management of existing resources. Special education and
Medicaid present two areas that need concentrated attention.
The subcommittee I think should be pleased to know that we are
making some headway, along with city councilman and chair of
the Education Committee on the Council Kevin Chavous, I am
chairing a Special Education Task Force that brought together
all the Government entities that have a role in special
education.
After intensive meetings over several months, we were able
to agree on a cost-reduction plan that the CFO certifies will
yield $20 million in savings in fiscal year 2004, while at the
same time improving the educational experience offered to
children in special ed.
Last month, I appointed the first Government-wide Medicaid
czar who will bring similar direction and unity of purpose on
how we draw down Medicaid funds. In addition to this matter of
finances, we also face a procedural barrier in the Federal
appropriations process. I will not go into a long list of
details, but I would urge this committee's support for budget
autonomy legislation that is now emerging in the Congress. We
certainly welcome the partnership with this committee. We
certainly welcome and certainly endorse wholeheartedly the
oversight by this committee of Federal funds, but we believe
that, like every other State and city in the country, we should
have the autonomy and have the discretion to use our own funds
as they are developed and derived from local sources.
There are specific funding requests in the fiscal 2004
budget before the committee. As I have shared with you, Mr.
Chairman, and also with the Ranking Member, I am alarmed that
the President's overall request for the D.C. appropriations
bill in 2004 is 17 percent below the 2003 level. A cut of this
magnitude jeopardizes ongoing projects already funded by the
subcommittee, many of which both of you have mentioned. In
particular, Congress allocated $50 million for the CSO,
Combined Sewage Overflow Project, which was matched with local
funds. This was a very welcome down payment on a billion-
dollar-plus multi-year project for an antiquated, outdated
system, as you have mentioned.
Updating this system, which was built originally by the
Federal Government, pollution of which is--I think a majority
of which is from the Federal Government, is an integral part of
our Waterfront Initiative. Therefore, we are seeking that
additional $50 million. The President's budget includes $15
million for this purpose and another $10 million for the bike
trail. I strongly urge this subcommittee to accept the
President's proposal, but add the additional dollars to match
last year's commitment.
In 2003, Congress provided $4 million for a family literacy
program. Since receiving this payment just 3 months ago, we
have an ambitious program underway that will soon have at least
20 literacy leaders dispatched around the city to help
community-based providers, Government agencies, the faith-based
community expand the network of adult learners.
We also have a training symposium this summer to begin to
train the trainers. With an additional $4 million in fiscal
year 2004, this subcommittee can sustain this effort. This is
in a city where 40 percent of our city has a learning challenge
and is reading at below adequate level.
Because education for our children is so critical, I
strongly urge the Congress to add new funding beyond last
year's level to support our public schools and expand
opportunities for parents to consider nonpublic education
settings. We believe that this three-sector approach will allow
the city to leverage its best assets among the public schools,
the public charter schools, and the private parochial schools.
We are strongly committed to expanding the menu of school
settings for our children both within the public system and
outside of that system, but all as part of a coordinated
effort.
And on a related matter, I want to acknowledge the concerns
that have been raised by this subcommittee regarding Child and
Family Services in the District. As a former child in foster
care, this is important to me, and I know it is important to
both of you and the members of this committee. Historically,
this whole Child Welfare System has been extremely troubled and
although I believe substantial progress has been made,
including the creation of the family court and the newly
unified agency, there still remain, undoubtedly, challenges
that we must continue to address. The CSA Director and I are
redoubling our efforts to complete the reform process in
serving our most vulnerable youth, including a more seamless
approach in how we relate to children at risk.
The subcommittee's ongoing interest in supporting efforts
to recruit social workers, promote early intervention in case
work for children and families, support foster parents, is all
part of this effort.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that my appointment of a Senate
nomination to the council, of a new corporation counsel, one of
the key factors in my mind in sending the nomination to the
Council of Robert Spagnoletti was his experience in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in bringing together and getting on the right
track domestic abuse in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and he
evinced a strong interest in doing the same thing as it relates
to child support and core council support for all these family
matters, and I believe that he will help us accelerate and
promote the efforts that I know you want to see, and we are
committed to.
In short, we welcome this committee's partnership and
oversight, and look forward to working with you in the days and
months ahead in the challenges facing our city.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony A. Williams
Thank you Chairman DeWine, Ranking Minority Member Landrieu,
Senator Hutchison, Senator Brownback, and Senator Durbin for this
opportunity to testify on the District's fiscal year 2004 budget and
financial plan. This subcommittee has been a partner in our city's
renaissance over the last few years. As Mayor, I am grateful for the
support and encouragement offered by the previous chair and others
members, and I am pleased to now be working even more closely with
Senator DeWine. His support and encouragement for our efforts to make
our city shine are deeply appreciated. In particular, his devotion to
our children at-risk has been both consistent and strong, and is a
welcome signal of the Congress' commitment in this area.
This committee's members bring very valuable experience in State-
level management, and that gives you a unique appreciation for the
challenges and the constraints under which the District must operate.
The citizens of our national capital can rest assured that the city's
relationship with this subcommittee continues to be strong and will
serve us well as we strive together to address the pressing needs of
the District.
Specifically, this session of Congress could be pivotal in the
evolution of the Federal-District relationship:
--fiscal challenges posed by the serious structural imbalance are
becoming more acute, and there are a number of proposals to
help address the issue;
--the disruption of service delivery caused by problems with the
congressional approval process can hopefully come to an end
through proposed legislation;
--the education of our children can be enhanced through new
partnerships between the District and Federal Governments; and
--important infrastructure projects are at critical junctures that
require additional Federal support. These include the Combined
Sewer Overflow system, the Unified Communications Center, and
the Forensics Laboratory.
With all these advances hopefully in our grasp, it is indeed a time
of great opportunities and great challenges. As you know, cities and
States across the Nation are facing the worst budgetary challenge of
the last 60 years, and the District is no exception. Due to the
national economic downturn, the District experienced a decline in
revenues of approximately $370 million in the first half of fiscal year
2003. This decline equates to a 10 percent loss in our local operating
budget. Because the economy has not yet recovered, these challenges
continued into fiscal year 2004, and the District began formulation of
that budget with a projected gap of $114 million.
In facing these challenges, however, the District not only
continued its record of sound fiscal management, we achieved a level of
responsible and conservative budgeting found only among the most
financially prudent governments. As a result, the fiscal year 2004
budget transmitted today is balanced in the current and future years.
More notably, the District's leaders balanced this budget entirely
through budget reductions. No tax increases were adopted, and not one
dollar of the $250 million in cash reserves was used.
Just as significant is the fact that this budget protects core
services. In times of tight resources, some would set their goals aside
in order to weather the storm, but I believe the opposite must be done:
in these difficult times we must focus on our goals more than ever so
that we may protect them and continue making forward progress.
The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget reflects this approach by
focusing resources in the areas of highest priorities for our
residents. These are (1) education programs, including early childhood
education, school choice, and adult literacy; (2) public safety, which
includes providing greater police presence in neighborhoods and a
vastly improved 911 emergency communications system; and (3)
opportunity for all, which includes the housing, job-readiness, and
health care needed for all residents to become productive and healthy
members of the community and economy.
In order to protect these priorities, however, some reductions had
to be made in other areas of the budget.
SACRIFICES MADE TO PRESERVE BUDGETARY BALANCE
In many instances the District was able to reduce spending by using
existing funds more wisely. In many other areas, however, significant
sacrifices were required. Most notable among these is the deferral of
key infrastructure investments. In fiscal year 2003 the District
eliminated funding for $250 million in approved capital construction,
including transportation investments, recreation facilities, and
important technology investments. An additional $87 million of funding
for such projects was eliminated in fiscal year 2004.
In making these sacrifices the District preserved existing funding
for schools and libraries, but could allocate no new funding for the
next phase of modernization. As a result, current 10-year plans for
renovating neglected schools and libraries must be scaled back
dramatically, leaving a major challenge for the education of our
children. This sacrifice, coupled with even greater reductions in
roads, bridges, and buildings, present one of the greatest challenges
that the District faces today and, if not addressed, into the
foreseeable future.
Is this challenge purely the result of our national economic woes?
In fact, it is not. Even during times of economic growth, the
District's can not support the level of investment required to
compensate for the many decades of neglect from which our
infrastructure has suffered. This is true not because of any factor
under the District's control, however, but because of the uniquely
unfair constraints placed on the District's tax base by the Federal
Government.
FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS ON REVENUE COLLECTION RESULTING IN STRUCTURAL
IMBALANCE
The Federal Government requires that the District provide services
like a State, but unlike every other State in the Nation, the District
is prohibited by the Congress from collecting a non-resident income
tax. As a result, the District must fund expenditures far greater than
the revenues provided through a reasonable level of taxation. Faced
with this clash between expenditure needs and revenue capacity, the
District has maintained a balanced budget through several strategies
that have provided solvency in the short term, but cannot be
maintained. These strategies are:
--Producing service improvements within existing constraints.--The
District has aggressively improved service delivery through
more focused use of existing resources. Having capitalized on
the major opportunities for such efficiencies, however, the
District cannot expect to solve its structural imbalance
through this strategy.
--Taxing local residents and businesses at high levels.--With a
severely limited tax base, the District has had no choice but
to rely on local residents and businesses to provide revenues
for government services, resulting in many tax rates that far
exceed those of surrounding jurisdictions. This translates into
additional hurdles to attracting and retaining residents and
businesses that could help stabilize our fragile economic base.
--Deferring spending on critical infrastructure and services.--At
present, the District is deferring each year hundreds of
millions of dollars in critical investments. These include
funding for school buildings, transportation systems, water and
sewer projects, economic development, and social services.
Although these strategies have temporarily addressed the imbalance
between expenditures and revenues, they cannot be employed much longer.
The overtaxing of our citizens and deferral of critical investments
continue to damage the viability of the District as a place to live and
operate a business. As a result, the financial and operational recovery
underway will falter and the District will lose the important ground
that it and its Federal partners have worked to gain.
In specific terms, the amount of the structural imbalance is
between $400 million and $1.1 billion per year. This estimate has been
thoroughly analyzed and documented by the Rivlin Commission, the
Brookings Institute, and McKinsey and Co. To independently assess this
matter, the members of Congress, including Senator Landrieu of this
committee, requested that the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
conduct a full-scale analysis, which was released just last week.
I would like to quote several key findings from this report:
1. ``The District faces a substantial structural deficit in that
the cost of providing an average level of public services exceeds the
amount of revenue it could raise by applying average tax rates.''
2. ``The District's per capital total revenue capacity is higher
than all state fiscal systems, but not to the same extent that its
costs are higher. In addition, its revenue capacity would be larger
without constraints on its taxing authority, such as its inability to
tax federal property or the income of nonresidents.''
3. ``Addressing management problems would not offset the District's
underlying structural imbalance because this imbalance is determined by
factors beyond the District's direct control.''
4. ``If this imbalance is to be addressed, in the near term, it may
be necessary to change federal policies to expand the District's tax
base or to provide additional financial support.''
Through these findings, the independent GAO has confirmed that the
District can not complete its financial recovery alone. Instead, we
must somehow address the Federal policies that could force the District
into insolvency. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton will shortly
introduce the ``Federal Fair Compensation Act'' which would go a long
way to addressing the situation. Congress ought to move this
legislation or an alternative quickly.
Of course, the city must do its part in terms of better management
of existing resources. Special Education and Medicaid represent two
areas that need concentrated attention. The subcommittee should be
pleased to know that we are making some headway. Along with the City
Council, I am chairing a special education task force that brought
together all the government entities who have a role in special
education. After intensive meetings over several months, we were able
to agree on a cost reduction plan that the Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) certifies will yield $20 million savings in fiscal year 2004,
while at the same time improving the educational experience offered to
children in special education. Last month I appointed the first
government-wide ``Medicaid Czar'' who will bring similar direction and
unity of purpose to how we draw down Medicaid dollars.
In addition to this matter of finances, the District also faces a
procedural barrier in the Federal appropriations process.
disruptions resulting from federal review of the district's budget
Unlike any other State or local jurisdiction in the Nation, the
District must have its locally-raised revenues appropriated to it
through an act of Congress. Aside from the obvious issues related to
government by consent of the governed, this process creates major
disruptions in the delivery and improvement of basic government
services. Specifically, there are several key reasons why the President
and Congress should change the current process:
--The current system denies the District the capacity to adapt
quickly to changing needs for front line services. The Federal
Government requires the District to formulate its budget a year
in advance in order to accommodate the Federal review process.
--Congressional delays disrupt critical new improvements.--Virtually
every year, Congress fails to approve the District's budget by
the beginning of the fiscal year, most recently more than 3
months later.
--Mid-year budget reallocations require an act of Congress, and
disrupt service delivery.--As discussed, local governments need
the flexibility to respond to rapid changes in their needs.
--The city must ``use or lose'' funding at the end of each year.--
Congressional approval for spending expires at the end of the
year, which punishes program managers who save funds by not
allowing the city to carry them over for one-time uses.
Last January, the President's statement in favor of budget autonomy
for the District was transmitted to the Congress, and is greatly
appreciated by the District. At present, the House and Senate oversight
committees on the District of Columbia are developing legislation that
would begin reforming the Federal approval process for the District's
budget. Of course, the process for Federal funds for the city and
relevant oversight would be unchanged. As Congress pursues passage of
this legislation, the District looks to you for leadership in affecting
this change that will relieve the impediments to the District's
continued financial and operational recovery.
CRITICAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT
There are several specific funding requests in the fiscal year 2004
budget before this committee. I am alarmed that the President's overall
fiscal year 2004 request for the DC appropriations bill is 17 percent
below the fiscal year 2003 level. A cut of this magnitude jeopardizes
ongoing projects already funded by this subcommittee. In particular,
last year Congress allocated $50 million for the Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) project, which was matched with local funds. This was a
very welcomed down payment on a billion-dollar-plus multi-year project.
Updating our antiquated sewer system, which was built originally by the
Federal Government, is an integral part of our Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative. Therefore we are seeking an additional $50 million in
fiscal year 2004. The President's budget includes $15 million for this
purpose and another $10 million for the Anacostia Bike Trail. I
strongly urge the subcommittee to accept the President's proposal, and
add $35 million to the sewer project to match last year's commitment.
The President has also included $15 million for the Public Safety
Event Fund, which reimburses the city for various security costs of
demonstrations and other events related to our status as the Nation's
capital. This fund helps shift the unfair burden of covering these
costs from District taxpayers and allows the District to better balance
our duties to protect residential neighborhoods and the Nation's
capital. I strongly urge the subcommittee to provide these important
resources.
In addition, thanks to the generosity of this subcommittee, the
Tuition Assistance Grant Program has provided thousands of District
residents with tremendously expanded options for post-secondary
education. Indeed, many of these people might not have otherwise
attended college. In fiscal year 2003, the program will use all its
allotted funding and will require an additional $17 million in fiscal
year 2004.
In fiscal year 2003 Congress provided $4 million for a family
literacy program. Since receiving this payment just 3 months ago, we
have an ambitious program underway that will soon have at least 20
Literacy Leaders dispatched around the city to help community-based
providers, government agencies, and the faith-based community expand
the network of adult learners. We will also have a training symposium
this summer to ``train the trainers''. My goal is to reverse the city's
destiny in this area by transforming ourselves from a city with a
shockingly high rate of adult literacy challenges to a city where the
right to read is sacred. Adults will have a harder time fulfilling
opportunities for health care, employment, and stable family life as
long as they lack basic reading skills. It is time that the stigma
associated with adult learning challenges be eradicated and all of
Washington make this a priority. With an additional $4 million in
fiscal year 2004 the subcommittee can sustain our efforts.
SUPPORTING CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT
Because quality education for our children is a critical priority
for the city, I strongly urge the Congress to add new funding beyond
last year's levels to support our public schools and expand
opportunities for parents to consider nonpublic educational settings.
This 3-sector approach will allow the city to leverage its best assets
among public schools, public charter schools, and private/parochial
schools.
The District of Columbia Public School system is making headway in
reform, including the very promising Transformation initiative for 15
low-performing schools. It also has a liberal out-of-boundary program
that affords parents opportunities to consider public schools across
the city. Our robust charter school system is a national model for
public school choice whose expansion is limited largely by a lack of
adequate facilities. In addition, dozens of private and parochial
schools are assets for our children. Consequently, I want to reiterate
my support for school choice--both within the public system and between
public and private schools. I urge the Congress to be both bold in
supporting school choice in DC through a 3-sector approach.
On a related matter, I want to acknowledge the concerns that have
been raised by this subcommittee regarding child and family services in
the District. Historically, the whole child welfare service system has
been extremely troubled, and although major progress has been made,
including creation of the Family Court and a newly unified Child and
Family Services Agency, there still remain challenges that we must
continue to address. Our capable CFSA director and I are redoubling our
efforts to complete the reform process in serving our most vulnerable
youth, including a more seamless approach in how government agencies
relate to children at risk. The subcommittee's ongoing interest in
supporting efforts to recruit social workers, promote early
intervention in case work for children and families, and support foster
parents who take on this difficult work is very encouraging.
And finally, before I conclude this testimony there are several
specific points that must be made clear for the record. First, I ask
that the District's appropriation be passed without the undemocratic
``riders'' that are sometimes included. These non-budgetary provisions
subvert the will of District citizens and their only elected
representatives. If the elected leadership of the city has decided to
use local funds for various purposes, we ask only for you to grant us
the same prerogatives and liberties that cities in your own districts
enjoy.
In addition, I would also like to note for the committee that the
city continues to be vigilant in its emergency preparedness
responsibilities and is expeditiously drawing down on Federal funds
provided for this purpose. We are making great progress working with
surrounding jurisdictions and Federal agencies in developing effective
regional responses. Similarly, working with local hospitals, our
capacities in the areas of preventing and responding to bioterrorism
are greatly expanded. Through partnership with the Federal Government,
the District is rapidly becoming one of the best prepared jurisdictions
in the Nation.
And finally, no discussion of District-Federal partnership is
complete without a discussion of voting representation in Congress. The
District is the capital of the world's greatest democracy, and it is
the ultimate hypocrisy that its citizens suffer from the exact
disenfranchisement this Nation was founded to end. Like all of us in
this hearing room, I was filled with great pride and gratitude watching
the young men and women of our armed forces help bring democracy closer
to the people of Iraq. At the same time, however, I was struck with the
irony that those among them who hail from our great city do not enjoy
full democracy here.
Again, Senator DeWine and members of the subcommittee, I thank you
for your support of the District and I thank you for this opportunity
to testify before you today. After the testimony of Chairman Cropp and
Dr. Gandhi, I will gladly answer any questions you may have.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.
Ms. Cropp.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA W. CROPP
Ms. Cropp. Good morning, Chairman DeWine and Ranking
Minority Member Landrieu. It is a pleasure to be before you
today to testify on behalf of the District of Columbia. Let me
thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, for your comments
with regard to the GAO report, and there is a nexus between the
structural imbalance and our ability to serve the needs of our
young people, comments that you also made.
The fiscal year 2004 budget, another in a series of
fiscally sound and responsible budgets, marks another important
stride in our city's home rule. It fully illustrates that the
Mayor and the council can work together and put together a good
spending plan that continues to make the District a better
place to live, to work, to raise a family, and to visit. It
also is a reflection of our resolve to stand as one good
government that will remain fiscally prudent and, most
importantly, responsible.
Fiscal discipline. This has always been and will be a top
priority on our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of
the executive branch, we practice it. The various forms of
fiscal discipline, from rainy day funds to financial
safeguards, insurance and investment policies, economic
triggers to pay-as-you-go funds that we have demanded of and
imposed on ourselves in the past several years have yielded
significant returns for the District of Columbia.
Case in point, the council insisted that the Government
limit the growth of our spending in fiscal year 2004 while
ensuring that all basic municipal needs were met. Instead of
increasing taxes to address declining revenues for fiscal year
2004, the council, with the mayor, limited the rate of growth
in our spending to under 5 percent. Again, this was done
without any detriment to the District of Columbia residents who
receive services and benefits from important programs.
The $323 million-plus revenue shortfall in fiscal year 2003
budget on the very first day of our new fiscal year, October 1,
2002, was dealt with very quickly by the Mayor and the council.
On April 1, 6 months into the fiscal year, the council took
emergency action, as recommended by the mayor, on another $134
million that was a hole in this year's budget. Our counterparts
in Maryland and Virginia and all across the country, of course,
face similar challenges because of the economy in our Nation,
although we think that the District has acted more quickly,
effectively, and responsibly to take the actions necessary to
bring our budget in balance.
Finally, it is important to note that, due to the city's
fiscal discipline and our hard work, we have a positive image
fostered by the partnership of locally elected leadership in
our business community. We have finally been recognized and
rewarded on Wall Street, where the District Government bond
rating has been upgraded from stable to positive. Moreover, the
city's bond rating is expected to be further upgraded while
other jurisdictions' ratings are being downgraded during this
economic period.
As the council continues its work during the fiscal year
2003 and 2004 legislative session, we will remain vigilant
about maintaining fiscal discipline that we have imposed on the
executive branch and ourselves, and we will also focus on other
important goals set forth in our legislative agenda. These
goals include the revitalization of our neighborhoods,
investment in our youth, protection of our vulnerable
residents, oversight of executive performance and service
delivery, promotion of continued economic stability and growth,
and expansion of home rule and democracy, our priorities, put
together with a fiscally sound and responsible spending plan,
is good for the District.
The operating budget funds basic city services and
programs. The capital budget, as a result of stringent
oversight, was realigned. Funds were redirected and targeted
for projects with higher priorities and critical needs such as
schools for children, improving blighted properties in our
neighborhoods, and enhancing existing facilities, better
public-council interaction.
I have provided copies of the committee reports from all of
our council's committees for the record, and I believe that it
will be good reading and will also provide you good information
with regard to the status of many things in the District of
Columbia.
Senator DeWine. Those will be made a part of the record.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Cropp. Thank you. An integral part of the council's
budget process is public input. As such, many hearings on the
fiscal 2004 budget were held. This gives the council and the
Mayor an opportunity to hear from our citizens. The process
gave citizens and our workforce the opportunity to comment and
critique programmatic and funding needs and agency performance
and their impact. The feedback is invaluable, because it
contributed and culminated in decisions and recommendations of
each committee in the mark-up process.
At the end of this public process--translated into 54
public hearings or about 289 hours--we incorporated the
findings from that public hearing process, from our residents
and our employees, into the budget. On May 6, the council
approved the $6.6 billion spending plan that provides adequate
funding for basic city services, in keeping with the seven
goals of our legislative agenda. All of this was done,
including full funding of our police department, without a tax
increase. In fact, we are continuing with the portions of the
tax reduction associated with the Tax Parity Act as passed by
the council in 1999, which were already in place. The council
action will bring our taxes more in line with our neighbors'
over a 5-year period. We believe this has contributed to the
economic renaissance that our city is experiencing.
Historically, the relationship between the District and the
Federal Government has been a unique political and financial
arrangement. Between 1879 and 1920, the Federal Government
provided assistance by paying half of all of the District's
expenditures. Subsequently, given the various Federal
prohibitions on taxing nonresidents' incomes, Federal
properties, Federal purchase of goods and services, the
District would receive a direct payment. This payment was
stopped in 1997, when the Federal Government expropriated the
cost of the contributions for the police, firefighters,
teachers, and retirement plans, and various court services.
It is worth recalling that in 1997 the Revitalization Act
was passed. One recommendation was that since the District no
longer receives the Federal payment, that the District should
not have its local budget portion come before Congress, just
like other States. I join with the Mayor in asking that you
support budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. Although
the District may be solely responsible for its local spending,
it's not responsible for the structural imbalance that exists
in its spending needs and its revenue generation capacity.
The District, not unlike any other major urban city in this
country, has a population that is older, sicker, and poorer.
The big difference, and it is a major and important difference
with the District and other large urban cities, is, we help
support Baltimore and Richmond, because most of our income
leaves the city and goes out to help support our suburban
economies, totally a reversal from where it is in the rest of
the country, where in most instances, the suburban
jurisdictions help to offset the high cost of what is going on
in the district. That is a huge structural imbalance unlike
anything else. The GAO report is very clear, the imbalance
ranges between $470 million and $1.1 billion a year. The cost
of providing public services is just much higher in the
District than in other areas.
Mr. Chairman, you had asked if we had some suggestions. The
Mayor certainly outlined the Federal Fair Compensation Act that
our Congresswoman has introduced that we would hope that we
could start discussions around that. I would like to also call
your attention to the fact that in 1997, Congress recognized
that the District paid an inordinate amount of Medicaid funds.
We were the only city in the country, in this entire United
States, that paid 50 percent of the cost of Medicaid. You
recognized that that was an imbalance, and we changed the
payment to 70 percent Federal and 30 percent District of
Columbia. That is another area where you can look.
The Federal Government pays a higher proportion of Medicaid
than many other jurisdictions. It seems only fair and just, and
a way to deal with the structural imbalance, that we at least
get the same rate as other States may get for just the city,
when no other city has to pay a Medicaid cost.
Another area is our whole Metro payment. That certainly is
a benefit to us, as we serve, as the capital city, our suburban
jurisdictions. While we have Metro and we have our suburban
areas that sit on the Metro board, their States pay the cost of
Metro, so Montgomery County and Fairfax, Arlington, Prince
George's, they do not even have to pay part of their Medicaid
cost, while the District of Columbia once again, in a highly
structurally imbalanced way, must bear the brunt of our Metro
cost, so that is another area where we could look.
Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask
that you support and pass the budget in time for the start of a
new fiscal year and before adjournment of the 108th Congress.
It really is telling that while our budget period started in
October we did not have an approved budget until January. In
some instances, we needed to reduce the cost of our Government
to deal with our economy. It is important to remember that at
the end of the budget process, both the Mayor and the council
found themselves in sync and approved a budget that invests in
service delivery and basic programs. We urge you to pass the
budget as is without any riders.
This much-anticipated 2004 budget is important, because it
shows again that the Mayor and the council coexist and
underscores our commitment to make Washington, D.C. one of the
best-governed cities in the world. The council will continue to
oversee our operations and expenditures, sometimes to the
chagrin of the Mayor, but I think both of us agree that it is
for the good of the city as a whole.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will be responsive to our constituents who call the
District their home. We will work with the Mayor, with you and
Congress and our surrounding Governments to achieve mutually
shared goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good,
responsible budgets that invest dollars for the District and
leave a legacy for our future generations. Granted, we do not
always agree, but we are always at the table to assert
ourselves as an institution and work for the betterment and the
future of our citizens.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp
Good morning, Chairman DeWine and Ranking Minority Member Landrieu,
and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia. I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on
the District's budget for fiscal year 2004.
INTRODUCTION
The fiscal year 2004 budget--another in a series of fiscally sound
and responsible budgets--marks another important stride in our city's
history of home rule. This is the second budget that the locally
elected leaders have crafted entirely within the Home Rule process. It
fully illustrates that the Council and the Mayor can work together and
put together a good spending plan that continues to make the District a
better place in which to live, to work, to raise a family, and to
visit. It is also a reflection of our resolve to stand as one good
government that will remain fiscally prudent and most importantly
responsible.
This past February, the Mayor and Council received the annual
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which certified that the
District's fiscal year 2002 budget that ended on September 30, 2002 was
our sixth consecutive balanced or surplus budget.
Fiscal Discipline.--This has always been and will always be a TOP
PRIORITY on our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of the
executive branch, we practice it. The various forms of fiscal
discipline--from rainy day savings, financial safeguards, insurance and
investment policies, economic triggers to PAY-AS-YOU-GO funds--that we
have demanded of, and imposed on ourselves in the past several years,
have yielded significant returns to the District of Columbia.
Case in point . . . The Council insisted that the government limit
the growth of spending in fiscal year 2004, while ensuring that all
basic municipal needs were met. Instead of increasing taxes to address
declining revenues for fiscal year 2004, the Council resolved to limit
the rate of spending to under 5 percent. Again, this was done without
detriment to the District residents who receive services and benefits
from important programs.
This reflects a continuation of the same fiscal discipline
strategies that the Council applied to the budget shortfalls that have
occurred during fiscal year 2003. The Council took the lead and made
tough decisions with the Mayor in closing a $323-million-dollar-plus
revenue shortfall in this year's fiscal year 2003 budget on the very
first day of the fiscal year--October 1, 2002. On April 1st, 6 months
into the fiscal year, the Council took emergency action to close
another $134 million hole in this year's budget. Our counterparts in
Maryland and Virginia and all across the country of course face similar
challenges, although we think that the District has acted more quickly,
effectively and responsibly to take the actions necessary to keep our
budget in balance.
Finally, it is important to note that due to the city's fiscal
discipline, our Congressional counterparts, as well as the hard work
and positive image fostered by the partnerships of the locally elected
leadership and our business community, we have finally been recognized
and rewarded on Wall Street, where the DC government's bond rating has
been upgraded from ``stable'' to ``positive.'' Moreover, the city's
bond rating is expected to be further upgraded, while other
jurisdictions ratings are being downgraded at this time.
COUNCIL PERIOD XV
As the Council continues its work during the fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004 legislative sessions, we will remain vigilant about
maintaining the fiscal discipline that we have imposed on the Executive
Branch, and ourselves. Also, we will focus on other important goals set
forth in our legislative agenda. These include:
--Revitalization of our Neighborhoods;
--Investment in our Youth;
--Protection of our Vulnerable Residents;
--Oversight of Executive Performance and Service Delivery;
--Promotion of Continued Economic Stability and Growth; and
--Expansion of Home Rule and Democracy.
THE COUNCIL/MAYOR BUDGET PROCESS
In December of last year, the Council passed the fiscal year 2004
Budget Submission Requirements Resolution of 2002. It established March
17 as the date by which the Mayor shall submit to the Council the
proposed budget. The Mayor transmitted his budget on March 17 and the
Council acted on it within the 50 days as required by the Home Rule
Charter. During this 50-day period, the Council worked diligently with
the Mayor in aligning both sets of priorities and, put together a
fiscally sound and responsible spending plan. The operating budget
funds basic city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result
of stringent oversight by the Council, was realigned. For example,
funds were redirected and targeted for projects with higher priority
and critical needs, such as schools for the children, improving
blighted properties in the neighborhoods, and enhancing existing
facilities for better public/Council interaction.
I have provided copies of the Council's committee reports and the
fiscal year 2004 Budget and I would ask that they be made part of the
record.
When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 17, he had
proposed a local budget of $3.8 billion, an increase of $195.5 million
or 5.4 percent above the revised fiscal year 2003 budget, as amended by
the fiscal year 2003 Amendment Act of 2002 and later approved by the
Congress.
THE COUNCIL/PUBLIC CITIZEN BUDGET PROCESS
An integral part of the Council budget process is public input and,
as such, many hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget were held. The
process gave the citizens and our workforce an opportunity to comment
and critique programmatic and funding needs and agency performances
that impact them. This feedback is invaluable because it contributed
and culminated in the decisions and recommendations of each committee
in the mark-up of the budgets. Following a review of the committee
marks, the Committee of the Whole made additional recommendations in
order to bring the budget into balance. At the end of this public
process--which translated into 54 public hearings or about 289.15
hours--we incorporated findings from our residents and employees into
the budget.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
On May 6, the Council approved the $6.6 billion spending plan that
provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. In
keeping up with the seven goals on our legislative agenda, schools
continue to receive full funding. To protect our vulnerable residents,
the Council found $4 million to fund the Interim Disability Assistance
program for disabled adults. In the area of public safety, the Council
provided the funding needed to increase the number of active policemen
in the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to 3,800 by the end of
fiscal year 2004. The Council accomplished this by separating the
dollars needed to fund this initiative from the rest of the MPD budget
by placing the dollars into Pay Go funding. To invest for future
generations, capital and operating dollars were added for our young
children to improve their studying environments and broaden their
academic and vocational skills. We continued the District's effort to
collect Medicaid reimbursement for local expenditures that are eligible
for such Federal reimbursement.
All of this was done without any general tax increase. In fact, we
are continuing with the portions of tax reductions associated with the
Tax Parity Act passed by the Council in 1999, which are already in
place. This Council action will bring our taxes more in-line with our
neighbors over a 5-year period. We believe this has contributed to the
economic renaissance that our city is experiencing.
FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
Historically, the relationship between the District and the Federal
Government has been a unique political and financial arrangement.
Between 1879 and 1920, the Federal Government would provide assistance
by paying half of all District expenditures. Subsequently, given the
various Federal prohibitions on taxing nonresident incomes, Federal
properties, Federal purchase of goods and services, the District would
receive a direct payment. This payment was stopped in 1997 when the
Federal Government expropriated the cost of the contributions for the
police, firefighters, and teachers retirement plans and various Court
services.
It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was
passed, one recommendation was that since the District no longer
receives any Federal payments, Congress would not need to review or
approve its budget. At a minimum, Congress should no longer approve the
local portion of the District's budget. Just like the other 50 States,
the District would be solely responsible for approving its own local
spending.
Although the District government may be solely responsible for its
local spending, it is not responsible for ``the structural imbalance''
that exists between its spending needs and its revenue generation
capacity. Just recently, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a
report regarding this imbalance. Some of the significant conclusions of
this report include:
--The imbalance ranges between $470 million and $1.1 billion per
year;
--The cost of providing public services is much higher in the
District than it is in the average State due to a relatively
large poverty population, poor health indicators, high crime,
and the high cost of living;
--Although the District has a very high revenue capacity, we are
already taxing toward the upper limit of our revenue capacity,
thereby creating a punitive tax structure.
In order to solve the problem of structural imbalance, the General
Accounting Office suggests that the Congress consider one of the
following: (1) Relax current taxing restrictions on the District; or
(2) Compensate the District for its special status as a capital city.
CONCLUSION
Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that
you support and pass the budget in time for the start of the new fiscal
year and before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. It is important
to remember that at the end of the budget process, both the Council and
the Mayor found themselves in sync and approved a budget that invests
in service delivery and basic programs. Furthermore, we urge you to
pass the budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This much
anticipated fiscal year 2004 budget is important because it shows that
the Mayor and the Council can co-exist together and underscores our
commitment to make Washington, DC one of the best governed cities in
the world.
Nonetheless, the Council will continue to oversee executive
operations and expenditures. We will be responsive to our constituents
who call the District their home. We will work with the Mayor,
Congress, and the surrounding governments to achieve mutually shared
goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good responsible
budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for
future generations. Granted we do not always agree from time to time,
but we will be at the table to assert ourselves as an institution and
work for the betterment and future of our citizens.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR GANDHI
Dr. Gandhi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,
Congresswoman Norton. As the Chief Financial Officer, my
primary responsibility is to ensure the overall financial
viability of the District at all times. In the past year, we
have enjoyed some notable successes, including the sixth
consecutive balanced budget. Overall, the city ended fiscal
year 2002 with a general fund surplus of $27.4 million, and a
positive general fund balance of $865 million. In fiscal 1996,
there was a negative fund balance of $518 million, so we have
witnessed a turnaround of over $1.3 billion since then. This in
itself is clear evidence the District is qualified for Home
Rule and ready for budget autonomy.
I believe we are in a good position to continue this
progress. We instituted several changes in financial systems
that will give us a much better picture of our financial
posture as we go through the year.
During fiscal year 2003, we began to implement standardized
spending plans and to report actual performance against those
plans, using a new online financial management tool for
controlling agency budgets. At the end of fiscal year 2001, we
had $100 million in cash reserves. This amount grew to about
$248.7 million by the end of fiscal year 2002, and will
increase to nearly $254 million by the end of fiscal year 2003,
to remain at 7 percent of total local expenditures. These
reserves were fully funded 5 years before the designated
deadline.
Along with the fund balance noted earlier, these steps
solidified the District's bond rating and led Moody's to
upgrade their outlook on the District's $3 billion in general
obligation bonds from ``stable'' to ``positive''. This is
particularly significant at a time when rating agencies are
downgrading or looking negatively at numerous States and
localities. We hope our positive outlook will lead to a ratings
upgrade later this year, as Chairman Cropp expected, which will
contribute to even lower borrowing costs in the future.
For the fiscal year 2003 financial outlook, through the
leadership and cooperation of our elected officials, the
District made the necessary tough decisions to assure a
balanced budget for fiscal year 2003. As of early June, the
remaining spending pressure for fiscal year 2003 is estimated
at about $50 million, primarily driven by the high utilization
cost for the health care safety net. These amounts will be
addressed. I am confident that we will end the year with a
balanced budget.
For the fiscal year 2004 budget request, in local funds,
which comprise about two-thirds of the total budget, the 2004
budget request is about $3.8 billion, an increase of about $230
million over the approved 2003 level. The total number of
positions funded with the local fund is about $26,245, a
decrease of 150 positions, or less than 1 percent.
As you will see, the budget projects positive net operating
margins through fiscal year 2007. This projection shows a
positive financial picture, and is based on revenue forecasts
that use realistic economic and demographic assumptions
generally accepted by the forecasting community and the Federal
Government. However, a close examination of the data suggests
that the District is operating on a slim financial margin
indeed. Fortunately, we expect local revenues to begin to grow
in fiscal year 2004, after the decline and stagnation of the
past 2 fiscal years, but the growth that can be expected is
nothing like the 7 percent annual change between fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2001.
The District now faces a more slowly rising revenue curve,
as financial and real estate markets return to more normal
patterns, generating revenues that are expected to grow at
around 4\1/2\ percent per year. We believe that it will be
challenging for this revenue to sustain our current level of
services, and there is no room for consideration of additional
program initiatives, significant infrastructure investment, or
tax cuts. For these reasons, the city and its elected
leadership will face difficult program and financial decisions
in the years to come.
One of the reasons for the difficulty is the structural
imbalance in the District's budget that needs to be addressed.
Chairman Cropp and the Mayor already have talked about the
structural imbalance issue, so I will not dwell on that any
further. I appreciate your leadership and Senator Landrieu's
leadership in our appropriations, and it is my hope that the
current GAO report would help Congress and the District move
beyond the questions of whether there is a structural imbalance
to questions of how the Federal Government and District
Government can work together to address this problem. This
problem must be addressed with urgency to ensure the long-term
financial viability of the Nation's capital city.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request
that this testimony be made part of the record. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Natwar M. Gandhi
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, and members of the
subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the
District of Columbia, and I am here today to testify on the District's
fiscal year 2004 budget request to the Congress. My remarks will
briefly touch on the fiscal year 2003 financial outlook, the fiscal
year 2004 request, and the structural imbalance that threatens the
District's long-term financial viability.
OVERVIEW
As the Chief Financial Officer, my responsibility is to ensure the
overall financial viability of the District of Columbia in the short-,
mid-, and long-term. In the past year, we have enjoyed some notable
successes, including the sixth consecutive ``unqualified'' (or clean)
opinion from the city's independent auditors, with the fiscal year 2002
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) completed ahead of time
and with a balanced budget. Overall, the city ended fiscal year 2002
with a general fund surplus of $27.4 million, and a positive general
fund balance of $865.3 million. In fiscal year 1996, there was a
negative fund balance of $518 million, so we have witnessed a
turnaround of over $1.3 billion since then. Even allowing for the
restatements necessary to conform our financial reporting to the new
requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
Statement Number 34, this result is clear evidence that the District is
qualified for Home Rule.
I believe we are in a good position to continue this progress. We
instituted several changes in financial systems that will give us a
much better picture of our financial posture as we go through the year.
We successfully implemented GASB 34 on time with minimal outside
assistance. During fiscal year 2003, we began to implement standardized
spending plans and to report actual performance against those plans
using CFO$ource, a new online financial management tool for controlling
agency budgets. At the end of fiscal year 2001, we had $100.9 million
in cash reserves; this amount grew to $248.7 million by the end of
fiscal year 2002, and will increase to nearly $254 million by the end
of fiscal year 2003 to remain at 7 percent of total local expenditures.
These reserves were fully funded 5 years before the legislative
deadline. Along with the fund balance noted earlier, these steps
solidified the District's bond ratings and led Moody's to upgrade their
outlook on the District's $3 billion in general obligation bonds from
``stable'' to ``positive''. This is particularly significant at a time
when rating agencies are downgrading or looking negatively at numerous
States and localities. We hope our positive outlook will lead to a
ratings upgrade later this year, which would contribute to even lower
borrowing costs in the future.
We have made progress on other fronts as well. This year, for the
second time, the District of Columbia's ``Comprehensive Financial
Management Policy'' appears as an appendix of the budget submission.
This policy, required annually by the fiscal year 2001 District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-522, is actually a
compilation of policies in key areas and a financial management tool
that codifies current policies and procedures. It is updated annually.
Effective with the fiscal year 2003 budget development process, we
began the transition to performance-based budgeting. With the active
support of the Office of the City Administrator, seven large operating
agencies, including the OCFO, submitted performance-based budgets based
on agency strategic business plans aligned with the mayor's citywide
strategic plan. For the fiscal year 2004 budget process, we worked with
another 27 agencies (the remainder of the Mayor's cabinet) to convert
them to performance-based budgeting.
A long-term replacement strategy for the District's payroll systems
and their integration with other administrative systems has been
developed as part of the Administrative Services Modernization Program
(ASMP), spearheaded by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Over
the next 2 to 3 years, all of the District's administrative systems--
personnel, payroll, procurement, property management, and budget--will
be upgraded and integrated with the System of Accounting and Reporting
(SOAR). For the first time, this will give the District a top quality,
integrated information system with which to manage District operations.
Now that we have 3 years of operating experience with SOAR, we are
utilizing more of its capabilities. We already have an Integrated Tax
System, rated as among the best in the country by the Federation of Tax
Administrators, and the District is the first city to offer free online
tax filing and the only city to provide account balances via the Web.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
Through the leadership and cooperation of our elected officials,
the District made the necessary tough decisions to assure a balanced
budget for fiscal year 2003.
As of early June, remaining spending pressures for fiscal year 2003
are estimated at $50 million, primarily driven by higher utilization
costs for the Health Care Safety Net. This amount will be addressed. I
am confident we will end the year with a balanced budget.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Landrieu, and
the subcommittee members and staff for your leadership and support on
the District's portion of the fiscal year 2003 budget supplemental that
was enacted in April of this year.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The Council of the District of Columbia voted to approve the
consensus fiscal year 2004 budget request on May 6. Copies of the
budget documents have been distributed, and CD-ROMs will be made
available shortly. I would like to briefly summarize some of the key
points in the request.
In total, the District's gross fund operating request for fiscal
year 2004 is $5.69 billion, which represents an increase of about $119
million, or 2.1 percent, over approved fiscal year 2003 levels. The
total number of positions in fiscal year 2004 from all funding sources
is 33,867, which represents an increase of 233 positions, or less than
1 percent.
In local funds, which comprise about two-thirds of the total
budget, the fiscal year 2004 budget request is about $3.83 billion, an
increase of about $230 million, or 6.4 percent, over approved fiscal
year 2003 levels. The total number of positions funded with local funds
is 26,245, a decrease of 150 positions, or less than 1 percent.
Over the 4-year period from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2002,
the District's local fund expenditures increased by 6.1 percent
annually, or a total of $741 million over this period, from $2.768
billion in fiscal year 1998 to $3.509 billion in fiscal year 2002. Of
this $741 million increase, $621 million (nearly 84 percent) came in
two areas: $316 million in the D.C. Public Schools and the Public
Charter Schools, and $305 million in the Departments of Human Services,
Mental Health, and Health, and the Child and Family Services Agency
(all of which were part of the Department of Human Services in 1997).
At these six agencies, expenditures increased at a rate of 11.1 percent
annually over the past 4 years. Expenditures in all other District
agencies combined increased by $120 million, or 1.8 percent annually,
over the same period.
As you will see, the budget projects positive net operating margins
through fiscal year 2007. This projection shows a positive financial
picture and is based on revenue forecasts that use realistic economic
and demographic assumptions generally accepted by the forecasting
community and the Federal Government.
However, a close examination of the data suggests that the District
is operating on a slim financial margin. Fortunately, we expect local
revenues to begin to grow in fiscal year 2004, after the decline and
stagnation of the past 2 fiscal years. But the growth that can be
expected is nothing like the 7.4 percent annual change between fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2001. The District now faces a more slowly
rising revenue curve, as financial and real estate markets return to
more normal patterns, generating revenues that are expected to grow
around 4.5 percent per year. We believe that it will be challenging for
this revenue to sustain our current level of service, and there is no
room for consideration of additional program initiatives, significant
infrastructure investments, or tax cuts. For these reasons, the city
and its elected leadership will face difficult program and financial
decisions in the years to come. One of the reasons for the difficulty
is a structural imbalance in the District's budget that needs to be
addressed.
STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE IN THE DISTRICT'S BUDGET
Over the past several years, the District has submitted balanced
and responsible budgets during periods of increasing as well as
stagnating and declining revenues. Our restrained budgeting in the good
years helped us work through some of the hard times in fiscal year 2002
and fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, the District is submitting
a balanced budget in a particularly challenging economic environment, a
testament to the ability of the District's elected leaders to manage
through difficult times. However, despite this balanced budget, and
despite the surpluses the District has generated over the past 6 years,
the District has a serious long-term financial problem--a structural
imbalance that transcends short-term challenges and cyclical revenue
fluctuations. This structural imbalance is a long-term gap between the
District's ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the
District's ability to provide services of reasonable quality to its
residents. It is driven by expenditure requirements and revenue
restrictions that are beyond the control of District leadership.
Several outside assessments of the District's financial condition
have affirmed the presence of this imbalance. In March 2002, a McKinsey
& Company report funded by the Federal City Council stated, among other
things, that Federal constraints impose an annual opportunity cost of
at least $500 to $600 million. In October 2002, Alice Rivlin and Carol
O'Cleireacain of the Brookings Institution assessed the District's
relationship with the Federal Government and concluded that a strong
rationale exists for additional Federal financial assistance to the
District. And just last week, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
released its final report, thoroughly assessing the District's
financial structure and corroborating the existence of a structural
deficit in the District's finances.
Economic changes have lead other jurisdictions to begin identifying
structural issues as well, and the District shares in the breadth and
depth of problems facing most States and localities. In addition,
however, the District's structural imbalance is more extreme, driven by
the unique set of services provided by the District and the unique set
of restrictions that limit the District's revenue raising capacity. I
have testified to these requirements and restrictions on several
occasions. In the District, we provide city services, State services,
county services and even the services of a school district; we provide
public safety and public works services to the Federal Government
itself. We do all this with an artificially constrained tax base. We
cannot tax the income of people working in the District and living
elsewhere, a restriction faced by no State. We cannot tax 42 percent of
the property value within the city because it is owned by the Federal
Government. We cannot count on high-density property to make up for our
limited taxable property because of the height restrictions on District
buildings.
The cumulative effect of these requirements and restrictions is
that the District faces a long-term structural imbalance, whereby it is
unlikely that we can provide a standard quality and range of services
to our citizens, even with tax burdens that exceed those elsewhere.
This imbalance manifests itself in many ways:
--The District's per capita expenditure requirements are very high.
We face high per capita expenditure requirements because we
provide public services in a market with high labor costs; we
provide services to a large commuter population; and we have
many residents with high service needs. On top of these cost
drivers, the District provides about $500 million in services
of a State-like nature, and we provide millions of dollars of
services as host to the Nation's capital. Although the District
certainly has the potential to improve the efficiency of
operations, the District's higher costs are determined by
factors beyond our control and cannot be offset entirely by
improved service delivery.
--The District compensates for its very high expenditure requirements
with taxes that are very high. The District's tax effort is
among the highest, if not the highest, in the Nation. The need
for high taxes is driven further by restrictions on the
District's ability to tax income earned in the District and a
significant portion of the property within the District.
--The structural imbalance is not just a reality facing the
District's operating budget. The imbalance contributes to a
significant capital budget and infrastructure problem as well.
The District faces an accumulated infrastructure backlog of
$2.5 billion, which has not been funded in recent capital
improvement plans. The District continues to defer capital
investment to avert the operating costs associated with debt
service. The problem is acute because additional borrowing
could raise outstanding debt to levels that adversely affect
the District's credit rating.
When it comes to addressing the structural imbalance, we have few
options. Increasing the tax burden on District businesses and residents
even further could have an adverse impact on total receipts, because it
could influence potential and current residents or businesses to locate
in adjacent, lower-tax States. Given the structural imbalance, the
District must choose between tax levels that are even higher than the
national average, service levels that are lower than the national
average, or combinations of both.
An alternative solution is Federal compensation for the District's
unique relationship with the Federal Government. Not only does the
District provide unreimbursed services to the Federal Government and
fund itself with a federally restricted tax base, but the Federal
Government has a strong interest in a fiscally secure District of
Columbia. Ultimately, the long-term solution to the structural
imbalance is a matter to be addressed by District and congressional
policy-makers. A dialogue must continue that revisits the Federal/local
partnership and arrives at a long-term solution for equitable support
of District services.
It is my hope that the GAO report helps Congress and the District
move beyond questions of whether there is a structural imbalance to
questions of how the Federal Government and District government can
work together to address this problem. And this problem must be
addressed with urgency to ensure the long-term financial viability of
the Nation's capital city.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request that
this testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to answer
any questions you or the other members may have.
Senator DeWine. Good, thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate the overview provided by each one of you, and
particularly the points of your focus.
EDUCATION
Mr. Mayor, maybe I should start with an issue that has been
in the news a great deal, an issue that probably needs some
clarifying, and we are going to spend some time working on this
issue here, and that is the issue of education and choices and
opportunities that we have to improve the educational
opportunities for children not just here in the District. As
you know, it has been a major focus of Congress with the
passage of ``Leave No Child Behind'' as well as other efforts
of funding and reforming special education.
It has been a real focus of Congress to try to figure a new
way to work in partnership with local Governments and State
Governments to enhance the quality of education for all
children, and it is a contentious debate at times, because
there are a variety of different approaches. There seems to be
some consensus emerging at least on the subject of providing
more options than what exist now, but as you know, there is not
tremendous support, and I agree with that, for abandoning the
public school system, even though I know that people would
contend that this is not what some people are attempting to do.
Some evidence would suggest that some people have maybe
completely given up on the public school system and want to go
elsewhere. I am not one of those.
So given this debate, could you just express to us, as
clearly as you can, about what your views are. You have talked
about a three-sector approach when this subject comes up, could
you just clarify that issue for us? I realize that the school
budget is not part of the District's Federal budget--though the
school board is not here, I would like your views, Mr. Mayor.
Many Mayors are now stepping up to try to help their cities
navigate this issue of school choice, and your voice is one
that we listen to a great deal, could you clarify what some of
your thoughts are about that issue, and then I will come back
to some others that you outlined.
Mr. Williams. Well, I think, Senator Landrieu, that
education is really critical to the future of the city. It is
critical to have any kind of workforce and talent pool that our
businesses need. It is critical in terms of having in the
future the civic leadership that any city needs, let alone our
Nation's capital, and if you look at a lot of literature about
cities right now, people will tell you that more and more
employers are looking to come to cities for the sense of energy
and creativity, energy that a city is about.
Well, clearly you are not going to have that energy and
creativity if a good part of your city is really not fully part
of the mainstream educationally, in terms of literacy and
otherwise, so education is vitally important, and what we have
tried to do is certainly in the first instance put a major
emphasis on education over, if you look at the budgets over the
last 4 or 5 years that I have introduced to the council, you
know, major increases have really gone to either human services
or they have gone to education. Everything else has pretty much
been flat--education, some 42 percent increase in education.
As we face this looming structural, well, present and
looming structural imbalance in the capital budget, we have had
to basically cut out of the capital budget $250 million in
order to preserve capital dollars for school programs, so
schools have been, are, and will continue to be, the public
schools, a major part of our emphasis, because they are clearly
the major part of the lifting and the delivery system for our
children, and in that regard, the program that I have
supported, calling for additional dollars for a choice program,
or additional dollars above and beyond the dollars that we are
investing in our schools.
To the extent that children leave our regular public
schools under this program, we would hold our regular public
schools harmless, so in any event, regular public schools would
have additional dollars to devote to better class sizes, other
kinds of initiatives.
Above and beyond that, we are proposing as part of this
three-sector strategy provision of dollars, I would like to see
in the order of magnitude of $50 million ongoing funding to
relieve the funds of State costs that they can then invest,
State costs borne by our District, no other State, or not other
city, certainly, that can go into teachers, learning, and other
kinds of enrichment.
The second part of this program, in addition to these
ongoing dollars for the public schools, would involve $50
million matched by the private sector for school modernization
for our charter schools. Right now, the demand far outstrips
the supply for our charter schools. One of the big issues, as
you know, is facilities in our charter schools. This will go a
long way toward helping our charter schools meet and satisfy
that gap.
And then finally, certainly there is a choice component
here for the third sector. We believe that it ought to be
devoted to children who are right now trapped in our low-
performing schools, our lowest-income children, their ability
to go to schools in the District, schools that would agree to
accept nondiscriminatory policies, and certainly--and I am
pleased that the Cardinal has already evinced support for this,
certainly one leader in the private parochial area--that there
be a common accountability mechanism, so that--you know, one of
the things I am seeing right now as we enter into this debate
is there is so much fury, inflammatory rhetoric about what can
or will happen if we do this, but not a lot of it is based on
real, empirical data.
What we are talking about here is a pilot. We are talking
about experimenting, and we are talking about doing a study
under the Department of Education, Federal Department of
Education, so that 4 or 5 years from now, we can look and say,
okay, the outcomes were better, or maybe the outcomes are the
same, or maybe they are no different, in which case we ought to
try something new. And that is what I am proposing, and that is
what I strongly support.
I think we have tried one model for a long, long time. We
are not abandoning that model, but if we can help 2,000 or
3,000 children as part of a multisector approach, I think we
ought to do it.
SCHOOL CHOICE
Senator Landrieu. Well, just to conclude, and then I have
got a couple of questions on different subjects. Regarding
school choice, perhaps an approach would be a limited pilot, as
you have described, but that would include not just the
District, but several other cities, but quite limited, and the
parameters quite secure. One of the reasons that I hesitate to
even be more supportive at this point is because of the
experience we just went through with ``Leave No Child Behind'',
where funding was promised, but it was not forthcoming, and so
I guess that there are many Members of Congress on both the
Democratic and I would say some on the Republican side, that
are wondering how we even move forward from here. There were
commitments of funding levels made to schools across the
country, and in my position the chairman may disagree, but
those levels were not--whoever's fault it was, we could argue--
but those levels were not maintained, and so entering into any
kind of arrangement without some security of the funding that
follows whatever arrangements is something I think we should be
very careful about, and again, having an approach that might
include other regions of the country as well, if we were going
to pursue it.
But finally, I do want to, Mr. Mayor, commend you for being
at least open. I think in this debate we have to be open to new
approaches, but your efforts and the council's efforts
particularly on expanding charter school options and choices in
the District is very commendable. There are not many cities,
Mr. Chairman--and I think now almost 17 percent of the students
have a choice for charter schools. There are many cities that
have much more limited choices, so the District has made a lot
of progress in their charter school movement, and now having
quality charter schools and accountability.
But when you move into other areas beyond that, this issue
of what children will be tested, what tests they will agree to,
the private sector, as you know, holds very dearly their
freedom to either not have tests, have whatever kinds of tests
they want--of course, they do not have public funds involved,
so they have that freedom, but adopting a new system would
require private and independent schools to maybe adopt certain
criteria that they might not feel is appropriate.
So we are not going to resolve it today, but I just want to
commend you for being open, but I guess caution that we proceed
very slowly because of some of the things that I outlined.
Go ahead.
Ms. Cropp. If I may just for a moment add to that, the
council shares in your concern with regard to funding for
unfunded mandates. With ``No Child Left Behind'', the District
is looking right now for millions of dollars to try to pay for
that. We have the issue of our transformation schools that we
are still dealing with.
I would just like to put on the record for discussion not
only in the District, but I think nationally, the real issue
and concern with education is with the hard-core child who is
having problems. The District has probably the largest charter
school population of any city, any State in the country almost,
or we are probably up there in the highest rank. Normally,
those who go to charter schools, it is a certain culture, or a
certain belief from the parents starting out with the children,
but we still are not really tapping into that hard-core,
uneducated child, and no matter what of the pilots that we are
talking about now, until we touch into this hard-core group of
those who are undereducated, I do not think we are going to
achieve what we want to achieve.
And the District of Columbia has really done exceptionally
well, I think, over the past several years, but the area, if I
had to select an area where I think we have the greatest need
in growth it is with education and with our young people, and I
would hope, as everyone, the District, nationally, other
jurisdictions, as we look at it, we do not just look at those
individuals who are going to make it. You know, with the
charter schools, the parents obviously have a care for
education. With school of choice, the parents obviously are
trying to seek a higher level of education for their children,
but it is that hard core that is in the public schools around
this country, that if we do not address them, we are not going
to resolve the problem at all.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I thank the councilwoman, and I am
not going to take any more time, but only to say that many of
those hard-core children, as you are describing them, and
perhaps that is a good term, are special needs children, and
the Federal Government said they would pick up 40 percent of
the tab of special needs, and the Federal Government is only
picking up 8 percent for jurisdictions all over the country, so
that would have to be addressed as one of the founding building
blocks of this new proposal, that discrepancy in funding,
before we would proceed.
Mr. Chairman.
BOND RATING
Senator DeWine. Dr. Gandhi, what is the outlook on Wall
Street for the city's bond rating, and do you think that the
recent GAO report will affect the bond rating?
Dr. Gandhi. Sir, let's say my hope is that next time we go
to Wall Street--which will be another month or two--that we
would see an upgrade. That is my hope.
Senator DeWine. An upgrade?
Dr. Gandhi. Upgrade, sir, but let me say there are two
fundamental issues here. The people on Wall Street are looking
at, first, how well the city is managing its fiscal affairs,
and I think the elected leaders have proved that, in the 2003
and 2004 budgets, they have done heavy lifting and have done
monumental work in terms of making sure that our budget is
balanced. It is balanced without raising any taxes. They were
able to provide realistic remedies to solving problems without
using any tricks--no one-time revenues, no accounting mechanism
that others have used. We have not done that.
The second issue here is that they do look at our
structural problem. There is no way of going around that. That
does affect us, and they look at our long-term economic
viability. Unless the Congress resolves this fundamental issue,
we do have some problem, but as far as the city's fiscal
credibility, I think we have proved on Wall Street that we can
manage the city, and manage in a very fiscally prudent and
financially responsible manner.
The last thing I would say, sir, is that we now have
roughly 25 percent of our fund balance, and until the year
2007, every year we will have more than half, up to 60 percent
of our fund balance, in cash. No other State, except perhaps
Mississippi, that has a requirement of putting 7 percent of
fund expenditure in general fund cash reserve. We have that.
Further, and I will end with this, the replenishment
requirement that we have is rather--how shall I put this?--very
strict; so basically, that fund is untouchable, and that gives
a lot of assurance to the people on Wall Street that that money
is always there, and there in cash, so I am very hopeful.
Mr. Williams. If I could add, Mr. Chairman----
Senator DeWine. Good. Mr. Mayor, go ahead.
Mr. Williams. Because of my experience as CFO, I think that
it actually helps, because when we go up and talk to them, one
of their major issues is this issue of the imbalance, and the
Federal relationship, and to the extent that a recognized
authority like GAO has pointed this out, and that there are
statements from you as Chairman and the Ranking Member on this,
and certainly our Congresswoman, I think that that actually--I
think Wall Street sees that as supportive, as opposed to
counterproductive.
Another thing, as I just said, I am proud of the fact that
from the time of our fiscal insolvency until now--and you are
talking about a swing probably of, what, around $1 billion?
Dr. Gandhi. $1.3 billion, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Right, in liability, to now a fund balance,
we never financed our debt. So we basically worked that debt
down year by year, managing--you know, like the family managing
the MasterCard, we just managed it down the very, very old-
fashioned, hard way. And I think that is to our credit, over
these last 7, 8 years.
Dr. Gandhi. And Mr. Chairman I would add, just to
supplement the Mayor's point, that when the tobacco money came
to us, we securitized that, and that substantially lowered our
debt by $1/2 billion.
Senator DeWine. You did what, Doctor?
Dr. Gandhi. Securitized our tobacco debt, and consequently
we do not have to now rely upon lower tobacco consumption and
lower tobacco input into the fund. We are basically free of
that obligation, so I think it was a very wise fiscal move on
the part of the elected leadership, and it established our
credibility on Wall Street even further.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW PROJECT UPGRADES
Senator DeWine. Mr. Mayor, in fiscal year 2003, our
subcommittee provided $50 million to begin these urgently
needed upgrades to the city's Combined Sewer Overflow Project.
Do you want to give us an update on the status of the project?
And also, with Federal cost-sharing, how will you be able
to reduce the time for the project completion, and also maybe
tell us a little bit about, if the funding level goes down? In
other words, if the numbers we are able to give you will go
down to, say, $10-15 million, what does that mean to you?
Mr. Williams. Right. Well, Mr. Chair, first of all the
project, as you know, has three phases. There is the Anacostia
phase, the Potomac phase, and the Rock Creek phase. All of
them, particularly the Anacostia and Rock Creek, are
particularly polluted.
The most urgent and complicated of these is the Anacostia
River phase, which as you have mentioned is $1 billion. The
contribution of $50 million so far has been matched by a $90
million contribution from WASA, which will go to completing
early work. There remains, however, a need of $800 million for
this Anacostia phase. There are several projects that are
already underway, pumping capacity, targeted separation, an
initiative to maximize storage in the existing system. Were we
to receive reliable funding--in other words, if we were to know
we were going to receive reliable funding over a period of
years, we would then be able to finance the project properly
and start the project in all of its phases and get it done over
a reasonable period of time.
Senator DeWine. Reliable means what?
Mr. Williams. Pardon me?
Senator Landrieu. Dedicated.
Mr. Williams. Dedicated, reliable, recurring funding.
Senator DeWine. At what level, though? It means at a
certain level, I assume.
Mr. Williams. Well, I do not want to--I could get you the
exact number, but I would believe that if we were able to
receive the level of funding we have already received on a
reliable basis, recurring basis, we could then take that to the
markets and package the project and get it done in a timely
fashion.
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Mr. Williams. Were we not to receive this, I do not see a
way that we can rely on our taxpayers and our businesses to
shoulder the total cost of doing this project, and I think the
results are just tragic, because it would grossly undermine the
overall effort to revitalize the river, revitalize the city's
waterfront here in our Nation's capital, what is it, ten blocks
from the U.S. Capitol.
And I might mention that the sewage system is antiquated.
It was built in the last century. The major issue is, as you
know, storm separation. This is the old, quote-unquote old
city, south of Florida, here in Washington, D.C. The Federal
Government probably has got about a 60 percent share of that
old city, so it really is--it is not just a Federal issue
because we are the Nation's capital. It is a Federal issue
because our largest employer or major corporate partner here
has got to do its share.
METRO COMMITMENT
Senator DeWine. Let me move to another area. You are
requesting Federal support to help the District meet its
commitment to Metro. Do you want to explain why you feel this
Federal commitment is so important?
Mr. Williams. Well, Metro is certainly important to our
city's economic livelihood, because our city has probably the
second-largest in the country, I believe it is, ingress-egress
of commuters of any city in the country. We have--like many
cities in the country, we are in the top tier in terms of
transportation congestion. This has been exacerbated by Federal
actions, however well-intentioned, whether they are up here at
the Capitol, but certainly down with the executive agencies,
and most prominently, the White House. We have got Pennsylvania
Avenue closed.
I do applaud the effort to begin work on studying a tunnel,
but we are way behind in getting the circulator moving, which
will help free up traffic, so here you are trying to revitalize
the city. We have seen $27 billion of investment in the city,
and yet we have got this transportation congestion,
coagulation, which is really hampering that effort to bring in
additional business. The tractor man was a great example of how
one little hiccup in the system can ricochet all over the
region.
Another example, if the Pentagon decides they are going to
change how they register employees as they come in, or change
how they do business--I remember this happened shortly after 9/
11. We had traffic backed up for miles all over the place, so
we really need Metro.
Now, Metro, the District's share of Metro is
disproportionately higher than the surrounding jurisdictions,
even though we do not have the tax base to support it, so our
share is disproportionately higher, and we are paying that
share, as Chairman Cropp has mentioned, unlike our partners in
Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and the like.
Dr. Gandhi. If I may supplement the Mayor----
Ms. Cropp. If I may add to that?
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Ms. Cropp. What the mayor just articulated, with the share
that we are paying, our capital dollars are being spent, and we
are almost at a very high level. The infrastructure of the city
as a whole needs to be repaired. The Mayor, the council, we
have aggressively been trying to do that, fix our streets and
do other things. With limited capital dollars, and with such a
large share having to go to Metro, at some point the city is
going to have to make a decision.
Remember, we are talking about our taxpayers' dollars, and
our taxpayers are saying, we want our parks and recreation that
you are talking about, and the fact that we cannot even keep
our parks, our recreation facilities, but we are going to help
to pay and offset a disproportionate share of Metro for people
outside of the District of Columbia, once again, a structural
imbalance where the people who are paying for it are not even
getting their dollars' worth.
Mr. Williams. That is an excellent point. In 2005, I
believe, the Metro share climbs up to $200 million, so you are
already cutting the capital budget tremendously in order to
meet the kind of per capita debt ratio that is going to satisfy
Wall Street, and you have to cut it tremendously in order to
just maintain ground with the schools, yet we have got to face
this $200 million of Metro that is going to further crowd out,
as the chairman is saying, needed investments.
Senator DeWine. Doctor.
Dr. Gandhi. If I may just supplement by some numbers here
the Council Chairman and the Mayor's point--if you really look
at this formula, which is really antiquated, we are now paying
around 39 percent of the subsidies, while we hold only about 6
percent of the real property valuation in the region, and only
about 20 percent of the workforce is the riders who are on
Metro. Any working day, the majority of the people riding Metro
are basically regional people, and any working hour, especially
in rush hours, the majority of the riders are Federal workers.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Let me ask--and I really appreciate the
discussion on Metro, because I think there might be some
opportunities there for us to pursue some of the suggestions
that all of you have made, Dr. Gandhi, some of us debated
within this recent tax relief an opportunity, although it never
came to fruition, to allow our cities to save through
refinancing, because there are some Federal restrictions right
now on refinancing. We did not opt to do that, which I think we
should have, because we could have, at no cost to the taxpayer,
saved our city some money.
Would that be applicable to you in terms of, if we allowed
some refinancing options, and I am not talking about
reamortizing the debt, stretching it out, I am just talking
about a refinancing to take advantage of potentially lower
rates. Have you looked at that to see----
Dr. Gandhi. I appreciate your concern, Senator Landrieu,
and I think currently we are exploring every available
opportunity to refinance our debt. We want to be absolutely
sure that as we refinance, that roughly 15 percent of the total
current outstanding debt should be the limit by which we have
new issue of additional general obligation. We also want to
make sure that our debt services do not rise above the limits
that we have imposed upon ourselves in terms of the overall
revenues.
But our fundamental problem, as the Mayor and Mrs. Cropp
have pointed out, is that our per capita debt now is among the
highest in the country, and we are neck and neck with New York.
Senator Landrieu. And what is that? What is your per capita
debt?
Dr. Gandhi. That is around, roughly in 2004 it is likely to
be around $5,000 per capita. That is a lot of per capita debt,
because we are carrying the debt of the municipality, county,
and the State.
Senator Landrieu. Correct. It is a combined debt that you
are carrying.
Dr. Gandhi. Senator, the chairman had asked me a question
about the viability of having an upgrade in the bond rating,
but this is one of the things they look at, what is your per
capita debt. In per capita debt, we are very high.
Senator Landrieu. Well, explore--and if you have any
Federal restrictions that are not allowing you to refinance to
take advantage of lower rates, let us know, because it may be
something that our committee could help you with, because some
of us had that idea to allow all the cities to do it in the tax
package. It did not make it in the final package.
And finally--I know we have a vote--Mr. Mayor, we are
committed, as the chairman, under his leadership, to help on
this Anacostia piece. I think it is very important, to find out
what the surrounding areas are contributing, because as I think
about it, even if we would redo the sewer system here in the
District, there are lots of other States or counties that drain
into this basin. I should be more clear as to what Maryland and
some of the other jurisdictions are doing in terms of their
nonpoint pollution source and revitalization of their
infrastructure, or is their infrastructure already where it
needs to be?
Mr. Williams. Well, certainly I would say that--and I
applaud Senator Sarbanes, the former Governor, the current
Governor, county executives, Prince George's and Montgomery
County have all pledged their support to the Anacostia
Waterfront Initiative, and indeed some steps have been taken
certainly on a cosmetic level, although that is important, too,
just the trash traps on some on the tributaries up in Maryland,
so we at least do not have just huge amounts of floating debris
on the top of the river, but above and beyond that, a firm
commitment on real dollars to the water clean-up is still
forthcoming.
But I think that, you know, were there to be the kind of
commitment by this Congress, I think--and certainly there is a
commitment here at the local level--we are able to leverage
that and get that commitment up there as well.
Senator Landrieu. So to do this project, you would need
Maryland, primarily, participating. Any other State?
Mr. Williams. Well, you are talking about three rivers
again. You are talking about Potomac, Anacostia, and Rock
Creek.
Senator Landrieu. So you would need Virginia, Maryland----
Mr. Williams. The two most polluted, Rock Creek and
Anacostia River, you are talking primarily Maryland. When you
get into the Potomac, obviously you are talking about
ultimately up into West Virginia and Virginia, in the
watershed.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS
Senator DeWine. Senator Strauss has prepared a statement
for the record, which will be included.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Senator Laundrieu and distinguished members of the
Senate Subcommittee. I am Paul Strauss, the Shadow United States
Senator elected by the voters of the District of Columbia.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement on behalf of
my constituents in the District of Columbia. Today I would like to
address the District's fiscal year 2004 local budget request to
Congress. I would like to state for the record that the locally raised
portion District of Columbia budget should not have to go through this
process. The fact that there is a congressional hearing devoted to our
budget is fundamentally wrong. These hearings have been held in the
D.C. Council and the District should not have to submit this purely
local portion of the budget to Congress at all.
It is essential to the District of Columbia that Congress pass this
budget in time for the new fiscal year 2003. You must avoid getting the
local District of Columbia budget held up in Continuing Resolutions.
The consequences are severe enough when the Federal Budgets get held up
in Continuing Resolutions but the consequences are far worse when
applied to the budget of the District of Columbia. When the District of
Columbia's budget is held up, needed spending adjustments increases are
not allowed to be implemented and the cost of debt services increases.
Our local govermental services suffer greatly every new day that our
budget is held up.
An easy solution to the dilemma of our budget being held up every
year is budget autonomy. The budget autonomy bill in the House of
Representatives allows the District Budget to be separated from the
Federal Appropriations Process. That is a good step in the right
direction but it does not go far enough. Our local budget should have
nothing to do with Congress. Since fiscal year 1996, the District of
Columbia has continuously provided Congress with a balanced budget. The
District of Columbia has demonstrated itself as a competent, governing
body, which should allow the District right to reject all policy
interference and social riders attempting to regulate the government
within the District. It should be the privilege and priority of the
government of the District of Columbia, not Congress, to make the
District's economic decisions. Although it is a present constitutional
prerogative of Congress to exercise oversight of the District and its
budgetary needs, it is not always appropriate.
The District of Columbia has submitted a budget that calls for
serious investments in education and public services. Mayor Williams,
Chair Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi have explained the
specifics in great detail and I support their efforts in the budgetary
requests of the District of Columbia.
I do not mean to suggest that there is no role for Congress in the
D.C. Budget process. This committee should focus on resolving the
structural imbalance faced by the District of Columbia. The structural
imbalance faced by the District of Columbia is one of the major
problems concerning the budget. The gap between the District's ability
to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the District's ability to
provide services of reasonable quality to its residents jeopardizes the
District's ability to retain residents. Instead of being penalized for
residing in the District, they should receive the same constitutional
rights as all American citizens.
The government of the District of Columbia needs to be fairly
compensated by Congress for the services it provides to Federal
agencies. This compensation would provide a solution to the structural
imbalance within the District's budget. The District's government
represents the citizens of the most unique city in the Nation. The
District has repeatedly provided Congress with a budget that has proved
to be both sensible and attainable. The outlook for the current fiscal
year 2003 budget is being projected as balanced with a surplus. The
government of the District has proven itself to be the best determiner
of the expenditures within the District itself. This reoccurring record
of balanced and responsible budget management during times of economic
hardships and declining revenues is yet another fact that proves the
District's elected officials can govern the District. Not allowing the
District to have complete control over its spending only increases the
structural imbalance in the District which continues to discourage its
citizens.
The elected officials of the District work hard to ensure the
District is able to attain the locally raised revenue needed to fund
various local interests such as public service and education. The city
should be able to utilize its tax dollars in a more flexible manner.
Allowing the District's government flexibility with its tax dollars
would give them an opportunity to provide the community grater benefit
from that revenue. Flexible use of locally raised revenue within the
District of Columbia would provide the proper funding would ensure the
community's public service departments remain secure and stable
entities within the city. My constituents have the right to receive
needed revenue to meet their children's educational needs. I urge you
to approve the proposed budget, as it will be necessary in aiding the
improvement of our District's schools. The District submitted a timely
budget so Congress has appropriate time to approve it. I again ask that
Congress pass this budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. It
is unfair the District and its constituents suffer Congressional delays
that often disrupt critical improvements such as these within the local
government.
I would like to thank you, Chairperson DeWine for the opportunity
to present this statement. This budget was carefully drafted in order
to benefit the citizens of the District of Columbia. I support this
prompt passage without amendment. In closing, let me that two members
of my legislative staff, Matt Helfant and Tricia Torok, for their
assistance in preparing my testimony this morning.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Well, we thank you very much.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeWine. I think it has been a very helpful hearing.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ashby, Cornelia M., Director of Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues, General Accounting Office..................... 76
Prepared Statement of........................................ 78
Bowens, Jacqueline, Vice President for Government and Public
Affairs, Children's National Medical Center.................... 174
Prepared Statement of........................................ 178
CASA of the District of Columbia, Prepared Statement of.......... 201
Conrad, Sister Ann Patrick, Associate Professor, National
Catholic School of Social Service, The Catholic University of
America........................................................ 153
Prepared Statement of........................................ 158
Council for Court Excellence, Prepared Statement of the.......... 203
Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia... 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 225
Statement of................................................. 221
Davis, Hon. Tom, U.S. Representative from Virginia:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 62
Statement of................................................. 60
DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:
Opening Statements of..........................1, 53, 133, 153, 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 57
Questions Submitted by.......................................47, 48
Egerton, Marilyn R., Deputy Director, Foster & Adoptive Parent
Advocacy Center................................................ 161
Prepared Statement of........................................ 164
Gandhi, Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia. 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 229
Statement of................................................. 227
Golden, Dr. Olivia A., Director, Child and Family Services
Agency, District of Columbia................................... 64
Prepared Statement of........................................ 66
Gould, Kate Deshler, Esq., National Association of Counsel for
Children, Washington, DC Chapter, Prepared Statement of........ 206
King, Rufus, III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, and Member, Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia....................13, 133
Prepared Statement of........................................ 14
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:
Prepared Statements of....................................... 5, 59
Questions Submitted by.......................................47, 48
Statements of............................................3, 59, 210
Meltzer, Judith W., Deputy Director, Center for the Study of
Social Policy, and Court-Appointed Monitor, Child and Family
Services Agency, District of Columbia.......................... 93
Prepared Statement of........................................ 95
Miller, Damian, Student, Hampton University, Statement of........ 183
Nelson, Doug, Director, Property Development Division, Public
Buildings Service, National Capital Region, General Services
Administration................................................. 133
Prepared Statement of........................................ 137
Statement of................................................. 136
Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, District of Columbia....................... 27
Prepared Statement of........................................ 29
Sandalow, Judith, Executive Director, Children's Law Center...... 168
Prepared Statement of........................................ 171
Satterfield, Lee, Presiding Judge, Family Court of the District
of Columbia.................................................... 13
Schneiders, Anne E., Chair and Founder, Washington Chapter, The
National Association of Counsel for Children................... 86
Prepared Statement of........................................ 89
Strauss, Senator Paul, U.S. Senator from the District of
Columbia, Prepared Statements of....................45, 134, 200, 241
Sullivan, Ronald S., Jr., Director, Public Defender Services,
District of Columbia........................................... 32
Prepared Statement of........................................ 33
Wagner, Annice M., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and Chairman, Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration, District of Columbia Courts....................1, 133
Prepared Statements of.......................................9, 143
Statements of................................................7, 140
Wicks, Anne, Executive Officer, D.C. Courts and Secretary, Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia.......................................................1, 133
Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia........... 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 217
Statement of................................................. 213
Wright, Dr. Joseph, Medical Director for Advocacy and Community
Affairs, Children's National Medical Center.................... 174
Prepared Statement of........................................ 178
Statement of................................................. 176
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Page
Bond Rating...................................................... 236
Combined Sewer Overflow Project Upgrades......................... 237
Council Period XV................................................ 226
Critical Federal Financial Support............................... 220
Disruptions Resulting from Federal Review of the District's
Budget......................................................... 219
Education........................................................ 232
Federal:
Constraints on Revenue Collection Resulting in Structural
Imbalance.................................................. 218
Contribution................................................. 227
Fiscal Year:
2003 Financial Outlook....................................... 230
2004 Budget Request.......................................... 230
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget........................ 226
Metro Commitment................................................. 238
Sacrifices Made to Preserve Budgetary Balance.................... 218
School Choice.................................................... 234
Structural Imbalance in the District's Budget.................... 231
Supporting Children in the District.............................. 221
The Council/Mayor Budget Process................................. 226
The Council/Public Citizen Budget Process........................ 226
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Faith-Based Initiative........................................... 45
Offenders........................................................ 40
Questions Submitted to the....................................... 48
Supervisor/Pretrial Defendants Ratio............................. 42
Courts
Appropriations Language Changes.................................. 12
Capital Questions................................................ 47
Capital Funding in Fiscal Year 2004.............................. 146
Comparison of Courthouse Construction Plans...................... 151
Critical Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Priorities...................... 10
Enhancing Security and Emergency Preparedness.................... 5
Facilities Overview.............................................. 143
Fact Sheet--D.C. Courts:
Building ``B'' Interior Renovations.......................... 138
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion................................ 139
Old D.C. Courthouse and Parking Garage....................... 138
Family Court in the Master Plan.................................. 145
Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Requirements............................ 148
Master Plan for Facilities....................................... 145
Phasing of Construction Funds.................................... 151
Questions Submitted to the....................................... 47
Revitalization of Neighborhoods.................................. 6
Strengthening Schools and Education Standards.................... 5
Supporting the Family Court in the District and Reforming Child
Welfare........................................................ 6
D.C. Superior Court
Capital Expenditure.............................................. 16
Children Adoptions............................................... 22
Community Court for Minor Misdemeanors and Traffic Cases......... 15
Domestic Violence................................................ 25
Family Court Implementation...................................... 15
The 6D Community Court........................................... 15
Intake Center................................................ 15
Public Defender Services
Administrative Accomplishments................................... 39
Community Re-entry Initiative.................................... 36
Criminal Justice Collaboration Project........................... 38
DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative........................ 35
Fiscal Year:
2003:
Accomplishments.......................................... 35
Initiatives.............................................. 35
2004 Request................................................. 34
General Program Accomplishments.................................. 37
Other Program Accomplishments.................................... 38
Parole Revocation Defense Initiative............................. 36